Merry, Merry Christmas!
--LucyT
Posted on 12/17/2006 4:03:30 PM PST by DAVEY CROCKETT
VEVAK learned its methodology from the Soviet KGB and many of the Islamist revolutionaries who supported Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini actually studied at Moscow's Patrice Lumumba Friendship University, the Oxford of terrorism. Documented Iranian alumni include the current Supreme Leader (the faqih) Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, under whose Velayat-e Faqih (Rule of the Islamic Jurisprudent) apparatus it has traditionally operated. Its current head is Cabinet Minister Hojatoleslam Gholam-Hussein Mohseni-Ezhei, a graduate of Qom's Haqqani School, noted for its extremist position advocating violence against enemies and strict clerical control of society and government. The Ministry is very well funded and its charge, like that of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (the Pasdaran) is to guard the revolutionary Islamic Iranian regime at all costs and under all contingencies.
From the KGB playbook, VEVAK learned the art of disinformation. It's not so difficult to learn: tell the truth 80% of the time and lie 20%. Depending on how well a VEVAK agent wants to cover his/her tracks, the ratio may go up to 90/10, but it never drops below the 80/20 mark as such would risk suspicion and possible detection. The regime in Teheran has gone to great lengths to place its agents in locations around the world. Many of these operatives have been educated in the West, including the U.K. and the United States. Iranian government agencies such as embassies, consulates, Islamic cultural centers, and airline offices regularly provide cover for the work of VEVAK agents who dress well and are clean shaven, and move comfortably within our society. In this country, because of the severance of diplomatic relations, the principal site of VEVAK activities begins at the offices of Iran's Permanent Mission to the UN in New York.
Teheran has worked diligently to place its operatives in important think tanks and government agencies in the West. Some of its personnel have been recruited while in prison through torture or more often through bribery, or a combination of both. Others are Islamist revolutionaries that have been set up to look like dissidents - often having been arrested and imprisoned, but released for “medical reasons”. The clue to detecting the fake “dissident” is to read carefully what he/she writes, and to ask why this vocal “dissident” was released from prison when other real dissidents have not been released, indeed have been grievously tortured and executed. Other agents have been placed in this country for over twenty-five years to slowly go through the system and rise to positions of academic prominence due to their knowledge of Farsi and Shia Islam or Islamist fundamentalism.
One of the usual tactics of VEVAK is to co-opt academia to its purposes. Using various forms of bribery, academics are bought to defend the Islamic Republic or slander its enemies. Another method is to assign bright students to train for academic posts as specialists in Iranian or Middle East affairs. Once established, such individuals are often consulted by our government as it tries to get a better idea of how it should deal with Iran. These academics then are in a position to skew the information, suggesting the utility of extended dialogue and negotiation, or the danger and futility of confronting a strong Iran or its proxies such as Hizballah (Hezbollah). These academics serve to shield the regime from an aggressive American or Western policy, and thereby buy more time for the regime to attain its goals, especially in regards to its nuclear weaponry and missile programs.
MOIS likes to use the media, especially electronic media, to its advantage. One of VEVAK's favorite tricks is setting up web sites that look like they are opposition sites but which are actually controlled by the regime. These sites often will be multilingual, including Farsi, German, Arabic French, and English. Some are crafted carefully and are very subtle in how they skew their information (e.g., Iran-Interlink, set up and run by Massoud Khodabandeh and his wife Ann Singleton from Leeds, England); others are less subtle, simply providing the regime's point of view on facts and events in the news (e.g., www.mujahedeen.com or www.mojahedin.ws). This latter group is aimed at the more gullible in our open society and unfortunately such a market exists. However, if one begins to do one's homework, asking careful questions, the material on these fake sites generally does not add up.
Let's examine a few examples of VEVAK's work in the United States. In late October, 2005, VEVAK sent three of its agents to Washington to stage a press event in which the principal Iranian resistance movement, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MeK), was to be slandered. Veteran VEVAK agent Karim Haqi flew from Amsterdam to Canada where he was joined by VEVAK's Ottawa agents Amir-Hossein Kord Rostami and Mahin (Parvin-Mahrokh) Haji, and the three flew from Toronto to Washington. Fortunately the resistance had been tracking these three, informed the FBI of their presence in Washington, and when the three tried to hold a press conference, the resistance had people assigned to ask pointed questions of them so that they ended the interview prematurely and fled back to Canada.
Abolghasem Bayyenet is a member of the Iranian government. He serves as a trade expert for the Ministry of Commerce. But his background of study and service in the Foreign Ministry indicates that Bayyenet is more than just an economist or a suave and savvy businessman. In an article published in Global Politician on April 23, 2006, entitled “Is Regime Change Possible in Iran?”, Bayyenet leads his audience to think that he is a neutral observer, concerned lest the United States make an error in its assessment of Iran similar to the errors of intelligence and judgment that led to our 2003 invasion of Iraq, with its less than successful outcome. However, his carefully crafted bottom line is that the people of Iran are not going to support regime change and that hardliner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad actually has achieved greater popularity than his predecessors because of his concern for the problems of the poor and his fight for economic and social justice. To the naive, Bayyenet makes Ahmadinejad sound positively saintly. Conveniently overlooked is the occurrence of over four thousand acts of protest, strikes, anti-regime rallies, riots, and even political assassinations by the people of Iran against the government in the year since Ahmadinejad assumed office. So too, the following facts are ignored: the sizeable flight of capital, the increase in unemployment, and the rising two-figure rate of inflation, all within this last year. Bayyenet is a regime apologist, and when one is familiar with the facts, his arguments ring very hollow. However, his English skills are excellent, and so the naОve might be beguiled by his commentary.
Mohsen Sazegara is VEVAK's “reformed revolutionary”. A student supporter of Khomeini before the 1979 revolution, Sazegara joined the “imam” on his return from exile and served in the government for a decade before supposedly growing disillusioned.
He formed several reformist newspapers but ran afoul of the hardliners in 2003 and was arrested and imprisoned by VEVAK. Following “hunger strikes”, Sazegara was released for health reasons and permitted to seek treatment abroad. Although critical of the government and particularly of Ahmadinejad and KhameneМ, Sazegara is yet more critical of opposition groups, leaving the impression that he favors internal regime change but sees no one to lead such a movement for the foreseeable future. His bottom line: no one is capable of doing what needs to be done, so we must bide our time. Very slick, but his shadow shows his likely remaining ties to the MOIS.
http://www.ocnus.net/artman/publish/article_27144.shtml
“We will prosecute any suicide bomber who accidentally, rather than intentionally, kills civilians,” the statement said. “We have sent them to commit premeditated atrocity and massacre and we expect them to operate according to those rules of engagement.”
The terror groups acknowledged they may have to conduct some of the trials posthumously, “but if any of our martyrs are found guilty, we can always execute justice on their surviving relatives.”<<<
That would be enough to make me think twice about the game.
The red print, in the first link is impressive, I am glad that you were able to get Laura's translation.
What do you make of the Zaw message, to me it reads like a call for every cell to come out and attack, with Africa and Palestine being in the spotlight.
Thanks for the links.
And no, the democrats will not be bothered by the message that zaw controlled the American election.
I hear too many of them on the radio, quoting from muslim sites, that I only post, with a warning, that it is not on the side of the WOT.
I expect me to not be surprised at what I hear, but I am sorry, I hear far more, freely spoken, than I think comes under free speech.
This short article causes me to have at least a small degree of hope for the UK. Regrettably, with the Republican/Democrat jointly passed campaign finance laws, there is no chance of a viable 3rd party coming into existence here. I've pinged MadIvan for his thoughts on this story (by the way, I find this website pretty good for what's happening in the UK).
Seven per cent of voters are backing the new 'middle class BNP'
The far-right British National Party could attract seven per cent of the UK’s total vote, a new poll reveals.
Among Conservative supporters the figure is eight per cent. The Guardian ICM poll was commissioned as part of an investigation into the BNP which exposed the party’s initiative to recruit new members from London’s middle classes.
....................................................................................................................................................
Things are warming up folks, the population is getting restless, the so called "major" political parties had better watch out.
http://uppompeii.blogspot.com/
Merry, Merry Christmas!
--LucyT
More from England:
'Muslim boys' locked upDec 22 2006
FIVE members of notorious street gang The Muslim Boys are behind bars for their involvement in a knife attack which left a man dead outside a nightclub.
Charles Anokye, 23, was chased outside and stabbed after he bumped into one of the group inside Mass nightclub near St Matthew's Church, Effra Road, Brixton, on August 1, last year.
One of his killers, Edwin Bamfo, 18, was training for a place in the national sprint squad when he was arrested for murder.
The Old Bailey heard at least five young men surrounded Mr Anokye and he was stabbed 13 times in the chest and back.
After Monday's sentence, Detective Chief Inspector Dave Garwood said: "For many reasons, the trial of the self-styled Muslim Boys was a difficult case to prosecute.
"But, despite the travails and challenges of this trial, they are as nothing when compared to how society, in its widest sense, needs to confront the ethos that made this murder and the others like it possible."
Anwar Hussain, 17, of Gresham Road, Brixton, was convicted of murder and jailed for life with a minimum recommended sentence of 12 years.
Bamfo, of Dunbrook Road, Streatham, and 20-year-old Aaron Roberts, of Chapter Road, Kennington, were jailed for 10 years each for manslaughter.
Rico Tracey, 18, of St Louis Court, West Norwood, and Ben Jatto, 17, of Southey Road, Stockwell, were found guilty of violent disorder and caged for two years and 18 months respectively.
Everald Howell, 18, of no fixed address, was cleared of all wrongdoing at the end of the three-month trial.
The jury failed to reach a verdict on Daniel Brown, 20, of St Agnes Place,Kennington, and a 16-year-old who cannot be named. Both now face a retrial.
All denied murder and violent disorder.
http://icsouthlondon.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0200southlondonheadlines/tm_headline=%2Dmuslim-boys%2D-locked-up%26method=full%26objectid=18310390%26siteid=50100-name_page.html
This may be long, but I hope you find it worth your while to read.
http://www.amberpawlik.com/IslamonTrial.html
Islam on Trial: The Prosecution’s Case against Islam
By Amber Pawlik
September 11, 2001 changed the world. Islamic terrorists hijacked American airplanes; flew them into several, major, symbolic buildings of hers; causing thousands to fall, crash or burn to their early death. The terrorists who did it did not do it for land or money: they did it fully, openly and proudly in the name of their religion, Islam, being promised 72 virgins. It thrust unto us Middle Eastern politics, Islam, and a new enemy. Islam itself has come into the forefront of public debate - or at least it should have.
The majority of us have at least a crude knowledge of Islam and what Islamic countries are like. We know they live in abject poverty. We know their progress is slim to none. We know many of them treat their dogs better than women. We know they defy just about all Western ideals.
One would think that, especially after September 11, 2001, there would be criticism of Islam coming from every which way. Feminists, Christians, capitalists, secularists, human rights activists, hell even animal rights activists should have something to say about Islam. We are, after all, a country with free speech, aren’t we? Yet, even after September 11, there has been nothing but haunting silence.
In the current state of the world, Muslims are involved in almost every war or battle. It was Muslim terrorists who bombed a train in Madrid Spain; Muslim terrorists who held a school hostage in Russia, killing children; Muslim terrorists who flew planes into the World Trade Center. The past 1400 years of Islamic history has been riddled with terrorism, from the days of Muhammad to Al-Zarqawi.
But, for whatever reason, Islam is above any kind of critical look or debate. It is given an almost holy status. People don’t just avoid criticism of it; they are quick to defend it. Those who criticize Islam are often banished to the Never Never Land of political suicide. The defenses given for Islam are so hysterical; you would think you just insulted their mothers or something.
Islam is not the problem, we keep getting told. The terrorists, they assure us, had the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran and are not true Muslims.
We have watched Islamic terrorists behead innocent civilians. We have been told that this is completely and totally against Islam.
From the Koran1:
"When thy Lord spake unto the angels, 'I will be with you: therefore stablish ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into the hearts of the infidels.' Strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every finger tip." - Sura 8:12 (Bold mine)
We have watched Islamic terrorists commit “jihad” against the West. Under no circumstances, we are lectured, does the Koran tell its followers to attack nonbelievers.
From the Koran:
"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, and they be humbled." Sura 9:29
We know that the Islamic terrorists envision a world that is entirely Muslim. Surely this has nothing to do with the Islam religion.
From the Koran:
“Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's. If they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do:" - Sura 8:39-40 (Bold mine)
It is interesting the responses I usually get when I start quoting the Koran directly. When I start quoting the Koran, such as the verses I previously quoted, the responses I get are usually:
That I must not be quoting from the Koran but another book that quotes the Koran, which must be wrong.
That Muslims believe some parts of the Koran were written by Satan. (And it must be these bad quotes that I gave them.)
That what I quoted to them was only one or two verses and I must take into consideration the whole book. (Which I happily will).
That the translation I am reading is wrong, and the original Koran is much gentler and nicer.
It is really rather obvious: quoting what the Koran actually says is too much for their ears. Shut if off: let them see and hear no evil.
Today, our unwillingness to identify the enemy today is so bad, we can’t even watch movies where the enemy is, heaven forbid, Islamic terrorists. Not only will we not create new fiction, we won’t even report the facts. The bloody history of Islam is whitewashed in regular history books and courses. In fact, the more violent Islam gets, it seems, the more excuses and protection it gets. If you ever notice, Islam was not called a “Religion of Peace” before 9/11. Then they kill 3000 people and get called a “Religion of Peace.”
Perhaps it should be our new slogan: Ignorance is Strength; Freedom is Slavery; Islam is Peace.
September 11, 2001 changed world politics forever. The oppression, mass murder and terrorism that has marked the Middle East for 1400 years hurled itself unto Western society. Yet no one is willing to identify the enemy - scared, not for fear of political persecution or assassination but of becoming unpopular. When something so obvious and so horrible becomes so wrong to talk about: that is when you know it’s time to talk about it.
Ladies and Gentleman, this is the prosecution’s case against Islam. I am charging it with creating oppression, poverty, slavery, rape and terrorism.
The Case against Islam
When it comes to the connection between Islam and Islamic terrorism, it is our ability to reason - in this case the ability to read the Koran - that is so often under attack. Therefore, let us begin by reviewing our fundamentals: our philosophical fundamentals.
When reading a book, the two fundamentals involved are what it is for all of man’s interaction with reality: existence and consciousness. Existence is what exists and consciousness is awareness of what exists. A person’s views on existence and consciousness, which is their view on metaphysics and epistemology, is the foundation of their philosophical beliefs and will effect every other aspect of their worldly views. Is existence firm and absolute or an ever-moldable flux? Can human consciousness understand existence or are humans doomed to be in a blind stupor, never able to understand the reality around them?
Please note that reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data and categorizes it in his mind as to understand it. Therefore reason is only possible if existence is absolute and man’s consciousness is potent enough to understand existence. It is the philosophy of objectivism that maintains that reality is what it is and man is capable of understanding it.
When reading a book, what exists is the text and the degree to which you are conscious of what it says is the degree to which you focus your mind on it. The purpose is to study the text so that you can develop an understanding of it, i.e. discover its identity. You do not re-invent what you are reading or come to your own arbitrary conclusion regarding what the text says: your goal is to come to a clear, precise understanding of what the text means. The ability to do this is called reading comprehension.
You do not typically have an “interpretation” of a text. “Interpretations” are only necessary when some aspect of reality is confusing, vague or hard to understand. For instance, an interpreter is needed to translate one language to another for people, as the foreign language is otherwise incomprehensible to those people. “Interpretations” therefore also imply that only a person with an advanced or specialized knowledge can interpret something - it is not open to a lay person. “Interpretations,” such as the “interpretation” of the law or the “interpretation” of someone’s behavior are also generally regarded as only someone’s opinion - only quasi-based on fact - apt to be right or wrong.
It is revealing that those who discuss Islam always refer to human understanding of the Koran as a mere “interpretation.” By identifying human understanding of the Koran as an “interpretation,” it automatically establishes the text as fluid, subjective and moldable - as an incomprehensible text that anyone can take any different way.
There may perhaps be parts of the Koran that are confusing and contradictory and indeed need an interpreter. But if so, one must point out what text is confusing or contradictory and what the different “interpretations” thereof might be, especially, given their claims, as it pertains to terrorism. This would open the debate up to human reason. But those who defend Islam do not do this: instead they typically make a broad, generic statement that people make the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran. Broad statements such as this are not indicative of a confusing or contradictory text but of an assault on objectivity itself.
Notice this author’s defense of not being able to understand a “true Islam.” This is an article entitled, “What is Real Islam?” by M.A.Hussain from a website called humiliateamerica.com:
“It is impossible to tell what Islam is objectively and what Islam is not. There are several problems of interpretation of religious scriptures which are insurmountable such that there cannot be “real Islam” or real Christianity”. The interpretation of religious scripture whether by a nonbeliever or of any believer is a subjective process. The religious scriptures belong to history and history is nothing but a point of view. The "objective history" or "objective historical process" is not accessible whatever methodology you adopt, you can never give an objective account of history.” (Bold mine; incorrect punctuation and grammar the author’s.)
Not even history, according the author, is objectively determinable. This is not just an attack on the ability to understand Islam but reality itself.
I propose that the arguments about the inability to interpret the Koran are not meant to emphasize the confusing nature of the Koran but to exempt it from the Law of Identity. They want you to regard what is written in front of you in plain language as not being what it is but that it can be anything at all. Up can mean down; black can be white; or any A can be any other non-A.
This same attack on objectivity does not just happen with the Koran; it has infiltrated all the major humanities, and even some of the hard sciences. For instance, indeed in history, the new breed of historians (known as revisionists) will tell you that there is no objective history; that it is (of course), “open to interpretation.” In political science, new supposed scholars tell us the Constitution is more of a suggestion than a commandment, and, of course, “open to interpretation.” (The Constitution was designed to be living but this means it can be amended not re-“interpreted.”)
Why do they do this? So they can do the interpreting.
History, the Constitution, and reality get in the way of their ideologies. When reality gets in your way, doubt reality.
If you notice, despite the fact that these scholars believe reality can never be objectively deciphered, they never become skeptics. One would think if reality is such a foggy haze that humans can never objectively decipher, we would be forever unsure and doubtful of the world around us. Instead, such new scholars charge right on, asserting absolute knowledge - “interpreting” history, law, reality for you.
Notice that with the Koran that they don’t become skeptics over what the “interpretation” of the Koran is. Even though interpretations are generally regarded as not right or wrong, and they insist the Koran is too “profound” to understand, they announce that the terrorists most definitely had the “wrong interpretation.” The Koran is mostly incomprehensible, but apparently they have the magical ability to understand its true meaning and dictate it to us.
This is a game that has been being played for decades. This attack on objectivity stems from the root, from the philosophical level, from our ideas of existence and consciousness. The ideas that have permeated academia for decades have been the notion that reality isn’t real; that reason is impotent in understanding reality. This philosophical foundation was formalized into an official philosophical system by Immanuel Kant.
Kant attacked reason (and, therefore, reality) from the inside: by re-defining it. Allow me to re-emphasize the definitions of some terms. Reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data and uses it to understand the world around him. It doesn’t matter how big or small the knowledge is - from understanding what a “cat” or “dog” is, by using your own five senses and rational mind - to understanding any elaborate science. Logic is the method by which man processes that knowledge, making accurate, or rather non-contradictory, identifications of reality. (Forgive me for being redundant; it is only for explanation purposes). Mysticism is to develop a conclusion or understanding of the world through some non-sensory means, such as a person who believes in God based on faith.
Kant said that reason was “a priori,” that is to say “without experience.” How can man have any knowledge, understanding or enlightenment while void of reality? Kant made the most offensive attack on reason possible: smearing it by defining reason as mysticism, i.e. to develop knowledge with no sensory data, i.e. no evidence
This is why academic elites are unabashed in dismissing reality, history, and the obvious in front of your eyes in favor of their bizarre ideologies. Attacking reality doesn’t seem awkward or illogical to them; it seems sophisticated - the very definition of reason. Reality is an ever-changing and contradictory flux, apt to be whatever they say it is. Everything is considered moldable today, from history to human nature itself. Kant laid the groundwork for full-scale, institutionalized propaganda.
This is the same game being played with the Koran. It comes utterly natural to them to portray the Koran as being subjective, fluid, and totally incomprehensible; outside the realm of human mind. They wield manipulation as effectively as a knight with a sword.
There is one thing in the way of their schemes: your rational mind. While thwarting everyone’s eyes away from the obvious, their enemy is that one person who insists on facts and demands evidence. Therefore, they need to make you doubt your own mind, i.e. your ability to reason. In the case of the Koran, this means your ability to read a book correctly.
Therefore they need to infuse waves of doubt and confusion over anyone trying to read to understand the Koran. “You are no Islamic scholar!” they will shout at you. “The Koran is so profound!” they cry. “It has so many commentaries and notes!” Don’t even bother to read it, you will not understand it.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Koran is not hard to read or understand. These are merely the hysterics of intellectual snobs trying to create an inferiority complex in you.
Notice that there is a double standard. If someone says the Koran is peaceful, it is taken as plain, simple fact, regardless that said person has usually never even read the Koran. But the person who challenges Islam is held to the most excruciating of standards to prove themselves and their ability to judge the Koran. Unless you read the Koran in its original language, under a renowned scholar in Mecca, they will announce you have no idea what you are talking about. Indeed, it is usually people who have never read the Koran who are the most hysterical in these kinds of accusations.
When these methods of don’t work, they can always resort to ad hominems: calling you an “idiot,” “moron,” etc simply for having the “incorrect” view. However, they don’t even have to do this anymore. Today, it is not just limited to a select few who want to insult you: it is popularly accepted to call anyone who questions Islam a “bigot” or “ignorant.” People have been “educated” from birth that to challenge Islam is evil. Nothing could be more anti-enlightened, anti-reason and downright destructive.
Islam apologists, including Muslims themselves, have gotten very good at thwarting people from reading and understanding the Koran. They do so in the most effective way possible: by appealing to your respect for intelligence. Whenever you cite a verse in the Koran, without skipping a beat, they will cry that you, “Took the verse out of context.” This appeals to people’s sense of having a full, conceptual of understanding of any given thing. If you notice though, they never actually put the verse in context. This is not an appeal to conceptual understanding, as it seems to be, but is used to make you believe that somehow, someway, the verses around a particular verse will change said verse’s identity. They will also tell you whenever you quote a verse from a Koran that you have the “wrong translation.” On some level this appeals to people’s respect for those who take the time to learn another language. But it is utterly ridiculous to think that only those people can judge the Koran: there are many, many translations of the Koran, all of which say essentially the same things. These are nothing but silly, awkward, and for some unknown reason - often effective - method of controlling information as to control thought.
One would think if Muslims were so proud of their religion, they would be encouraging people to read their holy text to prove its righteousness not thwarting people away from it at every step. People who are just want nothing more than for others to take a good, hard look at them - not generalizing them with others or brushing them aside. An innocent person being charged with murder, for instance, will want and demand all the facts of the case to come out, to shine as much light on the case as possible, and to be allowed to take the stand to make his or her case. The unjust person seeks to manipulate and deceive others, always trying to stop people from taking too hard of a look. For an example, see the lying, deceptive ways of any criminal.
So let’s do just that: shine pouring light onto the Koran to see what it is. We are going to give Islam what it frankly does not deserve: the nicety of a trial.
In order to judge Islam, I did what most Islam apologists and most Muslims (many of whom are illiterate) did not do: I read the Koran.
I find it interesting that interest in the Koran skyrocketed after 9/11. But there are hardly any commentaries describing what is actually in the Koran.
Anyone who has ever sat down to read the Koran has my deepest sympathies. It is an extremely boring, mind-numbing and repetitive book
The Koran is considered the written word of Muhammad’s teachings, who was inspired by the angel Gabriel. According to the introduction to the Koran I read in paper back, Muhammad was born into a poor family but lived in a wealthy city. He grew up without a father and ended up marrying a rich widow (and then went on to have many different wives, including at least one six-year-old girl). The Koran was written down by others as he could not read nor write.
The Koran is broken up into “Suras,” which are like books in the Bible or chapters in a book. There are 114 Suras and over 6100 verses. The Suras range in size from as small as 4 verses to as many as 286. For the most part, the larger Suras are at the beginning and they get progressively smaller until the very short Suras at the end.
This is how the very beginning of the Koran starts out.
Sura 2:3-6, which falls on the first page of the Koran:
“And who believe in what hath been sent down to thee, and in what hath been sent down before thee, and full faith have they in the life to come.
These are guided by their Lord; and with these it shall be well.
As to the infidels, alike is it to them whether thou warn them or warm them not – they will not believe.
Their hearts and their ears hath God sealed up; and over their eyes is a covering. For them, a severe chastisement!”
The very beginning of the Koran starts out with stating that nonbelievers are wrong, wrong, wrong and believers are good, good, good. It doesn’t say what the believers should do - there are no principles, values or morals laid out - just that non-believers are wrong.
It didn’t take long for me to be utterly shocked at what I read in the Koran:
"O our Lord! punish us not if we forget, or fall into sin; O our Lord! and lay not on us a load like that which thou has laid on those who have been before us; O our Lord! and lay not on us that for which we have not strength: but blot out our sins and forgive us, and have pity on us. Thou art our protector: give us victory therefore over the infidel nations." Surah 2:286 (Bold mine)
This, quite frankly - is it! The Koran is nothing but one long vitriolic speech aimed at infidels: saying that they are dumb, blind, stupid, thankless, liars; that they will have boiling water poured on them; that they will be sent to hell where they will be choked with food and without any friends; that Allah hates them; and also loves those who fights against them
I wanted to be able to give you, my reader, some kind of percentage estimate of just how much the Koran deals with nothing but infidels. I could give you an eyeballed estimation of how much of it is nothing but hatred at infidels, but I would not expect you to take my word for it. Going through the Koran and summing up every single verse to get a percentage would be way too cumbersome. However, I thought of a way to get across to you, my reader, a warranted percentage: I could take a random sampling of verses from the Koran and make projections from there.
Now this is not some sort of literary review, not that the Koran is complex enough to warrant a literary review. I performed the study I did, at first, solely to get an accurate percentage to present.
I originally did a small study. I wanted at least 30 samples because statistically, so as long as there are 30 samples, the central limit theorem applies, i.e. the sampling is large enough to be statistically significant. I tried to think of a fair way to pick samples. Had I gone through and just pointed to verses, I likely would have gotten accused of cherry picking. So I took verse 10 from randomly chosen Suras. I did this to show I was not picking one verse over another. I ended up with 34 verses. You can read the verses I took along with commentary regarding what context the verse is in, why I assigned it to the category I did and the calculations of my confidence interval here.
I was really quite pleased with the results: I felt they provided a nice broad overview of the Koran and even captured one good verse! It also hit some of the bigger but smaller aspects of the Koran - the fact that it mentions Noah's Ark many times (where it gleefully describes how the infidels drowned); that it thinks infidels are utterly thankless; that Allah actually makes nonbelievers not believe, etc. These were the results
18/34 (52.9%) - over half - of these random verses is vitriol aimed at infidels.
6/34 (17.6%) Deal with Allah
5/34 (14.7%) Deal with believers
4/34 (11.8%) Deal with Day of Judgment or Day of Doom
1/34 (3.4%) ... is a good verse! (Do not steal from the poor / Give to the poor)
However, upon some contemplation I decided that my study could be done better. Perhaps there might have been some bias by only picking verse 10 from the verses. I took the verses from an online Koran (it was easier to cut and paste quotes from an online source), and it was an anti-Islamic site so perhaps there was some bias. (It turns out there was not; the same translation is used by some pro-Islamic sites). I also felt there was at least one major theme that was ignored in my sampling: how Islam treats women. The confidence interval I ended up with was that one could be 95% confident that the percentage of hatred of infidels in the Koran was between 36.1% and 69.7%. That really is not very tight.
So I did a bigger study. This time I took it from a pro-Islamic site. I wanted to have at least 200 samples. I tried to think of the most diplomatic way to take random verses. I could go in and take every 30th verse, giving me approximately 200 verses. But that would skip over several Suras as many of them only have 5 - 9 verses in them. So I decided to give the verses a representation similar to the way our founding fathers set up our Congress: every Sura (just like every state) would be given a certain minimum representation and then larger Suras (just like larger states) would also have some kind of larger representation. So I took one verse from each Sura, thereby representing each Sura. I took the verse right in the middle. That gave me 114 verses. I wanted about 86 more. So then I went through and took every 70th verse. This naturally gave the larger Suras more of a representation. I ended up with 201 verses.
And, after hours of work, the results are in: they are exactly the same. For the percentage I was most interested in, how much of the Koran is nothing but hatred at infidels, it was exactly at 53%. I was also quite happy that this sampling captured several verses about women. The confidence interval was also much better this time: with 95% confidence, we can say the proportion is somewhere between 45.8% and 59.6%. You can read the verses I took, my commentaries, and the calculation of the confidence interval here.
Here are the results of my larger study:
106/201 (52.7%) is hatred aimed at infidels, defined as
*Threats towards infidels either in the after life or this life
*Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid, blind, deaf, liars, thankless, etc.
*Calls to fight against them.
*Verses that say "except the believers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were counted as hatred since avoiding death is not a positive to believers
*The threat or insult can be aimed at infidels in general or any specific infidel.
50/201 (24.9%) Deals with believers, defined as
*Mentioning them
*Saying they are righteous
*Saying they will get good things
*Any mentions of one of the prophets was snuck into this category too
23/201 (11.4%) deal with Allah,
*Who he is
*That he is almighty
*Any of his creations
10/201 (5%) deal with the Day of Doom or the Day of Judgment
*Either the Day of Doom when destruction is sent on the earth or
*Day of Judgment when all are judged before Allah
*Any message pertaining to how God records what men do was assigned this category
4/201 (2%) are anti-woman
*That it’s OK to beat a woman
*Women and slaves get married off but have no choice in the matter and is very self-serving to Muhammad or men in general.
4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way
2/201 (1%) deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette, for instance
*How to divorce your wife
1/201 (0.5%)disapproves of a man who murdered someone, but only because it was for the wrong reason to kill someone.
1/201 (0.5%) actually says it is OK for people to have their religion while Muslims have theirs
Over 50% of the Koran deals with nothing but hatred aimed at infidels. You will notice Allah is mentioned a lot, as well as the goodness of believers and the Day of Doom/Judgment, the former being a day when the Koran gleefully exclaims that Allah will send destruction to the earth and destroy the infidels. Notice how much of the Koran that deals with not just infidels but with the theme of believers verses nonbelievers, setting up believers as holy, righteous, almost perfect human beings and nonbelievers not just as wrong but as wretched scum. If you add up the number of verses that deal with infidels, believers, Allah, and the Day of Judgment/Doom, that percentage is a full 94%. This is really the only thing in the Koran as the Koran itself readily admits: "... This book is no other than a warning and a clear Koran, To warn whoever liveth; and, that against the Infidels sentence may be justly given." Sura 36:69-70
You may notice that details outlining Muslim customs and etiquette do not take up much room in the Koran. In fact, Ramadan, from what I can tell, is only mentioned once in the Koran. You can see how seriously Muslims take Ramadan. Now imagine how seriously they take the rest of the 94% of the Koran.
There is no moral system outlined in the Koran - with the exception of allowing men to beat their wives, sleep with their slaves, and there is an occasional, “give to the poor.” There certainly is no unequivocal “Do not kill”; “Do not steal”; or “Do not lie,” let alone any other insight into how to behave properly as a human being. Most of the “moral” guidance given in the Koran is not a restraint on humans but permission to do what they want - mostly for men to do what they want.
The Koran is very self-serving to men and especially Muhammad when it comes to having access to women. It promises men young virgins in heaven with “supple breasts” and “large brown eyes,” but what about the women? Muhammad had up to fifteen wives at one time, but the rest of the believers were limited to four. Sura 66:1 shows not only the self-serving nature of the Koran for Muhammad but the entire purpose of the Koran itself:
"Why,1 O Prophet! doest thou hold that to be FORBIDDEN which God hath made lawful to thee, from a desire to please thy wives, since God is Lenient, Merciful? " Sura 66:1
Note 1 from Sura 66 further clarifies this verse:
1 The first verses of this Sura were revealed on occasion of Muhammad's reviving affection for Mary, a Copt slave sent him by the governor of Egypt from whom he had recently sworn to his wife Hafsa to separate entirely. Hafsa, who had been greatly incensed at their amour, of which Muhammad had himself informed her, communicated the matter in confidence to Ayesha, from whose altered manner, probably, the prophet found that his secret had been betrayed. To free Muhammad from his obligation to Hafsa was the object of this chapter.
Muhammad had told his wife that he would stop having sex with a slave. However, he came back to tell her that he is allowed because Allah does not forbid it. Hence, to hell with her wishes!
Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with female slaves and their allotted four wives:
"It is not permitted thee to take other wives hereafter, nor to change they present wives for other women, though their beauty charm thee, except slaves whom thy right hand shall possess. And God watcheth all things." Sura 33:52
Thus my charges of rape and slavery against Islam.
I propose the Koran is nothing but a rationalization: Muhammad’s rationalization to do whatever he wants in the name of “religion.”
A verse in the Koran that needs no further comment:
"And we said, 'Take in thine hand a rod and strike15 with it, nor break thine oath.' Verily, we found him patient!" - Sura 38:43
NOTE 15 IN SURA 38: "Thy wife; - on whom he had sworn that he would inflict an hundred blows, because she had absented herself from him when in need of her assistance, or for her words (Job ii.9). The oath was kept, we are told, by his giving her one blow with a rod of a hundred stalks. This passage is often quoted by the Muslims as authorising any similar manner of release from an oath inconsiderately taken."
The only arguable “good” verses in the Koran are commandments to give to the poor, which according to the study I did accounts for about 2% of the Koran. Some may argue that giving to the poor is a good thing. Perhaps. But, in the Koran, it is couched inside commandments of NOT getting wealthy.
"These are they who purchase this present life at the price of that which is to come: their torment shall not be lightened, neither shall they be helped." Sura 2:80
"Let not prosperity in the land on part of those who believe not, deceive thee. Tis but a brief enjoyment. Then shall Hell be their abode, and wretched the bed!" Sura 3:196
"... What! prefer ye the life of this world to the next? But the fruition of this mundane life, in respect of that which is to come, is but little." Sura 9:38
And if this isn’t malicious enough, the Koran’s wish for people who have wealth:
"Let not, therefore, their riches or their children amaze thee. God is only minded to punish them by these, in this life present, and that their souls may depart while they are unbelievers." Sura 9:55 (Bold mine)
The Koran is hostile to any kind of wealth, pleasure or success on this earth. Even having children is considered a test from God of where a Muslim’s loyalties lie. Man is meant to remain humble with only modest earnings, pouring most of his earnings to the cause of Islam. How can business, technology, art, music, or any other form of wealth or happiness develop out of this? Those who “purchase this present life” like this, according to Islam has done so at the price of the afterlife. Given Muslims, Muslims who follow the Koran anyway, are forbidden any pleasure while on this earth, death must feel like liberation to them
Thus my charge of creating poverty against Islam.
What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam and the Koran is its belief in predestination, which you may notice in the study I performed. Allow me to introduce you to one of the biggest theological contradictions of all time. The Koran is filled with threat after threat thrown at nonbelievers. And yet the Koran says that it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe.
"He whom God guideth is the guided, and they whom he misleadeth shall be the lost." Sura 7:177
"No soul can believe but by the permission of God: and he shall lay his wrath on those who will not understand." - Sura 10:100
"And they who believe not say, 'Unless a sign be sent down to him from his Lord ...' SAY: God truly will mislead whom he will; and He will guide to Himself him who turneth to Him,” Sura 13:27
"Had God pleased, He could have made you one people: but He causeth whom He will to err, and whom He will He guideth: and ye shall assuredly be called to account for your doings." Sura 16:95
So, if God and God only can cause people to not believe, then why all the threats? What good will they do? Whose fault is it that they are nonbelievers and why should they be punished for something out of their control? (I argued that the Koran had an identity, i.e. a specific meaning; I never promised it would make sense.)
Imagine you are a Muslim and want more than anything to be a good Muslim and to get into heaven. How do you know that Allah will pick you to be one that he will guide? Every person, according to Islam, has no control over his fate but rather is at the mercy of Allah’s whim.
This belief in predestination is not just mysticism; it is much worse. Not only do men gain knowledge through faith only; it is only some men (and the Koran says only a few men) are privy to such knowledge. And now the most pressing question: if all the world is to be Muslim, as the Koran commands, but people cannot be converted, how can that happen? There is only one way.
Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to delegating to infidels an inferior status. They are called blind, stupid and ignorant. No proof is given of why they should believe; Muhammad performed no miracles for people. When some skeptics asked for proof, the response was:
"And when ye said, 'O Moses! we will not believe thee until we see God plainly;' the thunderbolt fell upon you while ye were looking on:" Sura 2:52
Infidels are accused of being thankless. The Koran says infidels promise that they will believe in God if God relieves them of their affliction, but when God does, they forget him. Infidels mock the prophets when they come to give their message to them. All of this sets up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long battle cry against infidels.
I find it interesting that the Koran is not in chronological order. It was re-arranged, and interestingly enough, most of the downright violent Suras were put at the beginning.
"Is it not proved to those who inherit this land after its ancient occupants, that if we please we can smite them for their sins, and put a seal upon their hearts, that they hearken not?” Sura 7:98
“Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what is now past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they have already before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then against them till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's …" - Sura 8:39-40
"And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful." Sura 9:5
Yes, this is straight from the Holy Book of the religion that gets called a “Religion of Peace.”
Muslims are commanded to fight. Only the weak are excused.
"It shall be no crime on the part of the blind, the lame, or the sick, if they go not to the fight. But whoso shall obey God and His Apostle, He shall bring him into the gardens 'neath which the rivers flow: but whoso shall turn back, He will punish him with a sore punishment." Sura 48:17
After fighting, believers have a right to the infidel’s houses.
“And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings and their property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, and Allah has power over all things.” Sura 33:27
Thus my charge of oppression against Islam.
The Koran is clear on when fighting can stop. Some may say that the Koran says fighting can stop once “peace” is made, which is how the following is watered down in some translations:
"Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost, then are they your brethren in religion. We make clear our signs to those who understand."
"But if, after alliance made, they break their oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with the ring-leaders of infidelity - for no oaths are binding with them - that they may desist." Sura 9:11-12
Muslims are taught to wage war on nonbelievers. It is written in plain language. Muslims are to fight until nonbelievers convert or pay alms. All else are to be killed. Ladies and gentlemen, thus my charge of terrorism against Islam.
Let me remind you of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Along with the Pentagon (and another plane which never made its destination of the White House as some courageous heroes took it down before it could get there), the Islamic terrorists targeted the twin towers of the World Trade Center: symbols of American wealth and prosperity.
"And when we willed to destroy a city, to its affluent ones did we address our bidding: but when they acted criminally therein, just was its doom, and we destroyed it with an utter destruction" - Sura 17:17 (Bold mine)
"We will not burden a soul beyond its power: and with us is a book, which speaketh the truth; and they shall not be wronged:
But as to this Book, their hearts are plunged in error, and their works are far other than those of Muslims, and they will work those works,
Until when we lay hold on their affluent ones with punishment; lo! they cry for help:" Sura 23:64-66 (Bold mine)
I will remind you the reason why the terrorists were willing to kill themselves to kill Americans: they were promised 72 virgins in heaven.
"But, for the God-fearing is a blissful abode,
Enclosed gardens and vineyards;
And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers in age." Sura 78:31-33
"But the pious shall be in a secure place,
Amid gardens and fountains,
Clothed in silk and richest robes, facing one another:
Thus shall it be: and we will wed them to the virgins with large dark eyes." Sura 44:51-54
The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did not do so in the name of their country or for any demand, such as money or land: they did it openly and proudly in the name of Islam. They were not misguided; they were in every way Islamic.
The very last Suras in the Koran are very short and riddled with cries about the evilness of infidels. Even as I read them, I could feel the burning hatred of infidels that one is meant to feel after reading them. These ending Suras can be considered chants - short, quick, hysterical chants - against infidels.
Some will insist that my verses were totally lifted out of context. This argument does not have much merit. As you can tell from my study, the “context” of just about all verses in the Koran is a sea of hatred. It is in fact the Islam apologists who do not put things in context. Islam apologists comb the Koran for any and all “good” quotes and take it as proof that the Koran is peaceful. For instance, there is a quote in the Koran which says Muslims can have their religion and other people can have theirs. This may seem good until you realize that, in the Koran, it says other religions may exist with Muslims, but they are to live as second class citizens, paying taxes to Muslims.
The other argument usually given is that the Koran does call for violence but only in self-defense. In some translations of the Koran, the phrase “in case of war” or “in case the infidels attack you” is conveniently placed in all calls for violence. This really is nothing more than a blatantly misleading lie. Muslims who say this are taking advantage of taqiyya (or taqiyah), an allowance for Muslims to lie. While taqiyya can mean that if a Muslim feels his life is in danger he can lie; it can also mean a permission to lie in general. According to fact-index.com, taqiyya can essentially mean that, “[A] Muslim is allowed to say untruths to a non-Muslim if in their heart they still respect the truths that they externally deny.”
I have noticed Muslims downright lying through their teeth in public about true Islam. It is frustrating and flabbergasting. However, knowing about taqiyya brings it full circle that they are in fact lying. But I often wondered: why? If they really are interested in destroying America (and when you dig deeper most Muslim fundamentalists, especially ones willing to lie for Islam, are), why would they lie to opponents? Why do they care what their enemies think? But I believe I figured it out: it is like an enemy fighter who waves a white flag, insisting they are peaceful, causing you to drop your weapons, then opens fire.
However, even so, let’s assume it was true that the Koran calls for violence only in self-defense. Why does it put it in such blatantly collectivist terms? Why is it one group, Muslims, only allowed to defend themselves against another group, infidels?
The fact is, all hate movements have been marked by this same thing: victimology and collectivism. They convince themselves that they are a victimized, oppressed group of another group - that they are being attacked or held down by another group - then launch a war. It is never specific people who have been hurt by other specific people, but by a broad, generic group of "Jews" or "bourgeois" or "nonbelievers."
The Koran is not very unequivocal in stating that enemies as people who threaten your life. Infidels, according to the Koran, are by definition enemies.
“And when ye go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime in you to cut short your prayers, if ye fear lest the infidels come upon you; Verily, the infidels are your undoubted enemies!” Sura 4:102 (Bold mine.)
“They (the polytheists) sell the signs of God for a mean price, and turn others aside from his way: evil is it that they do!
They regard not in a believer either ties of blood or faith; these are the transgressors!” Sura 9:9-10 (Bold mine.)
I asked a Muslim once about Muhammad. Muhammad was obviously a warlord - apparently the very first Islamic terrorist to hijack the Islam religion. This man I talked to insisted that that Islam was a religion that advocated violence only in self-defense. I asked him if Muhammad fought in self-defense or in aggression. He answered, “both.” So I asked him why Muhammad fought in aggression, perhaps it was a pre-emptive strike against enemies about to strike. And, if it was a pre-emptive strike, I asked him if Muhammad had significant intelligence data to suggest that “enemy” nations were about to attack him. He told me that Allah “in his infinite wisdom” told Muhammad that these people were his enemies.
This is the problem with Islam and this is the problem with blind faith. There are no prescribed rules for who is an enemy and who is not. Whoever is perceived to be an enemy is an enemy.
Everything about Islam prepares its people to be fighters. It riles them with hatred. It prods them to fight. Even the “holidays” in Islam trains fighters. Take for instance Ramadan. Instead of feasting and celebrating, Muslims are to sacrifice during the daylight hours for a month. I propose that this is an effective way to train its followers for war. Besides the practical ability to go without food for extended amounts of times, it trains people to accept a tough life. The only place you will see this kind of behavior in America is for various types of military training.
This isn’t a matter of clamoring over a few verses or of deciding whether or not some verses contradict other verses in the Koran. This is about the fundamental theme of the Koran, which is: burning hatred of infidels and wishes of death and destruction for them. Any Muslim who picks up the Koran and takes it seriously will at the very least believe infidels are evil and deserving of death. Islam is a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred for those who don’t believe as they do. But don’t take my word for it. Please, by all means, read the Koran for yourself.
Many people, naïve to Islam, will point to the fact that there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them become terrorists. True, they do not. The problem is not the regular people but the leaders. Most people, anywhere, just accept the major philosophy/religion of their time and usually do not follow or take it very seriously. Observe that it isn’t the poor or ignorant who typically become terrorists but the rich and educated, i.e. the ones who are capable of understanding the Koran and have the means to implement what it says. This is about what Islam is as an ideology and what the ramifications will be when adopted.
My detractors might give some other reasons for why terrorism is created. Typically, many assign the cause of terrorism to some pet cause that they have. Feminists blame the “patriarchy”. Socialists blame it on “poverty.” These are obviously grounded not in reality but ideology. They are not honest evaluations; they would rather continue grinding their axe against men, the wealthy, whoever it is they hate. Blaming it on “poverty” is particularly sneaky. It is simply not true; most terrorists are middle class if not filthy rich. When the religious fundamentalists are poor, they do not have the means to fight. It is when they became wealthy, recently mostly from oil money, that they can launch bigger, more effective attacks. Blaming it on poverty is sneaky: it suggests the solution is to pour more money - more money to go to jihad - into their hands. Indeed, what we need is the exact opposite: we need to starve them of all resources, especially financial ones.
Some try to argue that Islam has produced scientific achievements in the past. Most people tend to attribute the invention of Algebra to Muslims. But it was not Muslims or even Arabs that discovered Algebra: it was the Iranians. The Iranians have a rich history of enlightenment and are more influenced by their heritage, which is one that emphasizes education and scholarship, than religion. Another person some point to is a man named Razi, who made advancements in medicine, as evidence of Muslim accomplishment. But Razi was not an Arab or a Muslim but again an Iranian. In fact, he was so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faith and upholding reason and had to live as a heretic. Razi was to the Muslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.
It should be obvious to Western people: faith, mysticism and religion are antagonistic to science, reason and progress. We can easily see how Christianity was responsible for The Dark Ages but refuse to see how Islam is responsible for the violence and primitive life in the Middle East. Islam cannot even uphold a decent society let alone a prosperous one. Progress is not some kind of gift from the heavens. If you look at all successful societies, you will see the influence of one man: Aristotle. Progress requires a commitment to reason. The only way for peace or stability to come to the Middle East is for Islam to leave and Enlightenment to reign.
One would think that “liberals” would be the first to condemn Islam. It is the polar opposite of all of their stated values and they have a tendency to think they are enlightened. But, eerily enough, they almost seem to side with Islam; although they go after Christianity with an unusual tenacity. This seems odd, since Islam is by far a more faith-based and hateful religion than Christianity. And, while I disagree with Christianity, it upholds at least a decent, stable moral framework for people to co-exist peacefully. Islam does not. The fact that liberals speak out against Christianity, allegedly in the name of reason, but not Islam shows that the left is not anti-faith but anti-values. If you notice, leftists didn’t embrace Islam until they realized its potential for terrorism. This speaks volumes.
Even if we take down every Islamic dictatorship in existence now that harbors and finances terrorists, so as long as this malignant ideology is around, it will inspire its followers to pick up and fight infidels. We attempted to fight communism militarily, fighting aggressive communist nations and arming ourselves up to our armpits, to fail. For over a half of a century we refused to call communism itself evil. Then, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was willing to step up to the plate and challenge communism ideologically. Communism came tumbling down with hardly a fire shot. Like with Islam, for decades we were told it was “bad people” running the communist countries that was the problem. It was not; like with Islam, the problem is the ideology. I am however more hopeful that people will call Islam evil, and sooner, as if people can see how communism, which comes in the package of equality and peace, is an evil ideology; they can certainly see how Islam is evil.
Never underestimate the power of a simple, consistent, moral argument against the ideology of our enemies. If we are going to fight terrorism, we need to fight the ideology that inspires terrorism. As far as those hysterical people who say that challenging Islam is akin to starting a mass genocide: fighting - and winning - in the realm of ideas is a far more humane and peaceful way to end threats to our lives and nation.
Most seem to believe that Islam needs to be “secularized” for peace and freedom to come to the Middle East. Frankly, this is just a politically correct way to say Islam is the problem. Whether you believe Islam has to be “secularized” or eradicated, the simple fact remains that Islam is the problem. Until we are willing to prosecute Islam as a violent religion: our war on terror will never end.
The jury is out. May all those with a rational mind judge accordingly.
Reference
J.M. Rodwell, The Koran (New York: Dulton, 1977).
Amber Pawlik
She'll be so surprised.
I am not at all sure of who this man is, the link was on todays story about the OKC bombing, a clinton era death:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16525
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52483
WAR ON TERROR
Court ruling denies Khobar Towers victims closure
Dismissal of lawsuit conflicts with evidence, conclusion in related case
Posted: October 18, 2006
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53485
OKC BOMBING FALLOUT
Probe of Islamic ties
'obstructed' by feds
Congressman who chaired panel says public
'would be outraged if they knew the extent'
Posted: December 23, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
~~~ ~~~
If you look at the photo on #2 and 3, it appears to be the same building, I have confused them more than once.
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20436&hed=Voting+Machines+Company+To+U.S.%3A+We%E2%80%99re+Outta+Here
Voting Machines Company To U.S.: We’re Outta Here
Smartmatic will sell its U.S. subsidiary to stop investigations into whether it’s funded by Venezuela’s government
December 22, 2006
By Eydie Cubarrubia
A Venezuelan company that makes electronic machines said Friday that in response to questions about ownership, it will sell its U.S. subsidiary and withdraw from a U.S. investment review process.
Smartmatic—which has offices in Florida, California, Barbados, Mexico, and Venezula—will sell Sequoia Voting Systems, a subsidiary based in Oakland, California that Smartmatic purchased in March 2005. The company has also withdrawn itself from review by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
The news comes after heavy scrutiny into Smartmatic’s funding. Critics worried about the possibility of Venezuelan government investment in the company. Since Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez has been highly critical of the Bush administration, the thinking goes, the government might use its influence to tamper with e-voting machines that are used in U.S. elections.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
“With so much public debate over foreign ownership of firms in an area that is viewed as critical U.S. infrastructure… we feel it is in both companies’ best interest to move forward as separate entities with separate ownership,” Smartmatic CEO Antonio Mugica said in a release.
It’s not the first time foreign-owned tech companies struck fear in U.S. government entities. Early last year, a Congressional committee worried computers purchased by federal bureaus from the Chinese company Lenovo could be used by the Chinese government to spy on the U.S. (see Lenovo, Chinese Lash Out).
Experts in such fields as technology, business, and voting say these kinds of concerns gloss over bigger issues, like voting fraud or the economics of international trade.
“I think we should be worrying about producing voting machines that don’t require trust in the manufacturer, rather than digging up the backgrounds of all the voting machine manufacturers,” Avi Rubin, professor of computer science at Johns Hopkins University and a well-known voting technology authority, said just before last fall’s U.S. elections (see Voting Booth’s Non-Tech Stink).
“China and the United States have been becoming more and more mutually dependent on each other,” iSuppli analyst Jeffrey Wu said in addressing the Lenovo worries (see 82% of Laptops Made In China). “For example, U.S. computer companies rely on cheap Chinese labor to drive costs down, which in turn keeps consumers happy with low prices.”
Like Lenovo execs, Smartmatic too denied government involvement into its affairs.
“No foreign government or entity has ever held an ownership stake in Smartmatic Corporation or Sequoia Voting Systems,” the company said in a release, calling such allegations “baseless rumours.”
Whoever buys Sequoia need not fear the company might suffer a tainted image. Despite extremely vocal worries, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has not raised issues concerning Sequoia machines, the company said.
http://www.redherring.com/Article.aspx?a=20118&hed=Russian+Police+Raid+IBM§or=Regions&subsector=Europe
Russian Police Raid IBM
Big Blue accused by interior ministry of helping embezzle money from Russian pension fund.
December 7, 2006
By Michael Cohn
IBM executives in Russia may want a stiff shot of vodka after Russian police raided the company’s offices in Moscow and the interior ministry accused Big Blue of helping embezzle up to a billion rubles from the country’s pension fund.
The ministry said IBM had teamed up with two software companies, ZAO R-Style Softlab and ZAO Lanit, in a scheme to plunder money from a budget set aside for buying new computers. IBM and the ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment about Wednesday’s raid.
“A number of pension fund executives responsible for conducting competitions to purchase computer equipment entered into a criminal agreement” with the two companies, said a statement on the ministry’s web site, according to Bloomberg News.
The report noted that about 24 investigators and masked, armed riot police searched the offices of Softlab for about 10 hours. An R-Style employee in New York was unaware of the raid when contacted by Red Herring, however.
- ADVERTISEMENT -
The police are said to have raided up to 10 different sites in Russia, including those of computer companies, resellers, and pension officials, and taken documents, according to The Register.
The workers at the IBM offices in Moscow were alarmed at the unexpected visit. “Masked people with machine guns are wandering around the office,” wrote one blogger quoted by InformationWeek. “They told us to leave our belongings and cell phones there and leave the room.”
They are looking into the possibility that computers were bought at one price and sold to the pension fund at a higher cost, according to a police source interviewed by Interfax.
However, that sounds like exactly the kind of business that most computer resellers are legitimately engaged in, even if they do overcharge. IBM has traditionally made a tidy profit from selling its services along with its hardware and software, for example.
Armonk, New York-based IBM is said to have sold 1,000 servers and 50,000 PCs to the pension fund, according to Kommersant.
Graft Charges
The Russian authorities began investigating charges of graft at the pension fund last month, looking into illegal supplies between last year and this year, according to the Associated Press.
Jonathan Batti, an IBM official, told the RIA Novosti agency that the company was cooperating with the Russian authorities on the investigation. “So far, it’s too early to talk about the nature of the investigation,” the AP quoted him as saying.
Despite the investigation, shares of IBM rose $0.09 to $94.21.
In unrelated, but more positive IBM news Thursday, the company said that it had signed a deal with AccuWeather to deliver weather information via IBM’s QEDWiki mashup technology to businesses so they could combine weather information with their enterprise data systems and other third-party content.
Given Wednesday’s events, some companies may want to start checking the weather in Siberia.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20967562-23109,00.html
Special forces cleared over Beslan
* From correspondents in Moscow
* December 23, 2006
A LONG-awaited official report on the Beslan school hostage tragedy today cleared the special forces of any responsibility for the way that a three-day siege turned into a chaotic battle, resulting in the deaths of 332 people.
The report by a parliamentary commission found that the pro-Chechen hostage-takers, and not the besieging special forces, bore all responsibility for the September 3, 2004 massacre at School Number One in Beslan, a town in the North Caucasus region, near Chechnya.
"Based on plentiful expert and witness testimony, the commission found that the terrorists were at the origin of the explosion'' that triggered a disastrous assault by commandos, the commission head, Alexander Torshin, told the upper house, or Federation Council.
"The commission has no proof of tank rounds being fired at the school on the afternoon of September 3,'' he said.
Separate investigations have quoted witnesses as saying that tanks fired on the school, and that highly destructive incendiary rockets were also used in an assault that resembled a pitched battle, rather than rescue attempt.
There has been particular controversy about what caused the first explosion - a bomb set off by one of the hostage-takers and forcing an all-out rescue bid, or an attack by troops who were already planning to retake the school by force.
The hostage-takers said they wanted the Russian government to halt the more than decade-old conflict in Chechnya and to remove troops from the rebel province.
Among the dead were 186 children.
Relatives of victims and survivors have accused the authorities, including the Torshin commission, of trying to cover up the failings of the security forces.
Allah is your defender our Sheikh “Omar Abdul-Rahman”\
http://www.al-hesbah.org/v/showthread.php?t=101388
http://www.al-hesbah.org/v/showthread.php?t=101388
In the name of Allah the most gracious the most merciful, All the praise to Allah, Lord of the universe, the blessed end is for the pious, and let there be no transgression except against the polytheists. And peace be upon the Imam of Mujahideen, his family, his companions, and all of those who follow his path till the day of judgment.
Years passed and our sheikh, the Mujahid scholar Omar Abdul-Rahman remains captured in the prisons of the crusaders; despite his old age, weakness, sickness, and loneliness. Deprived of his basic needs (including visitations), in a country that claims holding the banner of protecting human rights!
Lately, there were several media reports leaking information that the Sheikh, may Allah protect him, has gone through a severe illness causing him to vomit blood, and the authorities claimed that he was being hospitalized !
As we in the administration of Alhesbah hold the government of the United States responsible for the well being of Sheikh Omar, we remind the officials that we will never forget what the Sheikh had gone through in his jail cell.
In addition, we call upon the Muslims and upon humans with life hearts worldwide to stand up for the minimal rights of Sheikh Omar; the ill, the blind, and the elderly!
Furthermore, we remind the Muslims with Sheikh Omar’s leaked will (his words): “O’ brothers… If they kill me, and for sure they will, make a memorial service for me, and send my body to my family. However, never forget my blood, instead revenge for me with the utmost revenge and the most violent one, and remember a brother for you said the true word and was killed in the cause of Allah…these are few words I say to you, and this is my will…”
We pledge to follow the teachings of Sheikh Omar, and we call upon our brothers the Mujahideen to put Sheikh Omar’s case in their priorities, and we call upon the Muslims’ scholars worldwide to stand up for the Sheikh, and we remind every Muslim that the example of the Muslim nation is compared to the whole body, if a member gets ill, the whole body gets together in assistance.
Moreover, we remind every Muslim by the undisputed scholars’ opinion that liberating the captures is a must duty even if it requires spending lives and wealth.
We are Allah’s, and unto him we are returning! Accept our apology our beloved Sheikh for our shortcomings as we are helpless and our hands are tied!
Be patient our Sheikh, Allah is with you, He is your protector and of those who believe:
"Only those who are patient shall receive their reward in full, without reckoning"
O’ Allah liberate your worshipper Omar Abdul-Rahman, O’ Allah make him stand firm, and send down calmness and tranquility into his heart, O’ Allah forgive our sins, and strengthen our weakness,
Allah is Sufficient for us, and He is the Best Disposer of affairs, “And Allah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not.”
The close of our request is all the praises and thanks be to Allah, the Lord of mankind, jinn and all that exists
ÅÏÇÑÉ ÔÈßÉ ÇáÍÓÈÉ ÛíÑ ãÊæÇÌÏ ÍÇáíÇð
http://www.al-hesbah.org/v/report.php?p=830546
ÊäÈíå ÇáÅÏÇÑÉ Íæá åÐå ÇáãÔÇÑßÉ
I would be afraid to vote for a third party.
I voted for Perot and got Clinton.
Maybe in the local races, but not for the big ones.
Slings, thank you for posting this.
Lucy he is adorable.
Yes, he can talk, even in a photo, his message comes across,
"Did you doubt that even satin and fur, that I could still grant your wishes and make you happy?"
"The rabbit, that I caught for dinner, was a big white one, as you will note in the backgroud of this photo, tomorrow we will have Goldfish, 3 houses down the street, there is a new pond, with a fresh stocking of them".
LOL, I can't stop looking at him, a perfect photo.
Have you noticed the element of frenzy in these attacks?
I see it over and over.
They must be on the edge of insane, or is it the dope?
I think the writer of your article on the koran, paints a clear picture of the teachings from it.
How sad that so many people are wasting their life to follow a sad leader.
Good writer and good article.
Smiling as I admit, I studied the photo, long enough, that I can see his eyes looking into mine, without the photo.
The outfit is perfect, but the photo is so real, he 'talks'.
I hope you have lots of photos on him for the book that you will write, you can use this photo, to start with, and have him tell all kinds of tales.........about his travels.
Kids will love him.
You could also make stuffed toys, that looked like him, to go with the book.
What fun you could have.
Or, start a thread with him and let the Freepers write the book.
He could be like the "Baby Jesus" figure stolen last year on the east coast, it was returned in August, with a scrapbook of all the places it had been, complete with photos.
Thanks for sharing him.
Last update - 17:11 22/12/2006
UN: Palestinians trying to flee Iraq for Syria stuck at border
By The Associated Press
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804571.html
A group of Palestinians fleeing violence in Iraq for neighboring Syria
are
stuck near a checkpoint, unable to cross the border, the United Nations
refugee agency said on Friday.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees said the 41 Palestinians, some of
whom
lack travel documents, have been stranded in Iraq since December 16
after
border authorities refused to let them cross.
The agency said the Palestinians have been told by Iraqi authorities
that
Syria will have to approve their entry before they can cross into the
no-man's
territory between Iraq and Syria, where 350 other Palestinians escaping
violence have been since May.
The 350 Palestinians came to the Tanaf checkpoint, about 190 miles (306
kilometers) northeast of Damascus after Syrian authorities allowed more
than
280 Palestinians stranded for two months on the Iraq-Jordan border to
enter
its territory in what Syria said was a "humanitarian" gesture.
But the Syrian Foreign Ministry announced later it would not allow more
Palestinians coming from Iraq to enter its territory, where more than
500,000
Palestinian refugees already live.
Astrid van Genderen Stort, a spokeswoman with the UNHCR, said the 350
Palestinians are living in tents and have had to endure flooding over
recent
months.
But Syria and Jordan, two of Iraq's neighbors with large numbers of
Palestinian and Iraqi refugees, feel that other countries should share
the
burden, she said.
A local tribal leader has helped the stranded 41 Palestinians with
accommodation, food and water, and the International Committee of the
Red
Cross has given them tents, blankets and stoves, UNHCR said.
There was no immediate comment from Syrian and Iraqi authorities.
The UN refugee agency urged Syria and other countries to assist the
Palestinians.
Before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, about 34,000 Palestinians
lived
there. More than three years later, about 15,000 remain, UNHCR said.
UN issues guidelines for first responders in case of nuclear accidents,
terrorist attack
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21087&Cr=terror&Cr1=
22 December 2006 – The first people on the scene of a nuclear or
radiological emergency, whether from a terrorist attack, an accident or
theft, the so-called ‘First Responders’ who are usually local
medical,
police and fire brigades, now have a detailed list of “do’s and
don’ts”
under key United Nations guidelines issued today.
“Responders generally have no experience with radiation emergencies
as
they are very rare,” UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Incident & Emergency head Warren Stern said. “They can benefit a lot
from practical guidance about what’s known about radiation, and how
to
deal with accidents and incidents involving nuclear or radioactive
materials.”
Through new web pages and a series of publications, the IAEA is now
filling that gap for these first responders, the emergency teams that
could be called to the front lines of a nuclear or radiological
incident
or accident, as well as for national officials backing up the early
response.
The guidelines range from setting up safety perimeters, evacuating the
public and assuming people are contaminated, to ensuring there are no
armed people or explosives in the area and avoiding recovery until a
radiological expert has prepared a plan.
The new web pages and reports cover different types of emergencies
including: uncontrolled dangerous radioactive sources; misuse of
dangerous industrial and medical sources; public exposures and
contamination from unknown origins; serious overexposures; malicious
threats or acts; and transport emergencies.
On a potential terrorist blast, the guidelines note that the greatest
threat comes from the direct effects of an explosion rather than from
radiation exposure or contamination. The greatest radiological hazard
comes from inadvertent inhalation or inadvertent ingestion of the
material dispersed by an explosion or fire or from handling radioactive
debris or material in an unexploded device.
Limited stays near the source in an unexploded so-called radiological
dispersal device or large pieces of debris by response personnel should
not be hazardous but holding such material could produce injuries in
minutes, according to the guidelines. Fire fighters are generally
equipped with respiratory apparatus that provides good protection
against the inhalation hazard.
“There can be significant adverse and inappropriate public reaction
and
economic consequences if public and financial institution concerns are
not promptly addressed,” the guidelines sate. “Excess radiation
induced
cancers should not be detected following this type of emergency, even
for emergencies involving large amounts of radioactive material.”
On transportation accidents, three hazards are cited: a small
possibility of a release resulting in inhalation near the source;
contamination if ingested; dangerous levels of external exposure from
being near the accident for an extended time. Being in the vicinity for
a short period, for example to conduct life-saving action, should not
be
hazardous.
Loss or theft of a source containing sufficient radioactive material to
qualify as a dangerous can lead to unknowing handling and permanent
injuries from external exposure or inadvertent ingestion as well as to
localized contamination, requiring clean-up. Unknowingly handling
quantities from 10 to 100 times the quantity criteria for a dangerous
source could be immediately life threatening.
http://www.commonvoice.com/article.asp?colid=6436
Chinese Agent Charged in Major Espionage Case
A Chinese national was charged last week with stealing military trade
secrets and using them in demonstration and sales proposals to the
Peoples Republic of China, the Malaysian Air Force, and the Thailand Air Force.
Xiaodong Sheldon Meng, 42, is charged with stealing military combat and
commercial simulation software and other materials from his former
employer
Quantum3D, a company based in San Jose, CA. The economic espionage
charges
allege that Meng, formerly a resident of Beijing, China, and now a
resident
of Cupertino, CA, stole the trade secrets from Quantum3D with the
intent to
use them to benefit the foreign governments of China, Thailand, and
Malaysia.
"One of ICE's top enforcement priorities is preventing terrorist groups
and
hostile nations from illegally obtaining U.S. military products and
sensitive technology," said San Francisco Immigration and Customs
Enforcement special agent in charge Charles DeMore.
"These items are controlled for good reason -- in the wrong hands, they
could be used to inflict harm upon America or its allies," he said.
"This case highlights the vital importance of protecting the
intellectual
property and trade secrets not only in Silicon Valley but also for our
country's businesses," said a US Justice Department official.
The alleged economic espionage and theft and export of trade secrets
such as
these -- visual simulation training software that has military
application,
no less -- has real consequences that could jeopardize our country's
military advantages in the world, in addition to creating substantial
financial losses for our businesses which legitimately developed and
owned
this information, according to an FBI spokesperson.
Many of Quantum3D's products were designed primarily for military
purposes,
including military combat training in simulated real-time conditions
during
the day and night and the use of advanced infrared (IR),
Electro-Optical
(EO), and Night Vision Goggle (NVG) devices.
The indictment alleges that Meng stole numerous Quantum3D products
which
were used exclusively in military applications, and designed for
precision
training of military fighter pilots in night vision scenarios among
other
applications. The items are classified as defense articles on the US
Munitions List and cannot be exported outside the United States without
an
export license.
According to the charges, Meng took up employment with a competing
company,
Orad, to "pursue other career development opportunities in China". At
one
point, Meng altered the Quantum3D's Mantis program to reflect the name
of a
program which belonged to Orad, a competitor of Quantum3D, according to
the
charges. Meng then used that program as part of a demonstration project
in
the People's Republic of China.
The indictment includes three conspiracy counts; three counts of
economic
espionage and attempted economic espionage; two counts of violations of
the
Arms Export Control Act; twelve counts of theft of trade secrets and
attempted theft of trade secrets; fifteen counts of foreign and
interstate
transportation of stolen property; and three counts of making false
statements to a government agency.
FBI Special Agent in Charge Charlene B. Thornton said, "The FBI is
committed
to aggressively pursue those attempting to illegally obtain and export
trade
secrets vital to maintaining the United States' position as a world
leader
in innovation. [The] indictment highlights the value of cooperation
between
law enforcement and private industry in effectively conducting these
investigations."
Quantum3D, Inc. has cooperated fully in the government's investigation.
A
company official noted that the company "believes that enforcement of
export
and trade secret laws is critical to the functioning of our industry
and
we're pleased to work with the government in these efforts.
Meng appeared before United States Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd in
San Jose on Monday, Dec. 18. Meng was initially charged by complaint on
Dec. 9,
2004. The original indictment on the case remains under seal. Meng
posted a
bail bond for a half-million dollars. If convicted on all counts, he
faces a
maximum sentence and fine of 50 years and fines of up to $2 million.
Jim Kouri, CPP
http://www.thedailystar.net/2006/12/23/d6122301138.htm
Guantanamo returnee on one-month detention
Court Correspondent
The home ministry yesterday gave a one-month detention on Mobarak Hossain, who returned from Guantanamo Bay prison on December 17, for his involvement in anti-state activities.
Metropolitan Magistrate Abdur Rouf Khan ordered to send him to Dhaka Central Jail saying that his bail was not granted as the home ministry has recommended a one-month detention order for his anti-state activities.
A special US Air Force plane on December 17 flew Mobarak Hossain, 30, son of Abul Hashem of Brahmanbaria in Bangladesh and handed him over to the Zia International Airport Immigration.
Mobarak, who was detained at Guantanamo Bay for five years for his suspected al-Qaeda connection, was put on a three-day remand and produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Dhaka yesterday on completion of the remand.
In his forwarding report, Investigation Officer (IO) Sub-Inspector Masud mentioned that Mobarak said he had gone to Pakistan for studies in 1998 and taught in a madrasa in Karachi after completion of his two-year study.
But the IO did not find any documents about his study in Pakistan. So, Mobarak might have a militancy link, the IO said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.