Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Islam Behavior Has Not Changed For Centuries Even Churchill!

Here’s How Winston Churchill Dealt With Islam… Compare This to Obama

With a rapid rise in militant radical Islamic extremism around the globe, particularly in the Middle East, the world seems poised on the edge of another world war.
As such, there is a desperate search for a modern-day Winston Churchill, a leader who will step up and provide a strong example for the civilized world to rally around in this coming fight.
While Churchill is well-known for standing tough in the face of fascist Nazi aggression, less well-known is the fact that he also confronted radical Islam at an earlier point in his life.
In 1897, while still in his mid-20’s, Churchill traveled to the northwest frontier of the British territory of India, attaching as a journalist to the Malakand Field Force, which was tasked with guarding important roads during a massive uprising of the Muslim population.
Churchill’s writings and observations about the vicious brutality of the enemy he faced, along with hisdescription of the half-hearted efforts the British were using to fight them, are strikingly similar to today’s situation regarding President Barack Obama and the Islamic State group.
According to FrontPage Mag, Churchill wrote at length about the radical Islamists his unit encountered, especially one of the more charismatic leaders, whom he nicknamed the “Mad Mullah.”
This man was described as a “wild enthusiast, convinced alike of his Divine mission and miraculous powers (who) preached a crusade, or jihad, against the infidel.”
He wrote that the Muslim uprising had been sparked by the Mullah’s recognition that “(c)ontact with civilisation assails the superstition, and credulity, on which the wealth and influence of the Mullah depend.”
He further explained how the Mullahs were able to rally large numbers of Muslim fighters by promising them eternal paradise if they were killed and the spoils of war if they survived, the exact same reasoning we often see among jihadists today.
In describing the actual fighting between the British and Indian troops versus the radical Muslim jihadists, Churchill said that “no quarter is ever asked or given.”
He further noted that the Muslims tortured the wounded and mutilated the dead and that field hospitals and convoys filled with the sick and wounded were often specifically targeted by the jihadists.
Noting that the various Islamic tribes had combined together and were finding some success in their attacks, he decried the timid half-measures being pursued by the British.
“Civilization is face to face,” he wrote, “with militant Mohammedanism. When we reflect on the moral and material forces arrayed, there need be no fear of the ultimate issue, but the longer the policy of half-measures is adhered to the more distant the end of the struggle will be.”
In what could easily be a description of Obama’s response to the threats posed by radical Islam, Churchill wrote of the British as an “interference more galling than complete control, a timidity more rash then recklessness, a clemency more cruel than the utmost severity.”
In conclusion, Churchill said, “To terminate this sorry state of affairs, it is necessary to carry a recognized and admitted policy to its logical and inevitable conclusion.”
That can only mean total war waged against radical Islam until victory is achieved, which will only come about after the complete destruction of the threat facing Western civilization.
Whether Obama knows about the history and writings of Winston Churchill is unknown, but he should be made aware, as he is seemingly reliving the exact situation that Churchill issued such dire warnings about over 100 years ago.
A half-hearted “phony war” against the Islamic State group and one-sided negotiations with Iran will do nothing to make the world safer. They will actually produce the opposite effect, as these dual threats grow to become far more dangerous, and more difficult to destroy, the longer they are allowed to thrive.

One Cannot Even Comment On Islamic Behavior Without Being Branded An Enemy

Translations of this item:
Evidently, Sweden's Foreign Minister was unaware that that by criticizing Islamic sharia customs, such as flogging a blogger a thousand times and the ill-treatment of women, she was, in fact, seen as turning against Islam itself.
There appears to be a genuine but concerning lack of knowledge in the Swedish government about Islam and Islamic affairs.
"It makes no difference what she says. In Islam, it is for Muslims to determine whether or not one has criticized their religion." — Johannes J.G. Jansen, author and historian of Islam.
From a Muslim perspective, any criticism or infringement of sharia law and Muslims' obligation to wage jihad [war in the service of Islam] is a violation of their freedom of religion.
In other words, it is incumbent on Muslims to "terrify" non-Muslims (referring to the Koran 8:60). But when they succeed, Muslim spokesmen accuse their frightened victims of suffering from "Islamophobia," and demand that Western authorities denounce and persecute people beset by the psychiatric malady.
There is nothing, however, to indicate that Margot Wallström and other members of the Swedish government have been driven by fear. They have no knowledge of what orthodox Islam is about, and evidently believe that the religion is benevolent and peaceful, but unfortunately hijacked or misinterpreted by evil men.
As predicted, Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström's criticism of "medieval" conditions in Saudi Arabia has caused great parts of the Muslim world to rise up in anger against her and Sweden, the country she represents.
"Almost the entire Muslim world joins in the criticism of Wallström," wrote the Swedish national daily Dagens Nyheter on March 19, adding that around thirty Muslim countries have distanced themselves from Wallström's comments. The Arab League has denounced her for criticizing the lack of human rights in Saudi Arabia, and on Saturday the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which represents 57 Arab and Muslim states, as well as the Palestinians,accused her of having "degraded Saudi Arabia and its social norms, judicial system and political institutions".
Dagens Nyheter quotes Middle East expert Marianne Laanatza, from the universities of Stockholm and Lund, as saying that Sweden's troubles may escalate. In addition, Middle East analyst Per Jönsson, from Sweden's Foreign Policy Institute, notes that the OIC's reaction implies that almost the entire Muslim world, including Shia Muslim states and countries in Southeast Asia, have now turned their backs on Sweden. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have already recalled their ambassadors from Sweden; Per Jönsson fears that others will follow their example.
In response, Wallström held a crisis meeting on March 19 with representatives of around thirty Swedish enterprises that have business interests in the Gulf region. As of this writing, the outcome of the meeting is unknown. Saudi Arabia has already announced that is will deny entry visas to representatives of Swedish companies. Clearly, Swedish enterprises are in significant trouble.
Evidently, Sweden's Foreign Minister was unaware that by criticizing Islamic sharia customs, such as flogging a blogger a thousand times and the ill-treatment of women, she was, in fact, seen as turning against Islam itself.
The Swedish government's ignorance was amply demonstrated when Gatestone called Margot Wallström's press spokesman, Erik Boman.
Gatestone asked if he was aware that practices such as the death penalty for blasphemy, flogging and barring women from driving a car are based on the Koran. He said he was not. Nor, he said, had he heard of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states that all human rights must be based solely on sharia law, and rejects human rights as expressed in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Veronica Nordlund, from the Swedish Foreign Ministry's press service, told Gatestone that she has heard of the Cairo Declaration, but thinks that Saudi Arabia has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Saudi Arabia did not, in fact, sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It abstained, claiming the Declaration violated sharia law. [1]
All in all, there appears to be a genuine but concerning lack of knowledge in the Swedish government about Islam and Islamic affairs.
The prominent Dutch Islam expert, Professor Johannes "Hans" J.G. Jansen -- author of an influential biography of Muhammad -- said he does not think Margot Wallström knows what she has gotten herself into.
Asked if the Swedish Foreign Minister can criticize Saudi sharia practices such as flogging, and call them "medieval," without offending Islam, professor Jansen says that this would be impossible.
Gatestone: "But now she claims that it had not been her intention to criticize Islam?"
Jansen: "It makes no difference what she says. In Islam, it is for Muslims to determine whether or not one has criticized their religion. From a Muslim perspective, the Foreign Minister's worst transgression is to have labeled Saudi practices 'medieval.' Muslims never use that term when talking about themselves. They only use it with reference to other parts of the world, for example Europe. The Saudis see themselves as the inheritors and custodians of Islam's Golden Age in the seventh century, which must not be labeled medieval."
Jansen notes that from a Muslim perspective, any criticism or infringement of sharia law and Muslims' obligation to wage jihad [war in the service of Islam] is a violation of their freedom of religion.
The same, he continued, goes for Muslims' duty to strike terror into the hearts of non-Muslims. Jansen points to the Koran's Sura 8, verse 60:
"And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war, by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them whom you do not know [but] whom Allah knows. And whatever you spend in the cause of Allah will be fully repaid to you, and you will not be wronged."
In other words, it is incumbent on Muslims to "terrify" non-Muslims. But strangely, when they succeed, Muslim spokesmen accuse their frightened victims of suffering from "Islamophobia," and demand that Western authorities denounce and persecute people who are beset by this "psychiatric" malady.
There is nothing, however, to indicate that Margot Wallström and other members of the Swedish government and political establishment have been driven by fear. They have no knowledge of what orthodox Islam is all about and evidently believe that the religion is benevolent and peaceful, but unfortunately hijacked or misinterpreted by evil men.
As if more proof of Sweden's incomprehension were needed, Margot Wallström stood up in the Swedish parliament on March 20, and claimed that she had no intention of criticizing Islam. The Swedish government, she said, will "safeguard and develop the relations Sweden has had with Saudi Arabia through the years. ... We have the greatest respect for Islam as a world religion and for its contribution to our common civilization."

Swedish Foreign Minister Margot Wallström wanted to lecture the Arab League on human rights. Saudi Arabia's King Salman was not amused. (Image source: Wikimedia Commons)

Wallström and her government have now come in for the surprise of their lives. The good-hearted Foreign Minister suddenly finds herself denounced all over the Muslim world as an enemy of the prophet.
It will be critical to see how Wallström intends to extricate herself from her unwanted position as one of the world's most reviled offenders of Islam.
Will she retract her criticism of Saudi flogging and misogyny, and announce that it was never her intention to offend the great Saudi nation or its culture? In that case, she will have dealt a devastating blow to Sweden's claim to be a "moral superpower" and to a foreign policy based on human rights and feminism.
Or will she stand by her words and accept that Sweden -- and any other country in Europe that claims to stand for humanistic values and the primacy of human rights -- is in for a debacle that may well be more severe than what Denmark experienced during the Muhammad cartoon crisis in 2005/2006?
There is increasing talk among observers that Wallström will have to step down, and that Sweden will have to accept a global role more commensurate with its knowledge of world affairs.
Ingrid Carlqvist and Lars Hedegaard are editors-in-chief of Dispatch International.

[1] Nisrine Abiad (2008) "Sharia, Muslim states and international human rights treaty obligations: a comparative study. BIICL. pp. 60-65 ISBN 978-1-905221-41-7

Feds Are Getting Out Of Control. Arresting Americans, Well Inside The Country, Is Far From Normal.

A man, woman and their 4-year-old boy at an unidentified Inland Border Patrol checkpoint are ordered and pulled from their vehicle, questioned and taken into custody – all for the seeming offense of refusing to say where they were headed.
A video of the incident, recorded by the family’s dashboard camera, opens with the man and woman chit-chatting with their son in the back, later identified as 4, and pulling up to a border checkpoint. The man, who’s driving, has his window a third of the way down.
The uniformed agent says: “How are you, where are you going to today?”
And the man’s response: “I’m sorry, sir. I don’t have to answer that question.”
The exchange is repeated, and then the agent orders the man to park to the side.
“For what?” the man asks. “For what?”
The video, mounted on the car dashboard, shows the agent reaching into the man’s open window.
“Get your hands out of my car,” the man says. “Get your hands out of my car.”
The man then pushes the agent’s arm out the window, while the agent opens the door.
The man’s response?

“This is assault,” he says. “What is your reasonable suspicion?”
The agent then asks for the man’s citizenship, and he responds: “That I will [answer]. I’m a United States citizen.”
The agent asks the same question to the woman, who affirms she’s a U.S. citizen, too.
The agent then proceeds to ask a series of questions: “That your son in the back? You have anything illegal in the trunk? … Pop the trunk.”
The man tells the agent, “no, you cannot look,” and makes clear, “I do not consent to any searches or seizures.” He also asks the agent once more: “What is your reasonable suspicion?”
That’s when the agent tells him to put the car in park and “step out of the vehicle.”
The man once again asks for the agent’s “reasonable suspicion.” The video then shows the agent grabbing the man’s arm and wrestling him to remove him from vehicle, twisting his hand and arm in the process.
The man: “Dude what is your problem? I’ve got to unbuckle my seatbelt. … You’re being recorded.”
The agent says he’s aware of the camera and the man says, “Good. I’m going to sue the [expletive] out of you.”
The agent: “I’m not doing anything against policy.”
The camera then shows the man being pushed against the side of the vehicle, ordered to spread legs, while his son cries in the car. Another agent on the scene says to the man: “You brought this on yourself.”
The man’s escorted away while another agent gets in the driver’s seat of the car and tells the woman to keep her hands on the dashboard while he moves the vehicle to the side.
The woman at that point breaks down in tears and says, “My God, I’m coming back from a doctor’s appointment.”
And the agent says: “Is there any medication in the vehicle?”
The woman: “There might be because I just came from the doctor.”
The agent says something incomprehensible and then adds: “Your husband put us in this bind. Okay, step out.”
He tries to order the child out of the car, but the boy cries uncontrollably and he lets the woman remove him instead. The video wraps with the woman, using a cane, following the agents with her child in tow, saying: “I’ve never been arrested.”
The agent who moved the car, meanwhile, grabs the car keys from the vehicle and turns off the dashboard camera.
PINAC News reported the man’s name as Rick Herbert and the date and place of the incident as March 12 at a checkpoint 35 miles north of El Centro, just east of San Diego.

Implications Of Gay Marriage Acceptance Are Far Reaching.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/03/GayMarriage.png
GayMarriage
Religious leaders are warning that gay marriage will be the downfall of America.
Sandy Rios, the director of governmental affairs for the American Family Association and the host of a daily radio show, said to a Christian crowd that citizens need to prepare for the worst – any Supreme Court that paves the way for gay marriage is going to crush this country.
“Homosexual marriage is going to bring about the tip of the spear of the battle we’re going to face,” she said, during a gathering of believers and pastors, Raw Story reported.
She then referenced recent cultural and legal battles that have left “your wives, your sisters, your children” now sharing bathrooms with “men dressed like women,” she said.
Rios then warned to be on the watch for the Supreme Court’s looming action on laws that bar gay marriage.
If justices strike down the prohibitions, “every single person in this room is going to be forced to make a choice,” she said.
And that choice?
“I’m just telling you – even if you don’t want to engage in this battle, you will,” Rios said, Raw Story reported. “And your people will, and you’d better stand.”
She then advised Christians to “stop playing it safe” and to “prepare for martyrdom,” she said.
“I don’t know what it’s going to look like, but it’s coming,” Rios said, according to the news site.