‘The Pentagon breaks the Islam taboo’

“Washington’s policy-makers have been careful in the war on terror to distinguish between Islam and the terrorists. The distinction has rankled conservatives who see scarce difference.” So Paul Sperry complains. Happily, it seems that things are about to change. A new Pentagon briefing paper reveals that “Islam is an ideological engine of war” and that the Prophet sponsored “terror and slaughter” against unbelievers.

Not only that, but the Pentagon’s specialists in Islamic studies have uncovered the strategy behind the well-known Muslim plot to conquer the West.

“The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a ‘three-phase attack strategy’ for gaining control of lands for Allah”, Sperry reports. “The first phase is the ‘Meccan’, or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs – such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America. In the second ‘preparation’ phase, a ‘reasonably influential’ Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples. And in the final jihad period, or ‘Medina Stage’, a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.”

Front Page Magazine, 14 December 2005

And the same online magazine features an article by one Julia Gorin exposing France’s abject cultural surrender to Islam and warning the rest of the West against following suit. “If France is any indication, it’ll still end in blood, only sooner.” See here.

‘Enormity of Muslim threat unrecognized’

“Since the 9-11 Muslim terrorists attacks against the United States, I have been seeking to warn Americans in general, and Christians in particular, of the enormous threat posed to our country by radical Islam…. Though there are ‘moderate Muslims’ within the communities here in the United States, they are easily frightened into silence by the radical Muslims who dominate the teaching and direction of most of the mosques. And they are required by the doctrines of Islam to contribute money that is then cleverly funneled by the radicals into support of terrorist regimes worldwide.”

Hal Lindsey in World Net Daily, 8 December 2005

Lords reject torture evidence use

Secret evidence which might have been obtained by torture cannot be used against terror suspects in UK courts, the law lords have ruled. The ruling means the home secretary will have to review all cases where evidence from other countries might have been obtained in this way.

The Court of Appeal ruled last year that such evidence could be used if UK authorities had no involvement. But eight of the 10 foreign terror suspects who were being held without charge, backed by human rights groups, challenged that ruling. They argued evidence obtained in US detention camps should be excluded.

BBC News, 8 December 2005

‘Acquitting a terrorist’

AAH logo“This case was a big blow for the war on terrorism…. Sami al-Arian was a major player on the wrong side of this war. Because someone like him – someone who was so blatantly involved in terrorism – was acquitted, the Justice Department may think twice before bringing future terror cases to trial. And that undoubtedly will embolden the enemy.”

Joe Kaufman of Americans Against Hate – an organisation that devotes itself to spreading hatred against Muslims – bemoans the fact that an innocent man was found not guilty of terrorism charges.

Front Page Magazine, 7 December 2005

Cf. Eric Boehlert’s account: “Al-Arian didn’t call a single witness on his behalf. That might have been because prosecutors, who had tapped Al-Arian’s phone for years and collected 20,000 hours of conversations, failed to present a single phone call in which violent terrorist acts were plotted.”

Huffington Post, 7 December 2005

US Muslim group urges release of Iraq hostages

The leading US Muslim civil liberties group has called for the immediate release of four Christian peace activists kidnapped in Iraq and threatened with murder.

“Those who left the comfort of their homes to advocate for the rights of others that do not share their faith, ethnicity or language should be celebrated and honored by Muslims, not humiliated by being made captives or, God forbid, killed,” Parvez Ahmed, chairman of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), told a news conference Sunday, December 4.

“As a leader of the American Muslim community and the head of America’s largest Islamic civil liberties group, I make a personal appeal to the captors of the four members of the Christian Peacemakers Teams – release our brothers in humanity immediately and unconditionally,” he said in a statement posted on CAIR’s Web site.

Islam Online, 5 December 2005


Over at Jihad Watch that well-known scholar of all things Islamic, Robert Spencer, asks: “Has CAIR ever protested against the kidnapping of anyone else in Iraq? … this protest of the kidnapping of the collaborators is the first one I personally can recall ever seeing from them.”

Jihad Watch, 5 December 2005

Well, I claim no expert knowledge of CAIR myself, but a quick google reveals several examples of the organisation condemning hostage taking in Iraq. For example here, here, here and here.

Livingstone chooses Muslims over gays, Yale students are told

“This month’s riots in the immigrant ghettos outside Paris are only the latest manifestation of a continent in decline. Expressly, Europe has abandoned its culture. Thus, it has lost the means by which to assimilate Muslims who have shown no inclination to emulate those who seek American citizenship and accept the pluralistic values our country represents…. A proper analysis of Great Britain’s attempts at integration of Muslims is far too great a task for a newspaper column, but the behavior of the mayor of that country’s capitol city is cause for distress.

“On first glance, London’s gay community could have no better friend than Ken Livingstone. A legendary member of the far-left wing of the Labour Party, the mayor has been an outspoken advocate for gay rights. He started the first Partnership Register in the United Kingdom. He regularly attends the London Gay Pride Parade. He has worked with his city’s police force to crack down on homophobic crime. In spite of this flawless record on gay rights, Livingstone has repeatedly expressed support for radical Islamist cleric Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a Qatar-based imam whom the mayor hosted at City Hall last year….

“Livingstone holds the value of ‘multiculturalism’ as the highest of all, even if that means respecting cultures that seek to destroy ours. The risk of offending a single Muslim is too onerous for Livingstone to condemn those who glorify terror. During the Cold War, the term ‘useful idiot’ (ironically coined by Lenin) was applied to those in the West who excused away or completely ignored the atrocities of Communism. ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone, as he is affectionately known, was a useful idiot then and is no less a useful idiot of the Islamofascists now.”

The usual right-wing American rubbish, assisted by quotes from Peter Tatchell and Brett Lock of Outrage.

Yale Daily News, 1 December 2005

Over at Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer draws the appropriate conclusions: “This article shows why it is so important for Westerners to drop the outmoded language of Left and Right, as I have argued many times: there are those who are interested in defending Western civilization against the jihad, and those who aren’t. Ken Livingstone isn’t.” Spencer spells out his own tactical recommendation: “Opponents and proponents of gay marriage … need to unite now and defend against a common enemy who would render all such controversies moot.”

Dhimmi Watch, 4 December 2005

Rather redundant advice, I would have thought. Tatchell, Lock and their friends long ago adopted the position that, in order to pursue their vendetta against Islam in general and Dr al-Qaradawi in particular, they are more than ready to form a bloc with the anti-Muslim Right.

Top cop criticises mosque closure plan and Hizb ban

Top police officers have criticised plans to allow the shutting down of places of worship such as mosques suspected of inciting extremism. In their response to proposals to give courts the power to close such premises, police warned there were better ways to deal with the problem. Assistant Chief Constable Rob Beckley of the Association of Chief Police Officers said it was a “blunt tool”. “This proposal might be seen as an attack on religion,” he said.

The government is also considering banning the radical Muslim group Hizb ut-Tahrir. ACC Beckley told Today: “They proclaim themselves to be against violence – what we need to do is test that but not just automatically ban them because there are some radicals within their organisation.” He added: “Extremism and radicalism, where it is not an offence – we don’t want to drive that underground.”

BBC News, 1 December 2005


Robert Spencer is not happy: “So fair and foul an example of dhimmitude and wrongheadedness I have not seen.”

Dhimmi Watch, 1 December 2005