Monday
Jul022007
Jihad Trumps Hippocratic Oath
Monday, July 2, 2007 at 10:42AM 
What ideology would lead a prominent neurologist (sworn to a life of healing and care of the suffering) to become the ring-leader in a plot in the UK to pack two large Mercedes with gasoline, propane and nails with the goal of killing and maiming hundreds in downtown London?
It is not Christianity . . .
It is not even frustration in dealing with insurance companies or HMOs, or even the UK's socialist bureaucracy which regulates health care.
Surprise, surprise, it is Islam, the religion of "peace."
Click here: 'Terror ringleader' is brilliant NHS doctor | the Daily Mail
Reader Comments (11)
As vile and Satanic as Islam is,while the man denies the charges and has not yet faced trial, let's try to hold back on passing sentence.
CAIR Views Conservative Commentary as 'Incitement'
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
July 03, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - An Islamic advocacy group is urging its supporters to call a Washington, D.C., radio station to "express your concerns about the Islamophobic attitudes" expressed by conservative columnist and author Cal Thomas.
In a commentary on news-talk WTOP radio Monday morning, Thomas discussed the car-bomb terror attacks recently thwarted in the United Kingdom. The eight Muslims arrested in connection with the plot include several physicians.
"How much longer should we allow people from certain lands, with certain beliefs to come to Britain and America and build their mosques, teach hate, and plot to kill us?" Thomas asked.
He also compared Muslims to a "slow-spreading cancer" that must be stopped.
In its message to supporters, the Council on American-Islamic Relations described Thomas''s remarks as "incitement." The message included the name and work telephone number of WTOP's vice president of programming.
In recent years, CAIR has issued a number of "incitement watches" which CAIR''s critics view as efforts to squelch free speech.
On Tuesday, July 17, CAIR plans to host a panel discussion in Washington on "the increasing anti-Muslim rhetoric within the conservative movement in the United States."
The panelists will include David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, and Parvez Ahmed, CAIR chairman.
The discussion will focus "on the negative impact of [anti-Muslim] views on religious tolerance in America and on relations with the Muslim world," CAIR said.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12172/Brown:-Don
Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word “Muslim” in connection with the terrorism crisis.
The Prime Minister has also instructed his team – including new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith – that the phrase “war on terror” is to be dropped.
The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more “consensual” tone than existed under Tony Blair.
However, the change provoked claims last night that ministers are indulging in yet more political correctness.
The sudden shift in tone emerged in comments by Mr Brown and Ms Smith in the wake of the failed attacks in London and Glasgow.
Mr Brown’s spokesman acknowledged yesterday that ministers had been given specific guidelines to avoid inflammatory language.
There is clearly a need to strike a consensual tone in relation to all communities across the UK
Mr Brown’s spokesman
“There is clearly a need to strike a consensual tone in relation to all communities across the UK,” the spokesman said. “It is important that the country remains united.”
He confirmed that the phrase “war on terror” – strongly associated with Mr Blair and US President George Bush – has been dropped.
Officials insist that no direct links with Muslim extremists have been publicly confirmed by police investigating the latest attempted terror attacks. Mr Brown himself did not refer to Muslims or Islam once in a BBC TV interview on Sunday.
Ms Smith also avoided any such reference in her statement to MPs yesterday.
http://historiaecclesiastica.com/?p=407
DSY
and "rhetoric," as the word is used anymore in our time, really serves no good end.
zrim
Reprinted from NewsMax.com
Muslim Societies Can't Be Trusted
Barrett Kalellis
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Not many in the media, much less in the general public, have a real understanding of what is incessantly and mistakenly called the "war on terror," and for this reason, our military initiatives in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as peacemaking efforts in Palestine, have all come a cropper.
Our enemies are not just a few numbers of radical Islamists, committed to violent and subversive acts. They are only the activist vanguard of a sizeable population of Muslim sympathizers with an agenda: to establish Islamist states throughout the world, whether by subverting established governments, or by letting increasing Muslim demographics accomplish this for them, as in Western Europe.
In surveying the level of global revolutionary terror or threats of violence, with few exceptions one would find a reinvigorated jihadism at the root. The geography is frightening: from the Philippines to Indonesia, from Thailand to Bahrain, from Mauritania to Ethiopia, in all Middle East countries, in ethnic Albania and the former Soviet republics, and including the current strife in France, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, and now even in Switzerland. In the U.S., the jihadists remain more or less under cover.
Our policy benightedness in dealing with Islam has a long paternity — clueless politicians and diplomats, wrongheaded advisors; widespread ignorance of history, foreign cultures, languages and beliefs; and naïve acceptance at face value of adversary claims and promises — all wrapped in the feel-good but self-delusional world of multiculturalism.
For these and other reasons, State Department men of yesterday have gotten it wrong for decades, failing to understand that Muslim societies cannot be trusted in international relations. Americans have to recognize that our most pressing Middle East foreign problems, current and future, lie in the nature of Islamic belief itself.
Islam is not simply a system of theology, doctrine and laws, but more accurately, a political ideology disguised as a religion. It is totalitarian and supremacist and according to its central tenets, followers cannot question what they have been taught, and they must not tolerate other beliefs. In the Muslim mind, there are believers and there are infidels.
At a recent conference on the current impact of Islamic fundamentalism on Europe sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance, author Dick McDonald succinctly summarized the matter: "Islam is promoted by the left as a ‘religion of peace,' but in reality is headed by a God that believes in killing non-believers. That makes Islam not a true religion but an ideology which demands the death sentence for you, should you depart from it or its rigid demands . . . a cult in which the allegiance of its devotées is not to America but to their ideological group, Islam."
What, then, does this mean for America? It means that Muslims in the U.S., as they are in Western Europe and other countries, are a self-segregating and generally unintegrable population whose collectivist beliefs are fundamentally inimical to American values of democratic government and individual freedoms, to equal rights for women, as well as to skeptical inquiry and intellectual rejection of religious dogma.
This has historically led Muslims to be submissive to despotic regimes, where Islamic state power usually falls into the hands of the most extreme elements.
Since 9/11, Muslim enclaves in the U.S., supported by whining advocacy lobbies like CAIR, MPAC and others, are bringing lawsuits demanding special accommodations: Islamic prayer rooms in public places, the right of taxi drivers to refuse passengers who carry bottles of alcoholic beverages, the right to broadcast the "call to prayer" over loudspeakers five times a day in communities surrounding a mosque, publicly funded foot washbasins at college campuses, and so on.
At the same time, these groups are pressuring federal legislators to outlaw profiling of Muslims by law enforcement and national security personnel as a matter of discrimination, and threaten defamation lawsuits against anyone who singles out a Muslim engaged in suspicious activity. Yet CAIR itself — a Hamas spin-off organization funded primarily by Saudi money — has been named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas funding court case in Texas.
For the most part, the mainstream media have taken a preposterously non-judgmental position on matters relating to Muslim appeasement and possible terror threats, succumbing to the fog of deception that Muslim advocacy groups are only too eager to spread.
For example, The New York Times saw fit to put the story of the three Muslims that were going to blow up JFK airport on Page 37, in favor of an Indian brick-making business article on Page One.
In Britain, a government survey of university Islamic Studies courses has shown that students are being exposed to extreme teachings that condone terrorism. Is this any different in the U.S., where great sums of Saudi money are going to university Islamic Studies programs, mosque-building projects and Muslim advocacy groups across the country, where Wahhabism is the main message?
Who is behind the increased recruitment and conversion of prisoners by Muslims in U.S. prisons, and why are they involved in 14 Muslim paramilitary training camps here? Who is funding these operations?
Taken as a whole, the mainstream media is unusually silent about the fifth column nature of Islam in this country. Isolated cases are simply labeled as such; not part of a larger pattern. This leaves most Americans unaware of the true threat of increasing Islamization over time.
In areas where Muslims predominate, the push to introduce Sharia (Islamic) law is ever-present. American Muslim magazine published an article in February 2007 which suggested that this could be accomplished by using Native American tribal law as a model, "as we attempt to implement Muslim family law in North America."
A few years ago, Canadian Muslims were pushing provincial government in Ontario to set up Sharia law to adjudicate disputes within Muslim communities. In response, a united group of secularists fought this move and legislation was passed mandating that family legal arbitrations must now use Canadian law.
These skirmishes are far from over since Islamic jurists have determined that whenever Muslims become a majority in a nation, Sharia must become the law of the land.
Muslims in America represent both a short-term and a long-term problem. In the short run, we must be vigilant against homegrown terror plots and those imported from abroad. This seems to be the only threat the media are concerned about.
Fear rather the long term: If we remain in the dark about this unassimilable group whose entire belief system is incompatible with American values, we will do little to resist it. And considering Europe and other countries, once Muslim numbers grow, societies are destabilized.
Although America is the land of the short-term fix, we should really be looking at the big picture. The growth of Islam in the U.S. should be watched closely — immigration should be controlled and newcomers should be scrutinized for jihadist tendencies. If the number of Muslims here increases significantly in coming years, we will sooner or later lose whatever it is that makes us Americans.
In this case, the past is indeed prologue.
Barrett Kalellis is a Michigan-based columnist, writer and pundit whose commentary appears regularly in various local and national print and online publications.
http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/26/120947.shtml
The Labour party has fallen down on the job woefully as far as protecting the British people. They've also passed Orwellian gun control and anti self-defense laws that prevent them from protecting themselves. Now Gordon Brown isn't allowing anyone to mention the fact that these people are Muslims. As Calvin would say, you can't rebel against your government, but you shouldn't tolerate tyranny either.
DSY