Al Jihad Video

[nonesuche]

Anna emailed this to me, in her words it's "chilling" and indeed it is, but it does evidence exactly what I think so many miss. Perhaps this video will be enlightening for somehow some forget that al jihad's primary goal is to defeat the US however they can and at whatever cost.

http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

[mrs. red]

that video is my fear... and yes, we most definately have them already here.... and just waiting...

this is no "religion of peace" ..... it's scary to me that there are still people that don't get it... that they don't want our understanding... they want our death...

[Tamikosmom]

A PLO executive, Zahir Mahsein, conveyed the Islamic agenda for the world to hear.  Yet, Israel fails to heed .... she continues to further that agenda when she attempts to appeases the enemy by relinquishing, piece by piece, her God-given land.

Janet


Way back on March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.


Please read entire article at:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222

[nonesuche]

It is true, it's death and in their minds a righteous pursuit toward the glorification of the tenants of al jihad to kill those who will not convert. tamikosmom is right, this has been building for decades and just as with hitler, few have been listening.

[mrs. red]

takisosmom is also correct that there never was a Palestine state... that it is entirely made up...and it's amazing to me that so many have decided to go along with the premise of this "state".  

I have never been one that isn't "live and let live"...not really, I have my opinions which granted, are extremely strong but I don't really get mad at anyone that doesn't share my beliefs, just ask my best friend, who is as liberal as I am conservative... however, I think that this Country is in complete danger of being overly PC and brining about our own demise.

[Anna]

A National Security Primer, Part 1
Understanding "Jihadistan" and Islamic terrorism
By Mark Alexander
The first constitutional responsibility of any U.S. President is to our national security. In the event that our vital national interests are threatened, the President has the authority to commit armed forces to protect those interests.

On 11 September, 2001, after eight years of the Clinton administration's national security malfeasance, and eight months of the newly installed Bush administration's effort to reorder national priorities, most Americans were unaware that a deadly enemy had coalesced in our midst. But before noon on 9/11, it became clear that our vital national interests -- both the security of our homeland and the stability of our energy providers abroad -- were under assault. An enemy had declared war on the United States, and it was an enemy unlike any before.

Sheik Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, al-Qa'ida (translated as "The Base"), constitute an asymmetric enemy -- part of an international and increasingly unified Islamic terrorist network supported, in part, by nation states like Iran and Syria, and previously by Afghanistan and Iraq.

Unlike symmetric threats emanating from clearly defined nation states such as Russia and China -- those with unambiguous political, economic and geographical interests -- an asymmetric enemy defies nation-state status, thus presenting new and daunting national-security challenges for the executive branch and U.S. military planners.

Perhaps the most difficult of these challenges is the task of keeping Americans focused on why this asymmetric threat must be engaged (short of periodic catastrophic wake-up calls). It is critical that Americans understand this formidable adversary, particularly since liberal Democrats and their Leftmedia outlets have politicized our efforts to both combat this enemy and support democratic reforms in the Middle East.

Unfortunately, out of deference to cultural sensitivity and diversity, the Bush administration has yet to clearly define or, dare we say, "profile" these Islamists. Consequently, The Patriot refers to this asymmetric enemy collectively as "Jihadistan."

Jihadistan is a borderless nation of Islamic extremists that constitutes al-Qa'ida and other Muslim terrorist groups around the world. A borderless nation? Indeed. The "Islamic World" of the Quran recognizes no political borders. Though orthodox Muslims (those who subscribe to the teachings of the "pre-Medina" Quran) do not support acts of terrorism or mass murder, sects within the Islamic world subscribe to the "post-Mecca" Quran and Hadiths (Mohammed's teachings). It is this latter group of death-worshipping sects that calls for jihad, or "holy war," against all "the enemies of God." (These enemies, or infidels, consist of all non-Muslims).

Jihadists, then, are characterized by the toxic Wahhabism of al-Qa'ida's Osama bin Laden and his heretical ilk -- those who would remake the Muslim world in their own image of twisted hate and deathly obsession. In the words of bin Laden himself: "We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the big difference between us." Al-Qa'ida seeks to disable the U.S. economy using any means at their disposal, and thus, undermine our political, military and cultural support for liberty around the world. Bin Laden's plan, "American Hiroshima," outlines an attack on the U.S. with multiple nukes. Ultimately, they seek to contain or kill those who do not subscribe to their Islamofascist ideology.

How many members of the Muslim faith subscribe to the notion that non-adherents are infidels? Perhaps fewer than five percent take such a hard line. But to put this in perspective, if just one percent of Muslims worldwide inhabit the brotherhood of Jihadistan, then there are 10 times more Jihadists than there are uniformed American combat personnel in our combined military service branches.

Jihadistan is thus a formidable, but not insuperable, enemy.

Source: http://PatriotPost.US/papers/primer01.asp

These articles can be found at the link beneath them.

Understanding "Jihadistan" and Islamic terrorism
Responding to the WMD threat -- Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom
The Long War against Jihadistan
The unthinkable -- perhaps the inevitable
The Real Islam
http://patriotpost.us/papers/primer02.asp

 

Mark Alexander along with Michelle Malkin is one of two recent recipients of honors from Accuracy in Media.

[Tamikosmom]

Ronald Reagan is considered a hero by this Canadian.

If the logic of this great statesman had been comprehended .... today the democracies of the free world would not be held hostage by the Islamic agenda.

Reagan reconized that the politically correct policies that democratic governments of the free world were adopting in the 70/80's in regards to immigration .... in regards to the "special" rights afforded to "certain" immigrants .... in the name of tolerance .... would ultimately be used as a weapon to destroy our civilizations as we know it.

If the democracies of the free world do not wake up quickly and .... do what needs to be done ..... say what needs to be said for the protection of their own ...... for the protection of westerm civilization ..... I can only assume that 9/11 was just a preview of what lies ahead.

Janet


6-21-04

Before We  Move on, Let's Remember Ronald Reagan's First Victory Against Terrorism
By Daniel Pipes

The first American victory in the war on terror was won by Ronald Reagan, and it happened on Jan. 20, 1981, the first day of his presidency.

That was when the jihadists running the Islamic Republic of Iran released 52 American hostages precisely as Reagan took the oath of office. After 444 days of humbling Jimmy Carter, the rulers in Tehran decided to conclude their drama at the U.S. embassy before they had to face the new president. This marked the first of Reagan's foreign policy successes.

To begin, some background: When Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah of Iran in February 1979, he established the first modern Islamist regime, one drawing on fascist and communist methods but with the quite different goal of implementing Islamic law (the Shari‘a). Like the Taliban regime that later came to power in Afghanistan, the Khomeinists claimed to have the answers to all life's questions. They created a totalitarian order intent on controlling every aspect of Iranian life domestically and spreading the revolution abroad.

In common with all radical utopian despots, Khomeini viewed the United States as the main obstacle to implementing his program. Like the Taliban leaders later, he attacked individual Americans. Only in his case, he settled for the Americans conveniently on Iranian soil, rather than going to the trouble of attacking New York and Washington.

On November 4, 1979, a mob indirectly under Khomeini's direction seized the U.S. embassy in Tehran, an action that encouraged Islamist confidence and unleashed Muslim fury against Americans worldwide. That fury then took violent form when Khomeini inaccurately declared that the capture of the Great Mosque of Mecca on November 20 was a U.S.-led assault on the sanctities of Islam. (In fact, it was carried out by a group of bin Laden-like fanatics.)

A wave of anti-American mob attacks then followed in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The worst of the violence was in Libya and Pakistan; in the latter country, four deaths resulted – among the first fatalities of militant Islam's war on America.

In reaction, Jimmy Carter hemmed like Bill Clinton and hawed like John Kerry. He got bogged down in diplomatic details and lost sight of principles and goals. For example, he responded in part to the embassy takeover by hoping "to convince and to persuade the Iranian leaders that the real danger to their nation lies in the north, in the Soviet Union."

He responded to diplomatic efforts like a technician: "It's up to the Iranians" to make the next move, he said in late 1980. "I think it would certainly be to their advantage and to ours to resolve this issue without any further delay. I think our answers are adequate. I believe the Iranian proposal was a basis for a resolution of the differences."

In contrast, as president-elect, Ronald Reagan took a bold stance. He called the Iranian captors "criminals and kidnappers" and he called the political leaders "kidnappers." If they understood from his insults, he added, "that they shouldn't be waiting for me [to take office], I'd be very happy."

Reagan and his aides adopted a threatening tone. "We'll just have to do something to bring [the hostages] home," he warned. Edwin Meese III, his transition chief, spoke more explicitly: "the Iranians should be prepared that this country will take whatever action is appropriate" and they "ought to think over very carefully the fact that it would certainly be to their advantage to get the hostages back now."

Reagan's tough words and tough reputation won the United States a rare bloodless victory over militant Islam. Even a senior Carter administration official, though preferring to emphasize his boss's mistakes over Reagan's strengths, grudgingly acknowledged that "we probably would not be getting the hostages out now if Carter had been reelected."