With Iran racing forward with its nuclear program, Israel now believes the Islamic Republic will master centrifuge technology and be able to begin enriching uranium on a military scale this year, The Jerusalem Post has learned.
The new assessment moves up Israel's forecasts on Teheran's nuclear program by almost a full year - from 2009 to the end of 2008. According to the new timeline, Iran could have a nuclear weapon by the middle of next year.
Iran, a senior defense official said on Tuesday, had encountered numerous technical obstacles on its way to enriching uranium but was now on track to master the technology needed to enrich uranium within six months.
Israel is also concerned that Teheran is developing a cruise missile that can evade interception by the Arrow, the IDF's anti-ballistic missile defense system. Iran is suspected of having smuggled Ukrainian X-55 cruise missiles and using them as models for an independent, domestic project. A cruise missile, which flies at low altitudes to dodge radar detection and interception, could be used to carry a nuclear warhead.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Tuesday that Israel had the ability to create the tools needed to ensure its continued existence. Hinting at Iran, Olmert said that nothing in the world could undermine or bring an end to Israel's existence.
In a speech to a Keren Hayesod group, Olmert said, "I am asking that you take this with you and tell it to your communities everywhere - the people of Israel are strong, the State of Israel is strong, there is no enemy that can destroy us."
"We will not place ourselves in a position where anyone will, in an effective manner, threaten us with destruction, because if there was one thing that has changed since the establishment of the State of Israel 60 years ago until today, it is not that here the Jews are safe in every situation, in every condition and that there will not be any dangers," Olmert said. "There are also dangers here, like in many other places.
"But here, my friends, the Jewish people can fight, and when it needs to, it fights, and when it fights, it wins."
Last week, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said during a visit to the US that Teheran would likely achieve control of the technology to enrich uranium for an atomic bomb within a year.
In the past, the consensus in the intelligence community was that Iran had encountered technical difficulties with fuel enrichment and that its attainment of nuclear capability was much further off, Mofaz said, but a recent IDF Military Intelligence assessment showed that the Islamic Republic could go nuclear before the end of the decade.
Also Tuesday, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warned that more nations would follow the examples of Iran and North Korea and work to develop nuclear weapons. He said that the possibility that Syria was building a weapons-capable nuclear reactor before the IAF destroyed it on September 6 showed that NATO must find an answer to ballistic missile threats.
"The nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea threaten to set in motion a domino effect that will be difficult to contain," de Hoop Scheffer said in a speech at a missile defense conference at the Czech Foreign Ministry.
"If there is a serious suspicion that in Syria there was a facility in the making, it only increases the arguments... for finding a collective answer to a ballistic missile defense threat," the NATO chief said.
CIA Director Michael Hayden said last month that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational.
"The number of states that possess ballistic missiles is already growing, slowly and surely," de Hoop Scheffer said. "The proliferation of ballistic missiles is a reality that concerns us all."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
OUTLAWING THE PIG
Outlawing the Pig
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/2/2008
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B4D7EA5D-074C-4D34-AB04-71E9354504CB
The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.
If this continues, good ol' American food, such as barbeque replete with hot dogs and ribs and the typical American breakfast of eggs, bacon and sausage, might be seen as the equivalent of political poison. Could outright censorship of pig depictions in drawings, pig references in literary works and pig portrayals in movies be far behind? Could the well-known, cartoon figure Porky Pig become a cultural embarrassment of our unenlightened past as we fear to utter the "P" word?
Though the notion may seem more appropriate for a comedy routine, an increasing number of pig-related incidents, accommodations and Muslim demands in recent years points to an uncertain future for our porcine friend and its place in our economy, culture and our culinary traditions.
In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks. At about the same time, government social welfare offices called for the removal of all pig paraphernalia, including pig calendars, toys and accessories from employee desks. These new regulations were ostensibly implemented so as not to offend Muslim patrons.
Meanwhile, in the United States in 2007, several school districts removed pork products from their cafeteria offerings. Dearborn, Mich., schools banned pork completely to avoid the possibility that Muslims students might unknowingly eat it. The district later added special halal foods to its menu to cater to the demands of its Muslim population. An elementary school in San Diego that offers Arabic, single-gender classes and Muslim-only organized prayer, no longer offers pork to any of its students. And in Oak Lawn, Ill., where the administration is debating elimination of Christmas holiday celebrations, pork has already been banished from the school lunchroom.
Orthodox Jews, who follow kosher laws that prohibit the consumption of pork, have never demanded such special considerations for their chosen dietary habits nor have Jews feared accidental pork ingestion. They privately moderate their consumption according to their religious observances and often consume food prepared at home according to prescribed regulations.
Contrast this to how Muslims and their dietary habits are treated. In April 2007, a 13-year-old middle school prankster was suspended and his behavior labeled a hate crime for placing a bag with a ham steak on the lunch table of a group of Muslim students. That same month, Muslims started a Facebook group, "Fight Against Pork in Frito-Lay Products." The more than 1,800 participants sought to pressure the company to remove pork enzymes from its cheese seasonings.
Last year, Somali Muslim employees at a St. Louis Park, Minn. Target store refused to handle pork products, citing religious reasons. Target made special allowances for Muslim employees, who now scrutinize customer purchases and can call for assistance when a pork product appears at their check stand. Presumably, the Muslim employees knew they would be encountering bacon and pepperoni pizza when they signed on for their jobs and have no problem collecting a salary paid out of profits from pork sales.
In 2007, the Year of the Pig, an imam in Taipei complained after receiving a greeting card from Taiwan's foreign minister depicting celebrating pigs. When "Year of the Pig" postal stamps were issued, the Taiwanese government cautioned citizens about using them on letters and parcels to Muslim friends or to Muslim countries. That year, China banned pig images and the mention of pigs in television advertisement to avoid offending the country's Muslims.
This year, the popular story, The Three Little Pigs, was banned in a primary school in the United Kingdom as the school's administration thought references to pigs might offend Muslim pupils. Another school removed all books containing stories about pigs, including the talking pig 'Babe' from classrooms following complaints from Muslim parents. In 2007, a UK church school production of The Three Little Pigs was renamed The Three Little Puppies to maintain multi-cultural sensitivities. Ironically, the pig is mentioned often in the Koran as a derogatory reference to Jews.
In further accommodation to Muslims, Fortis Bank in the Netherlands and Belgium dropped its pig mascot. Knorbert the pig was eliminated after seven years with a statement from a bank spokesperson that "Knorbert does not meet the requirements that the multicultural society imposes on us."
A recent BBC report described how pork butchers are gradually being put out of business as Turkey adopts a more fundamentalist Muslim character. Pork slaughterhouses are being closed in record numbers to accommodate shariah law countrywide.
In 2004, a Muslim-owned investment company, Arcapita (formerly Capital Crescent Investments) acquired the 1,200-unit Church's Chicken chain. In 2005, Arcapita, with a net income of $70.5 million and assets worth $1.2 billion (2004), enjoined a franchisee from selling pork products. In correspondence with the franchisee, the corporate owners cited violation of shariah law as the reason for prohibiting the sale of bacon, ham and sausages. The restaurant owners were thereby forced to surrender to corporate demands and operate under shariah law.
Where will this end? Will "Animal Farm" be banned at our high schools and university campuses? Will the words "pork barrel spending" and "porker" be eliminated from the vernacular? Will Piggly Wiggly supermarkets be forced to change its name and re-brand its products? This could all be quite amusing if the implications weren't so grave.
The pig is an icon of American culture, a culinary tradition and an important component of our economy. While high grain prices and competition from Chinese imports are recognized as the two greatest threats to the industry, hog producers could be overlooking a larger threat to their livelihood looming on the horizon.
Pork production is a vital part of the U.S. economy, producing more than 22 billion pounds of meat annually, contributing almost $40 billion to the GNP and employing more than 500,000 workers in pork-industry related jobs. In addition, important pork co-products include heart valves, skin grafts for burn victims, gelatin, plywood, glue, cosmetics and plastics. At 28% of total world production, the U.S. is the second largest pork producer after China, which produces close to 50% of the world total. Pork ranks third in U.S. meat production behind beef and chicken and average yearly per capita consumption is about 50 pounds.
If the momentum to alter America's dining habits and cultural traditions to suit Muslim religious habits continues, American liberty, freedom and culture could actually be threatened. Laughable though it may seem on the surface, Arab petrodollar profits have the heft to use an economic, backdoor approach to implement shariah law in the United States against the will of the public. As Arab Muslims continue to heavily invest in our economy, they will continue to force submission to shariah law and undermine our democracy, individual rights and religious freedom. We must be vigilant and aware of this threat and act against it vigorously and immediately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
By Janet Levy
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/2/2008
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=B4D7EA5D-074C-4D34-AB04-71E9354504CB
The practice of political correctness may soon be tallying another casualty: the pig. Increasingly, as America and the rest of the Western world continue accommodating Muslim religious demands, pork food products are being singled out for removal from dining tables and pig-related trinkets banished from the desks of office workers.
If this continues, good ol' American food, such as barbeque replete with hot dogs and ribs and the typical American breakfast of eggs, bacon and sausage, might be seen as the equivalent of political poison. Could outright censorship of pig depictions in drawings, pig references in literary works and pig portrayals in movies be far behind? Could the well-known, cartoon figure Porky Pig become a cultural embarrassment of our unenlightened past as we fear to utter the "P" word?
Though the notion may seem more appropriate for a comedy routine, an increasing number of pig-related incidents, accommodations and Muslim demands in recent years points to an uncertain future for our porcine friend and its place in our economy, culture and our culinary traditions.
In October of 2005, the United Kingdom, clearly further along on the road to dhimmitude due to its proportionally large and more radical Muslim population, banned piggybanks as promotional gifts from its banks. At about the same time, government social welfare offices called for the removal of all pig paraphernalia, including pig calendars, toys and accessories from employee desks. These new regulations were ostensibly implemented so as not to offend Muslim patrons.
Meanwhile, in the United States in 2007, several school districts removed pork products from their cafeteria offerings. Dearborn, Mich., schools banned pork completely to avoid the possibility that Muslims students might unknowingly eat it. The district later added special halal foods to its menu to cater to the demands of its Muslim population. An elementary school in San Diego that offers Arabic, single-gender classes and Muslim-only organized prayer, no longer offers pork to any of its students. And in Oak Lawn, Ill., where the administration is debating elimination of Christmas holiday celebrations, pork has already been banished from the school lunchroom.
Orthodox Jews, who follow kosher laws that prohibit the consumption of pork, have never demanded such special considerations for their chosen dietary habits nor have Jews feared accidental pork ingestion. They privately moderate their consumption according to their religious observances and often consume food prepared at home according to prescribed regulations.
Contrast this to how Muslims and their dietary habits are treated. In April 2007, a 13-year-old middle school prankster was suspended and his behavior labeled a hate crime for placing a bag with a ham steak on the lunch table of a group of Muslim students. That same month, Muslims started a Facebook group, "Fight Against Pork in Frito-Lay Products." The more than 1,800 participants sought to pressure the company to remove pork enzymes from its cheese seasonings.
Last year, Somali Muslim employees at a St. Louis Park, Minn. Target store refused to handle pork products, citing religious reasons. Target made special allowances for Muslim employees, who now scrutinize customer purchases and can call for assistance when a pork product appears at their check stand. Presumably, the Muslim employees knew they would be encountering bacon and pepperoni pizza when they signed on for their jobs and have no problem collecting a salary paid out of profits from pork sales.
In 2007, the Year of the Pig, an imam in Taipei complained after receiving a greeting card from Taiwan's foreign minister depicting celebrating pigs. When "Year of the Pig" postal stamps were issued, the Taiwanese government cautioned citizens about using them on letters and parcels to Muslim friends or to Muslim countries. That year, China banned pig images and the mention of pigs in television advertisement to avoid offending the country's Muslims.
This year, the popular story, The Three Little Pigs, was banned in a primary school in the United Kingdom as the school's administration thought references to pigs might offend Muslim pupils. Another school removed all books containing stories about pigs, including the talking pig 'Babe' from classrooms following complaints from Muslim parents. In 2007, a UK church school production of The Three Little Pigs was renamed The Three Little Puppies to maintain multi-cultural sensitivities. Ironically, the pig is mentioned often in the Koran as a derogatory reference to Jews.
In further accommodation to Muslims, Fortis Bank in the Netherlands and Belgium dropped its pig mascot. Knorbert the pig was eliminated after seven years with a statement from a bank spokesperson that "Knorbert does not meet the requirements that the multicultural society imposes on us."
A recent BBC report described how pork butchers are gradually being put out of business as Turkey adopts a more fundamentalist Muslim character. Pork slaughterhouses are being closed in record numbers to accommodate shariah law countrywide.
In 2004, a Muslim-owned investment company, Arcapita (formerly Capital Crescent Investments) acquired the 1,200-unit Church's Chicken chain. In 2005, Arcapita, with a net income of $70.5 million and assets worth $1.2 billion (2004), enjoined a franchisee from selling pork products. In correspondence with the franchisee, the corporate owners cited violation of shariah law as the reason for prohibiting the sale of bacon, ham and sausages. The restaurant owners were thereby forced to surrender to corporate demands and operate under shariah law.
Where will this end? Will "Animal Farm" be banned at our high schools and university campuses? Will the words "pork barrel spending" and "porker" be eliminated from the vernacular? Will Piggly Wiggly supermarkets be forced to change its name and re-brand its products? This could all be quite amusing if the implications weren't so grave.
The pig is an icon of American culture, a culinary tradition and an important component of our economy. While high grain prices and competition from Chinese imports are recognized as the two greatest threats to the industry, hog producers could be overlooking a larger threat to their livelihood looming on the horizon.
Pork production is a vital part of the U.S. economy, producing more than 22 billion pounds of meat annually, contributing almost $40 billion to the GNP and employing more than 500,000 workers in pork-industry related jobs. In addition, important pork co-products include heart valves, skin grafts for burn victims, gelatin, plywood, glue, cosmetics and plastics. At 28% of total world production, the U.S. is the second largest pork producer after China, which produces close to 50% of the world total. Pork ranks third in U.S. meat production behind beef and chicken and average yearly per capita consumption is about 50 pounds.
If the momentum to alter America's dining habits and cultural traditions to suit Muslim religious habits continues, American liberty, freedom and culture could actually be threatened. Laughable though it may seem on the surface, Arab petrodollar profits have the heft to use an economic, backdoor approach to implement shariah law in the United States against the will of the public. As Arab Muslims continue to heavily invest in our economy, they will continue to force submission to shariah law and undermine our democracy, individual rights and religious freedom. We must be vigilant and aware of this threat and act against it vigorously and immediately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
Monday, May 5, 2008
America THE REPUBLIC
TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS
By Rocky
These words should be familiar to every American but how many give thought to what they really mean? Simply put, the United States of America is a REPUBLIC. We were founded as a Republic and a Republic we remain today, yet, few people give much thought to that these days and I wonder if it is even taught in schools today. From observing what my 13 year old daughter is taught in school, especially in American History and Civics classes, I am appalled at what they are not taught. For example, kids today, at least in the schools that my kids attend, are not taught about the Constitution, the very core of our laws and government, the document on which this nation was founded. In realizing that I began to wonder just how many adult Americans know about our form of government and just how far from it’s original origin we, as a nation, have began to stray?
Today, just about everything on the news is about the upcoming election, about “party politics”, i.e. debates and mud-slinging. We hear little about issues, at least to the point of how we, as a nation, are to solve the problems that threaten our very existence. What is this “party politics” any way?
Founded as a Republic, our nation is suppose to be “of the people, for the people and by the people”, yet, “We, the People”, have very little to say about any thing. Granted, you can say that we have elected representatives who speak for us, but do we? Do they really speak for us or do they speak in terms of the “Party line”? How many representatives do you know that vote as you wish them to vote rather than how their particular Party votes? That, to me, is one, if not the number one problem, of the many problems we face in this country. The people have no voice in reality. Our nation was not founded on parties, in fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that speaks of parties.
Our Representatives each must take an oath of office. That oath states that they swear, before God and the people, that they will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. We, the People must not allow our elected Representatives to take that oath lightly! However, it appears that we have become so complacent in this regard that that is exactly what we are doing. This oath is a contract, if you will, between our elected Representatives and We, the People. This oath tells us that our Representatives will protect our rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. I fear, in fact, I know that they are not, nor are the courts, including the Supreme Court.
The recent passage of the gun bill which allows the government to block the sale of gun to veterans with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prime example. This newly passed law, which was not passed by majority vote of the full Congress but only a partial representative body thereof during the Christmas break, allows the government, mainly the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, to label those veterans with PTSD as “mentally defective”. PTSD is not medically considered as a mental disorder, per se, but is rather listed in the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual, DSM IV, the manual by doctors to make medical and mental diagnosis, as an anxiety disorder. Anxiety does not make one “mentally defective”. If it did a great number of our law enforcement personnel, judges, politicians, major business executives, actors and people in ordinary jobs would also fall under this category and be banned, by this new law, from buying a gun. This law is, in my opinion, also, unconstitutional.
The courts have yet to ascertain just what is meant by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and whether or not said Amendment extends the rights of individuals to bear arms or just the state organized militias.
Pointing out that interest in the “character of the Second Amendment right has recently burgeoned,” Justice Thomas, concurring in the Court’s invalidation (on other grounds) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, questioned whether the Second Amendment bars federal regulation of gun sales, and suggested that the Court might determine “at some future date . . . whether Justice Story was correct . . . that the right to bear arms ‘has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.’ ”
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937–39 (1997) (quoting 3 Commentaries Sec. 1890, p. 746 (1833)). Justice Scalia, in extra–judicial writing, has sided with the individual rights interpretation of the Amendment. See Antonin Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 136–37 n.13 (A. Gutmann, ed., 1997) (responding to Professor Tribe’s critique of “my interpretation of the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government will not interfere with the individual’s right to bear arms for self–defense”).
To me, it is clear that until such time as the Constitution is further amended and said amendment ratified pursuant to Constitutional Law that the Constitution means just what it says and is written in such form as to allow even a individual with limited education to understand its meaning. In that regard here is what the courts say:
The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction, and no excuse for interpolation or addition. — Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat 304; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat 419; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet 10; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U.S. 139; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U.S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U.S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U.S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655; (Justice) Story on the Constitution, 5th ed., Sec 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations, 2nd ed., p. 61, 70.
To disregard such a deliberate choice of words and their natural meaning, would be a departure from the first principle of constitutional interpretation. "In expounding the Constitution of the United States," said Chief Justice Taney in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 U.S. 540, 570-1, "every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that, no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation and its force and effect to have been fully understood. — Wright v. United States, 302 U.S. 583 (1938).
The courts are not without duty to keep our elected Representatives in check when they step on the rights of the states and individuals. It is the duty of the courts to protect the Constitutional rights of every American citizen.
The courts are not bound by mere forms, nor are they to be misled by mere pretences. They are at liberty — indeed, are under a solemn duty — to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If therefore, a statute purporting to have been enacted to protect the public health, the public morals, or the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects, or is a palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of thye courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution. — Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 661.
The recent law passed by our Representatives has yet to be challenged in the courts, however, it is my opinion that such a challenge is in order. Our Representatives must be mindful that “We, the People” are not going to continue to sit by and allow them to just walk all over us, at least I hope that is the case. If it is not, if “We, the People continue to be complacent we may soon find that our liberty and freedom, that we so cherish, is gone.
We give much attention to the freedom and the human rights of peoples in foreign lands. Our government, is ever ready to speak out against any government who dose not grant religious and political freedom to it’s people, yet, if we are paying attention, if we are mindful of what is happening in our own country we see such freedoms slipping away from us almost daily.
The First Amendment of our Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting as establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof”, yet we have seen it come to pass where Congress has done just the opposite, and they want to take it even further and take “One nation under God” from the Pledge to our flag and, thus, “to the Republic for which it stands.” Are we going to sit by and allow that to happen? I surely hope not! The Constitution clearly states that our Representatives, our government, is to remain out of the business of religion. Yet, if that religion happens to be Muslim our government goes out of its way to protect the rights and laws as established by the Islamic writings.
Wake up America!! Wake up before it is too late, before we begin asking ourselves the question, is this a dream, when our own government takes away what freedoms we have left.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
More Distrubing News for America
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Gaubatz: Islamic Manual in Falls Church, Virginia Calls on Muslims to Attack Olympians, Kill Priests and Nuns, Wage War on All Christians
http://theneinblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/gaubatz-islamic-manual-in-falls-church.html
Dave Gaubatz has posted a very disturbing discovery regarding a Jihad manual being sold at the Halalco Supermarket in Falls Church, Virginia. As Dave explains it on his Kids&Terrorism Blog:
"On 29 April 2008, I shopped at Halalco to verify the book is still available. It is located in the "Jihad" section of the bookstore. The manager 'Tariq' can show you the book and it is available for $12.95.
Following are some of the quotes:
1. "It is, in short, time to identify the enemy and declare the Jihad. Identify the enemy. Declare the Jihad. define its parameters. Indicate its opening statements. Delineate its outcome and indicate its end".
2. "The enemy is not merely a personnel but a method, a deen, with its Temples, the banks; with its holy places, the Stock Exchanges of the world; and its false scriptures, the data banks of figures, these magical millions and billions that hold the world's poor to ransom for the sake of a small elite of kafir power brokers, their core jewish, their allies the lawless Christians. It is with these the war must be waged".
3. "He who equips a fighter in the way of Allah, or looks after a fighters family at home is as good as one who fought".
4. "Priests in their churches, unlike recluse worshipping monks, should, of course be killed without any exception. Nuns along with Monks, deserve killing even more".
5. "No one has yet contemplated the impact of one destroyed Stock Exchange or Central Bank Archive".
6. "Not taking the jews and Christians as friends, not following their deen, not submitting to bid'a, neither its holidays (National Days, etc), nor in habits, not entering their places of worship, nor participating in their festivals-all this is vital in the prelude to the attack of a new Jihad."
7. "Strike at the time least expected. It follows that one should also strike at the place not expected. By extension, in light of the current situation, one may strike at several centres all at the same time, thus causing havoc in the enemy and in their response".
8. "One thing is certain-if the kuffar accept us and approve of us and claim they can live alongside us, then we have lost our Islam. The whole body-worshipping mushrik cult of Olympic fire worshipping sport is something unacceptable"."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
Gaubatz: Islamic Manual in Falls Church, Virginia Calls on Muslims to Attack Olympians, Kill Priests and Nuns, Wage War on All Christians
http://theneinblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/gaubatz-islamic-manual-in-falls-church.html
Dave Gaubatz has posted a very disturbing discovery regarding a Jihad manual being sold at the Halalco Supermarket in Falls Church, Virginia. As Dave explains it on his Kids&Terrorism Blog:
"On 29 April 2008, I shopped at Halalco to verify the book is still available. It is located in the "Jihad" section of the bookstore. The manager 'Tariq' can show you the book and it is available for $12.95.
Following are some of the quotes:
1. "It is, in short, time to identify the enemy and declare the Jihad. Identify the enemy. Declare the Jihad. define its parameters. Indicate its opening statements. Delineate its outcome and indicate its end".
2. "The enemy is not merely a personnel but a method, a deen, with its Temples, the banks; with its holy places, the Stock Exchanges of the world; and its false scriptures, the data banks of figures, these magical millions and billions that hold the world's poor to ransom for the sake of a small elite of kafir power brokers, their core jewish, their allies the lawless Christians. It is with these the war must be waged".
3. "He who equips a fighter in the way of Allah, or looks after a fighters family at home is as good as one who fought".
4. "Priests in their churches, unlike recluse worshipping monks, should, of course be killed without any exception. Nuns along with Monks, deserve killing even more".
5. "No one has yet contemplated the impact of one destroyed Stock Exchange or Central Bank Archive".
6. "Not taking the jews and Christians as friends, not following their deen, not submitting to bid'a, neither its holidays (National Days, etc), nor in habits, not entering their places of worship, nor participating in their festivals-all this is vital in the prelude to the attack of a new Jihad."
7. "Strike at the time least expected. It follows that one should also strike at the place not expected. By extension, in light of the current situation, one may strike at several centres all at the same time, thus causing havoc in the enemy and in their response".
8. "One thing is certain-if the kuffar accept us and approve of us and claim they can live alongside us, then we have lost our Islam. The whole body-worshipping mushrik cult of Olympic fire worshipping sport is something unacceptable"."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 6884
Virginia Beach, VA 23456
www.actforamerica.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
