Is Islam a Threat?

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this post from the Portuguese blog Inconveniente:

Is Islam a threat?

by Jose do Carmo

A few days ago, someone said to me that in his opinion, Islam is a religion like others, and he casually rejected the idea that it was a threat to the rich, strong, and civilized West.

Are there really no reasons to fear?

Well, beyond the very clear and explicit exhortations to violence and conquest, which can be read in the sacred texts of Islam, it is always history that shows us that since this religion emerged about 1,400 years ago, Muslims have consistently followed the Koranic command to make war on the infidels, on the House of War.

As a result, almost 75% of what was then called “Christendom” was definitively conquered by the House of Islam, including all of North Africa, Anatolia, Syria, etc.

Many European territories were under Muslim occupation, at times for centuries, from Portugal to Russia, passing through Spain, France, Italy, Ukraine, Lithuania, Serbia, Romania, etc. etc, only being liberated by force of arms.

More than 15 million Europeans were captured and enslaved in the name of jihad, in a process that lasted until the 19th century, reaching faraway Iceland. In fact, one of the first external wars waged by the USA (Jefferson and Adams) was precisely against the Muslim slavers, with Portugal as an ally.

All in all, for more than 1,000 years, Islam has been the principal and permanent threat to Western Civilization and has always been on the offensive when the relative potential of combat has been in its favor.

In the 20th century, Europe modernized itself and managed to neutralize jihad, but now seems to have forgotten everything about this old and constant threat.

For many Westerners, Islam is just a religion like others, and some, without knowing anything of history and the texts, even proclaim that it is “a religion of peace”.

No, it is not.

What history tells us is that it is the most formidable and persistent enemy that our civilization has faced up to today, and this has not changed just because circumstantially, we believe that we are on top.

The major problem, still, is not the forgetting of history, but its rewriting, so that it fits into new, politically correct narratives.

And this woke narrative, conveyed in the schools, in the media, and in the cinema, is that Muslims are part of the extensive group of historical victims of the West, that is, of the “heteropatriarchal whites” or by definition, the “oppressor”.

For example, the Crusades, effectively a military reaction to the Islamic conquest of the so-called Christian holy places, is described as a cruel and unjust attack on the poor Muslims, who were peacefully in their lands drinking tea and smoking water pipes. Moreover, the Muslim invasions are not even described as such, rather as innocuous “advances” by Arabs, Moors, Almoravids, Tatars, Mamluks, Ottomans, etc., deliberately hiding their true rational aggregate, jihad against the infidel.

But that is history, the appeasers will say. That time has passed. We have to look to the future and enter into a new era of mutual respect and tolerance, even if to do this, we have to gild history a bit.

Continue reading

A Handgun Against an Army

The original version of following essay by the late Mike Vanderboegh was written before the turn of the millennium. Ten years later, when he wrote this revised version (posted at the old WRSA site), he noted that it had stood the test of time. Another thirteen years have passed since then, and as Spicy Time draws closer the relevance of his words is even greater.

At the suggestion of WRSA, I am reposting the entire essay here. To see the rest of the illustrations and the embedded video, visit the WRSA post.

A Handgun Against an Army — Ten Years After

by Mike Vanderboegh

July 29, 2008

Almost a decade ago now, I penned “A Letter From Hagood’s Crossroads, Alabama,” subtitled “What Good Can a Handgun Do Against an Army?”

Over the years it has proven to be the single most popular piece I have ever written. To this day, I get emails and snail mails from folks who have stumbled across it for the first time, thanking me for writing it. It is a humbling experience for a scribbler such as myself to realize that he has struck a chord in his audience — humbling and gratifying.

Still, I have always meant to rework “Handgun” to correct some of the minor errors and irritating flaws that always occur whenever you whip out a topical opinion piece, as I did this one. For example, one of the things that always bothered me was that I was forced to paraphrase Hopper explaining the facts of life to his marauding gang of ATF/biker/bandido grasshoppers in “A Bug’s Life.” In the re-issue below, I correct that. Indeed, thanks to technological advances in the intervening years, I am now able to give you the YouTube link so you can HEAR Hopper’s presentation of the dialectic of tyranny yourself with just a click of the mouse.

Incredible.

Another area requiring work was the wolf-sheep metaphor, which if I had just hewed to the wisdom of my grandpa imparted to me years ago would have more properly been (as I have corrected it below) a wolf-sheep-sheepdog metaphor. Don’t ask me why I did it that way the first time. I wrote it, as most of my pieces back then and since, at one sitting in the wee hours of the morning.

And equally importantly, without the steadying hand of a good editor. (Here, I tip my hat to my friend David Codrea.)

In truth, for something that has been so well received for so long, at the time I gave it no more thought or care than any of the other many things I wrote during the Era of the Clintonista-Militia Cold War. Yet it is “Handgun” that has, apparently, stood the test of time. I will explore why I think this is in the afterword to this reissue.

For now, let me present again, with slight updated revision, “What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army?,” with many thanks to my friends — Peter at Western Rifle Shooters Association and Chris at Mindful Musings — for the firm nudge prompting me to do so. — MBV

“What Good Can A Handgun Do Against an Army?”

A friend of mine forwarded me a question a friend of his had posed:

“If/when our Federal Government comes to pilfer, pillage, plunder our property and destroy our lives, what good can a handgun do against an army with advanced weaponry, tanks, missiles, planes, or whatever else they might have at their disposal to achieve their nefarious goals? (I’m not being facetious: I accept the possibility that what happened in Germany, or similar, could happen here; I’m just not sure that the potential good from an armed citizenry in such a situation outweighs the day-to-day problems caused by masses of idiots who own guns.)”

If I may, I’d like to try to answer that question. I certainly do not think the writer facetious for asking it. The subject is a serious one to which I have given much research and considerable thought. I believe that upon the answer to this question depends the future of our Constitutional republic, our liberty and perhaps our lives.

My friend Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, told me once:

“If every Jewish and anti-nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT (emphasis supplied — MBV), Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic.”

Note well that phrase: “and the will to use it,” for the simply-stated question, “What good can a handgun do against an army?” is in fact a complex one and must be answered at length and carefully.

It is a military question.

It is also a political question.

But above all it is a moral question which strikes to the heart of what makes men free, and what makes them slaves.

First, let’s answer the military question.

Most military questions have both a strategic and a tactical component. Let’s first consider the tactical.

A friend of mine owns an instructive piece of history. It is a small, crude pistol [see the image at the top of this post], made out of sheet-metal stampings by the U.S. during World War II. While it fits in the palm of your hand and is a slowly-operated, single-shot arm, its powerful .45 caliber projectile will kill a man with brutal efficiency. With a short, smooth-bore barrel it can reliably kill only at point blank ranges, so its use requires the will (brave or foolhardy) to get in close before firing. It is less a soldier’s weapon than an assassin’s tool. The U.S. manufactured them by the millions during the war, not for our own forces but rather to be air-dropped behind German lines to resistance units in occupied Europe and Asia. They cost exactly two dollars and ten cents to make.

Crude and slow (the fired case had to be knocked out of the breech by means of a little wooden dowel, a fresh round procured from the storage area in the grip and then manually reloaded and cocked. It was so wildly inaccurate it couldn’t hit the broad side of a French barn at 50 meters, but to the Resistance man or woman who had no firearm it still looked pretty darn good.

The theory and practice of it was this: First, you approach a German sentry with your little pistol hidden in your coat pocket and, with Academy-award sincerity, ask him for a light for your cigarette (or the time the train leaves for Paris, or if he wants to buy some non-army-issue food or a half-hour with your “sister”). When he smiles and casts a nervous glance down the street to see where his Sergeant is, you blow his brains out with your first and only shot, then take his rifle and ammunition. Your next few minutes are occupied with “getting out of Dodge,” for such critters generally go around in packs. After that (assuming you evade your late benefactor’s friends) you keep the rifle and hand your little pistol to a fellow Resistance fighter so he can go get his own rifle.

Or, maybe, you then use your rifle to get a submachine gun from the Sergeant when he comes running. Perhaps you get very lucky and pick up a light machine gun, two boxes of ammunition and a haversack of hand grenades. With two of the grenades and the expenditure of a half-a-box of ammunition at a hasty roadblock the next night, you and your friends get a truck full of arms and ammunition. (Some of the cargo is sticky with “Boche” blood, but you don’t mind, not terribly.)

Continue reading

Herstory Repeats Itself as Farce

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from Il Giornale:

In Europe, it is forbidden to say “Christmas” and even to call oneself Maria

November 28, 2021

The internal document of the European Commission: No to the use of “Miss” or “Mr.”, just religious references and Christian names

by Francesco Giubilei

If they had told us, and we had not read it in black and white in an official communication from the European Commission, we wouldn’t have believed it because the contents of the new guidelines for “inclusive communication” are incredible. In a document for internal circulation, of which Il Giornale has come in exclusive possession, entitled “Union of Equality, European Commission Guidelines for Inclusive Communication,” the criteria being adopted by members of the Commission in external and internal communication are laid out. As written in the foreword, the Commissioner for Equality, Helena Dalli: “We must always offer an inclusive communication, ensuring thus that everyone is appreciated and recognized in all of our material, independent of gender, race, or ethnic origin, religion, or creed, disability, age, or sexual orientation.”

To accomplish this, the European Commission lays out a series of rules that don’t just cancel conventions and words frequently used, but also contradict common sense. It is forbidden to use common words such as “workers” or “policemen”, or use the masculine pronoun as a predefined pronoun. It is forbidden to organize discussions with only one gender represented (only men or only women), and furthermore, it is forbidden to use “Miss or Mrs.” except to make it explicit to whom the communication is being addressed. But that’s not all: You cannot open a conference addressing the public with the usual expression, “Ladies and Gentlemen,” but must use the formally neutral “Dear Colleagues”.

The document focuses on specific areas such as “gender”, “LGBTIQ”, “racial and ethnic” themes, or “cultures, lifestyles, and beliefs” with a table indicating what can and can’t be done, based on the intent to regulate everything, creating a new language that doesn’t allow for spontaneity: “Make sure not to always mention the same gender first in word order, or to address men and women differently (for example, a man by family name and a woman by first name).” And further, “When choosing images to accompany your communication, make sure that women and children are not represented in a domestic setting or in passive roles while the men are active and adventurous.”

A desire to cancel the male and female genders reaches paradoxical levels when the Commission writes that it is necessary to avoid expressions such as “Fire is the greatest invention of man,” but it is correct to say, “Fire is the greatest invention of humanity.” It is obvious that behind the redefinition of language lies the desire to change European society, our customs and traditions, as seen in the chapter dedicated to “culture, lifestyle, or beliefs.” The European Commission wants to emphasize “avoiding assuming that everyone is Christian” since “not everyone celebrates the Christmas holidays […] it is necessary to be sensitive to the fact that people have different religious traditions.” There is, however, an enormous difference between respect for all religions and being ashamed of or canceling the Christian roots that are at the base of Europe and of our identity.

In the name of inclusivity, the European Commission goes so far as to cancel Christmas, suggesting that the phrase, “the Christmas period can be stressful” not be used; rather it should be said “The vacation period can be stressful.” A desire to eliminate Christianity that goes further with the recommendation to use generic names instead of “Christian names”, so instead of “Maria and Joseph are an international couple,” you need to say, “Malika and Giulio are an international couple.” The contempt verges on the ridiculous when it requires us to counter the negative connotation of words such as colonialism: It is forbidden to say “the colonization of Mars” or “human settlement of Mars”; it is better to use “send humans to Mars.” When tragedy gives way to farce.

Forget the Jews, Blame the Unvaxed!

The speaker in the following video is Daniel Trappe, a retired Senior Public Prosecutor in Germany.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

The New ‘Good’ and the New Evil

We are approaching Endgame after more than a hundred years of the Culture Wars. In the essay below MC picks his way through the grotesque highlights of what is currently underway.

Most modern medicine assumes that God does not exist, and that mankind (‘experts’) must therefore control medical ethics in order to ensure that doctors and others with an interest in medicine do not sacrifice their ethical integrity in order to either maximize their wealth from an exceedingly profitable industry, nor pursue greater knowledge at the expense of the health of their patients.

In 1947, following cruel and murderous experimentation by seemingly normal doctors on inmates of concentration camps in Nazi Germany, international law was laid down concerning human experimentation, coercion and informed consent.

These laws are now being violated on a daily basis by politicians, doctors, nurses and health administrators who advocate and enforce the COVID-19 vaccine. This is not new; it is an old, old story. We are back to bleeding, scoring and purging, leeches and mercury; the medicine of barbers and barbarity.

The Covid vaccine is experimental, and under the Nuremburg and Helsinki LAWS, it cannot be mandated. YOU cannot be forced to violate your bodily integrity — even if granny is in danger.

But granny is not in danger, at least in any statistical sense any more than she usually is, and if she were to take the correct prophylactic treatment to raise her zinc and vitamin D levels then her chances of surviving a CV19 attack are much improved. Unfortunately, it seems, the Powers That Be in medicine and politics want her dead, so they are withholding the real science and the real medicine from her. Granny dead from Covid is a bounty that can be collected…

The ‘science’ as dictated by the government/Big Pharma alliance is to leave CV19 granny alone until her lips turn blue, then put her on a killer ventilator until she dies. For this, a hospital gets a substantial government grant. She is a useless eater — Aktion T4 for her. Do we inject her with phenol, gas her, or put a plastic bag over her head? No, we withhold crucial and effective treatment and inject her with an experimental gene therapy — and this is ethically acceptable?

We are so, so ignorant, we don’t realize that although all the names have changed, the methods have not.

On the whole, the billionaires who are financing this modern Holodomor are stupid frightened individuals who believe in a humanist-based cult whereby:

  • There are too many people on the planet.
  • The planet is being poisoned by too much ‘carbon’
  • That the ultra-rich are entitled to rule over all other groups and use all available resources.
  • That Islam, by its ultra-controlling influence, can be used to divide and rule dangerous ‘Christian’ populations.
  • That fossil fuels can be replaced by ‘batteries’ (where does the electricity come from to charge the batteries?).
  • That solar and wind power can provide enough energy for the remnant population to survive.
  • That putting God at the centre of the Constitution in 1776-1784 had no effect on the subsequent rise of the American Dream; it was purely a coincidence.
  • And that removing God from society is therefore no problem and will not turn the dream into a nightmare.

It is difficult for us to understand the role of God in society, for without God, societies are basically two-tier master/slave societies where the masters work hard to keep the peons in abject slavery.

In the historical British feudal system, the serfs were largely village idiots, kept in a state of abject poverty and malnutrition. The role of the then-Church was to perpetuate the system by removing any intelligent children at an early age into the cloisters for special indoctrination. Wise lords of the manor also took bright children into their service, thus removing leaders from the peasant body.

Britain at the time did not have a skin colour problem; everybody was white. Even in my childhood 1950s England was overwhelmingly white, I had seen non-white people because I had travelled to Singapore as a very young ‘britbrat’ (child of armed forces personnel), but to others in my class at school, they were an abstract from the pages of National Geographic and Hollywood.

Continue reading

BBC Misinformation: Islamic State

The following essay by Michael Copeland was originally published in September 2014 at LibertyGB (as “BBC Draws A Veil Over Islamic State”), then edited in 2021.

BBC Misinformation: Islamic State

by Michael Copeland

“What does Islamic State want? They want to enforce their view of conservative Islamic traditions.” — BBC

This appallingly inadequate statement is on the BBC’s 6o-second video. It is, in fact, the only statement in it that actually answers their own question.

No, BBC, Islamic State apply Islamic law, Sharia, by force. They not only “want to” but are already doing so. To refer to Sharia as “their view of conservative Islamic traditions” is shameful, dishonest, and inadequate. No author is shown.

The BBC is being careful to draw the spotlight away from Islam itself. To throw the reader off the scent they are nourishing the propaganda line that Islamic State is not Islamic, that they are pursuing “their idea” which, we are left to suppose, is somehow mistaken. Notice that the text skillfully does not actually say so, but leaves that conclusion to be formed by the reader. There is no mention of law or religion: oh no, only of “conservative traditions”. This is an old chestnut, and a tired and worn one at that. Remember the British detective helpfully assuring the public that a murder (a Muslim honour-killing) was nothing to do with Islam (which it is), but was a product of conservative cultural practices of rural Pakistan? How touching that an English policeman be so expert on tribal practices of rural South Asia! So sensitive!

No: Islamic State is applying Islam. The leader has a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies, unlike Mr. Cameron, so is well-informed. He has proclaimed himself Caliph, in the same way as earlier Caliphs did. As Abu Imran (Fouad Belkacem) of Sharia4Belgium has helpfully explained, “Islam is Sharia, and Sharia is Islam.” The Caliph is enforcing Sharia, “the path of Allah.”

Sharia is as defined in the Manual of Islamic Law, drawn from the Koran and the “reliable” traditions, “Hadith”, concerning the life and sayings of Mohammed. Together these all form Islamic Law. The Koran can be consulted online and the Manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, is available as a download.

A second piece by the BBC, “What is Islamic State?” (again, no author shown), is rather more helpful.

Author’s note: since the LibertyGB article appeared the BBC has silently changed the text of this second article. What follows relates to the original text, no longer shown.

Once again, though, it quickly steers the reader away from Islam by dictating, with no explanation, that Islamic State is “a radical Islamist group”. We can note that Islamic State does not call itself “Radical Islamist State”: no, the BBC does that for them.

“The group aims to establish a “caliphate”“. No, it has already declared one. Now for another chestnut: “the group implements a strict interpretation of Sharia”. No: there is not a non-strict or benign interpretation of “Kill”. “Kill” means kill. What the BBC means is a strict application of Sharia, “forcing women to wear veils, non-Muslims to pay a special tax or convert, and imposing punishments that include floggings and executions.” The law is there: it is just that not all Muslim societies apply it to the letter. Yet another old chestnut is rolled out: “IS members are jihadists who adhere to an extreme interpretation of Sunni Islam”. What, BBC, is the non-extreme “interpretation” of “Kill”? That is right. There is not one. This is just a device to draw attention away from Islam.

Continue reading

Canada’s Hateful “Anti-Hate” Network

The following report by Janice Fiamengo was originally published at FrontPage Mag.


Valerie Price, Executive-Director of Act! For Canada with friends Tarek Fatah (left) and Salim Mansur (right)

Canada’s Anti-Hate Network Attacks ‘Act! For Canada’ in Desperate Hunt for Hate

Inside the Left’s twisted world of innuendo and unfounded allegations.

The Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is Canada’s ironically named version of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), an intolerant organization that can’t stop patting itself on the back for opposing intolerance. Though lacking the formidable political heft, war chest, and extensive reach of its more robust American cousin, the CAHN exists to rain calumny down upon groups or individuals who do not share its progressivist viewpoints. Never content merely to disagree or rebut, the network pursues its ends almost exclusively through Hall of Shame-style attacks on those it deems “far right” enemies.

Recently, Peter Smith and Elizabeth Simons of the CAHN published a wordy hit piece on Valerie Price, long-time Executive-Director of Act! For Canada (AFC), an organization founded in 2009 and dedicated to defending Canada’s freedoms, security, and core values. To this end, Price hosts a website, distributes a weekly e-newsletter, encourages activism, and (pre-Covid) organized conferences and special speakers on such subjects as Islamic terrorism, the Islamization of Canadian culture, and threats to freedom of speech.

Smith and Simons’ innuendo-laden “M-103 to the Pandemic: Evolution of Canadian Islamophobic Activists Shows How Hate Movements Adapt” has all the incisiveness of a midnight-concocted term paper by two second-year Sociology students who never learned the principles of argument. It also clearly illuminates the challenges that face the CAHN and similar groups in Canada. What are hate-hunters to do when there is no hate to be found? Having spent hours combing through AFC’s website and affiliated Facebook group — as well as those of a later-formed companion group, Action4Canada, run by Price’s associate Tanya Gaw-Smith — Simons found nothing objectively hateful nor anything dishonest or defamatory. The very worst they could discover was a supportive message for a young ex-Muslim activist, Sandra Solomon, who subsequently tore out pages of the Koran and left them on car windshields around a mosque. AFC’s failure to disavow Solomon, who objects to the treatment of women in Islam, left Smith and Simons aghast.

With nothing worse to expose, the vigilante authors could only present the facts of AFC’s various information campaigns as if they were far more incendiary than they actually are, informing readers breathlessly that Price has, over the years, posted articles on her website about the arrests of terror suspects, the possibility of Iran launching an EMP attack (with “electromagnetic pulse” put in scare quotes, as if the authors couldn’t hold back their incredulous laughter), and about the political results of the Arab Spring. The implication, never made clear in the article, is that pure-hearted multi-culturalists should have no truck with any such discussions.

According to Smith and Simons, AFC has also posted articles expressing dismay at the legalization of marijuana, criticizing the radical trans agenda, and supporting the right to life of unborn children; during the last two election campaigns, Price went so far as to endorse the People’s Party of Canada and the Christian Heritage Party. Perhaps realizing that such actions are nowhere near enough to justify calling AFC a hate site, the authors also rely heavily on innuendo and unfounded allegations too numerous to catalogue here, with special emphasis on Price’s alleged “anti-Muslim” sentiments, for which not one iota of evidence is ever presented. In the process, the article pretends to analyze how “the far-right adopts and packages new grievances to recruit support.”

Continue reading

Memorial to Samuel Paty Vandalized

Samuel Paty was a French schoolteacher who was beheaded a little over a year ago for showing some Motoons to his students.

The following report describes the vandalism of a memorial display for Mr. Paty. Although the reporter doesn’t mention ethnicity, I assume culture-enrichers were responsible for the damage.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from the French news channel BFM TV:

Manosque: Glass display window paying homage to Samuel Paty destroyed, investigation opened

by Romain Hirt
November 12, 2021

A group of individuals was seen Thursday evening in the process of destroying a glass display window by throwing rocks. An investigation has been opened by the prosecutor’s office in Digne-les-Bains to find the perpetrators.

On Friday the prosecutor’s office in Digne-les-Bains opened an investigation in Manosque (Alpes-de-Haute-Province) after Thursday evening’s damage to a glass display window paying homage to professor Samuel Paty, BFM DICI learned from a police source.

On Thursday at around 9pm some neighbors of the Saint Charles College at Manosque witnessed the damaging of a glass display case, located on the college’s facade, paying homage to the history professor who was decapitated on 16 October 2020 after showing some cartoons of the Prophet during a class at the college of Bois d’Aulne, at Confians-Sainte-Honoine (Yvelines).

According to initial reports, a group of individuals was seen in the process of breaking this glass display window by throwing rocks. Though the photos in the window were neither stolen nor damaged, the window was destroyed.

Taqiyya at the Beeb

The two articles below about the BBC were published successively in 2013 by Michael Copeland.

BBC Fog-Making: Soldier Murder in Afghanistan

by Michael Copeland

This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 4 April 2013.

Colonel Lapan, spokesman for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff commented, “we don’t know what’s causing them [insider killings], and we’re looking at everything.” (FrontPage Mag)

In Afghanistan earlier this year (2013) there was yet another dreadful soldier murder and multiple wounding by an Afghan trainee. The BBC, in a shameful piece, “What lies behind Afghanistan’s insider attacks?”, blames a “rogue soldier”. Yet a soldier obeying instructions in his manual is no “rogue”.

Read the Koran, BBC, instead of having an unnamed author refer to unidentified “many analysts” and tipping a barrow load of red herrings such as this:

But perhaps worryingly for Nato the motivation for many of the assaults cannot be pinned down so precisely. Many analysts believe they are rooted in underlying, even subconscious, resentments that are prone to flare up and with deadly consequences.

This is fog-making, reprehensible and damaging. Completely contrary to what the author claims, the motivations can be pinned down precisely: they are in the manual revered by every dutiful Soldier of Allah, namely the Koran, the book of fighting the unbeliever. Everywhere that is not Dar al Islam, ‘The House of Islam’, is Dar al Harb, ‘The House of War’ (What the West Needs to Know). Non-Muslims are “the worst of creatures” (Koran 98:6), “the vilest of beasts” (8:22, 8:55). “Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers” (2:98), so therefore must all Muslims be also: “The disbelievers are ever to you a clear enemy” (4:101). NATO, treated as an ‘occupier’, is doubly an enemy.

When a Soldier of Allah murders an infidel ‘occupier’ he is obeying the instructions in his war manual. Some 64% of the Koran concerns non-Muslims, the kafirs, and how to fight them. Islam is political: it concerns land, and involves fighting. It aims for “Mastership of the World”, as the Muslim Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi proclaimed in 2011.

“The mosques are our barracks,” recited Recep Tayyip Erdogan, before he was Prime Minister of Turkey, “the domes our helmets, the minarets our spears, and the faithful our soldiers.” It was to the BBC that Anjem Choudary explained: “Nothing else is mentioned more than the topic of fighting in the Koran.”

Don’t the BBC listen? Can’t they read? Do they think they know better? Or are they negligently and recklessly allowing the anonymous author to supply them with fog? Thus do they directly imperil our soldiers’ lives. Shame on you, BBC. Will you name your author? Who are the “many analysts”? Cite them. Show us where we can read their analyses.

The Koran cannot be brushed aside: it forms part of Islamic Law. To deny any verse in it calls for the death penalty (Manual of Islamic Law o8.7 (7)). Its content is billed as “true from eternity to eternity” (Sam Solomon, former professor of Shariah Law). Here are just a few of the many, many fighting instructions:

  • Kill the polytheists wherever you find them. 9:5
  • Fight those who do not believe in Allah. 9:29
  • Slay them wherever you find them. 4:89
  • Fight the idolaters utterly. 9:36
  • And that Allah may … exterminate the infidel. 3:141

Remember that when a soldier of Allah has killed infidels it was not he that did the killing: “You killed them not, but Allah killed them.” (8:17) There are instructions about relationships with non-Muslims, the kuffar (a word cognate with ‘dirt’), who are “unclean” (9:28), “the most despicable” (98:6):

  • Do not take the Jews and Christians as allies. 5:51
  • Muslims are merciful to one another, but ruthless to the unbeliever. 48:29

Osama bin Laden wrote: “Battle, animosity and hatred — directed from the Muslim to the infidel — is the foundation of our religion.”

The doctrine of “Permissible Lying” (Manual, r8.2) authorises the Muslim to maintain piously a false appearance of friendship. The revered collector of traditions, Sahih Al-Bukhari, recorded that Mohammed’s companion Abu Ad-Darda’ said, “We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.” Mohammed himself said, “War is deceit” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, 269). So, too, with agreements: Mohammed is quoted in the Hadith, the traditions, saying, “If I take an oath and later find something else better, I do what is better and break my oath” (see Sahih Bukhari 7.67.427). Agreements with infidels are not binding. An Afghan who appears friendly but who turns his gun on NATO personnel is no “rogue”: he is doing EXACTLY what it says in his book. This is why there should not be any joint patrols, or armed Afghans within NATO bases.

Killing infidels in a situation where the killer himself may well be killed may seem puzzling to a Western mind, but this is a main component of the motivation:

“Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain” (Koran 9:111).

This is the justification for the ‘martyrdom’ (suicide) bombing. The ordinary Muslim can never be sure whether his good deeds will sufficiently outweigh his bad deeds so that he will not be consigned to Hell in the afterlife. In contrast, those who “slay and are slain” are guaranteed immediate entry to Paradise with seventy-two beautiful dark-eyed girls each, perpetually virginal, and boys like pearls, where there will be wine and sumptuous fruits. In Islam’s teachings the martyr achieves his wedding in heaven. The Muslim loves death as the Westerners love life, Osama bin Laden explained.

These matters of Islamic doctrine are what are taught in the mosques. They are not surprise news to Muslims. They can be found without difficulty on the internet. These are what the BBC’s anonymous author refers to as “the complex web of factors that lead Afghan soldiers to turn their guns on their allies.”

Evidently they are not too complex for an Afghan tribesman. Shame on you, BBC.

BBC Deception

by Michael Copeland

This article was originally published at Liberty GB, 28 October, 2013

Continue reading

Culture-Enriching Knife Jihad in Cannes

A “youth” went on a stabbing rampage with a knife on Monday in the French city of Cannes. He attacked a police car and slashed at a policewoman, who was fortunately unharmed, thanks to her bulletproof vest. Two of her colleagues then got out of the vehicle and shot the knifeman, wounding him.

The attacker’s motive is unknown, although “Allahu Akhbar” (Arabic for “defund the police”) features prominently in this news report.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translation, and to Vlad Tepes and RAIR Foundation for the subtitling:

Video transcript:

Continue reading

Austria is the Model for Sharia in Algeria

Algeria is using a decision by the European Court of Human Rights to justify sentencing a scholar to three years in prison for the denigration of Islam.

This is, of course, deeply ironic, and I might have made a sardonic joke about the case were it not for the fact that the precedent used by the Algerian court is the case of my good friend Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was convicted in February of 2011 in an Austrian court for the “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”. Elisabeth appealed her conviction for eight long years, until the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights — her highest possible level of appeal — refused to hear her case.

Her “crime” was to ask a rhetorical question about the marriage of Mohammed to 6-year-old Aisha: “What would you call it, if not pedophilia?”

The ruling of the ECtHR came in handy for the court in Algeria. I’m sure the ulama in Algiers were grateful to the grandees of Strasbourg for providing such a useful precedent.

Here’s the story from The Forum For Religious Freedom-Europe:

The European Court of Human Rights: Model For Algeria’s Repression Of Free Speech

by Forefeurope
November 8, 2021

Statement by The Forum For Religious Freedom-Europe, Set My People Free, And Jubilee Campaign

Vienna and Stockholm, 9th Nov 2021 — A 2018 decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upholding the conviction of an Austrian citizen by a Vienna court for “disparaging religious doctrines” has been used by Algeria to defend the sentencing a scholar to three years in prison for “denigrating the dogma and the precepts of Islam.”

“The case illustrates how European jurisprudence criminalizing speech can harm the defense of human rights and freedoms in countries that look to Europe for positive examples,” according to Dr. Aaron Rhodes, President of the Forum for Religious Freedom-Europe (FOREF).

In April 2021, The Sidi Mohamed Court of First Instance in Algeria sentenced, under Article 144 of the Algerian Penal Code, for the “crime” of arguing that the sacrifice of sheep pre-dated Islam, and that Islamic scriptures do not mandate the marriage of pre-pubescent girls and the use of head coverings. Djabelkhir said these were “academic reflections.”

Local and international human rights groups have denounced the conviction, with a representative of Amnesty International stating, “It is outrageous that Saïd Djabelkhir is facing three years in prison simply for voicing his opinions about religious texts.”

The case drew the attention of United Nations Special Rapporteurs on freedom of religion and belief and freedom of opinion and expression. In a communication addressed to the Government of Algeria the Special Rapporteurs outlined the facts of the case and raised concerns regarding death threats made toward Professor Djabelkhir, which increased after Algerian authorities filed charges against the professor in January 2020. The Special Rapporteurs also emphasized that international human rights law regarding freedom of religion or belief does not protect religions from criticism or “any comments perceived as unfavorable.” The Special Rapporteurs also pointed out that where a religion is recognised as the state religion it should in “no way” affect the enjoyment of the rights protected under the ICCPR.

The Special Rapporteurs then asked specifically how the Government of Algeria justified its anti-blasphemy laws, such as article 144 bis 2 “offense against the Prophet” [and “denigration of dogma or the precepts of Islam”] with regard to its international law obligations.

The Algerian government’s response of 22 September 2021 made reference to the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, who was convicted in 2011 for “disparaging religious doctrines,” when a local court ruled that her questioning if the Prophet Mohammed’s possible “pedophilia” was not protected as freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling was upheld by a 2018 decision of the European Court of Human Rights, which held thatthe domestic courts “carefully balanced the applicant’s right to freedom of expression with the rights of others to have their religious feelings protected, and to have religious peace preserved in Austrian society.” Freedom of speech, the ruling stated, needs to be conditioned on expressions being made in an “objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest.”

Continue reading

Salah Abdeslam on Trial

Salah Abdeslam is the only surviving member of the core group of mujahideen who carried out the deadly terrorist attacks in Paris in November of 2015, including the horrific slaughter at the Bataclan café. Mr. Abdeslam is currently on trial in Paris, a proceeding that is expected to last until May of next year.

Many thanks to Gary Fouse for translating this article from France24:

At the November 13 attacks trial, Salah Abdeslam describes himself as a “calm” child

On Tuesday, the special criminal court in Paris began questioning the principal defendant in the attacks of November 13, Salah Abdeslam, on the course of his life before the attacks.

After (experiencing) the horror with the testimony of survivors and relatives of the victims, the special criminal court of Paris entered a new phase on Tuesday, November 2 with the personal questioning of the 14 defendants present at the trial of the November 13, 2015 attacks.

Following in part an “alphabetical order”, the court began the sequence at the start of the afternoon with the questioning of Salah Abdeslam, the only surviving member of the Islamic State commandos who caused 130 deaths and hundreds of injured in Paris and St-Denis on November 13, 2015.

The childhood of Abdeslam

Appearing in a grey vest, light shirt, with short-cropped hair and a black beard, Salah Abdeslam first stated his date and place of birth as 15 September 1989 in Brussels. The son of Moroccan immigrants, he then stated that he had but one nationality, French nationality, his parents having lived in France before moving to Belgium.

“I am the fourth of five siblings. I have three older brothers, a younger sister. What do you want to know?” continued Salah Abdeslam in a calm voice tinged with a light Belgian accent, his hands folded together in front of him in the dock. Asked to talk about his childhood, he described it as “very simple”, added that he was “a calm, nice person.”

The court then quickly went on to his school record — Salah Abdeslam presenting himself as a “good student”— and his first professional experiences. Then it focused on his criminal record before examining the conditions of detention since his arrest in Belgium in March 2016 after four months on the run.

After Salah Abdeslam, three other defendants would be questioned during the day: his childhood friend, Mohamed Abrini, “the man with the hat” in the Brussels attacks, Farid Kharkhach, and Yassine Atar.

Since the opening of the trial on September 8, the principal defendant spectacularly broke with the almost total silence he had observed since his arrest in this case, justifying several times the worst attacks committed on French soil.

Talking Turkey About Terrorism

Below is a press release from Armenian Americans for Human Rights (AAHR), chaired by David Boyajian.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman Menendez Fail to Question the Nominee for U.S. Ambassador to Turkey about Terrorism

Several times this year, the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department have cited Turkey as a financial base for ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Turkey has long sponsored ISIS and other international terrorist organizations. No serious analyst disputes this.

Turkey has armed, financed, and deployed terrorists in such locations as Syria, Libya, and Azerbaijan.

On September 28, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) and Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) quizzed President Biden’s nominee to be ambassador to Turkey, former U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ).

The SFRC —and particularly Sen. Menendez —shocked observers by failing to ask Flake even a single question about Turkey’s sponsorship of terrorism.

Since 2014, veteran State Department advisor Dr. David L. Phillips, Director of Columbia University’s Program on Peace-Building and Rights, has thoroughly documented Turkey’s backing of ISIS and other terrorist groups.

This year he wrote that if a “non-NATO country behaved like Turkey, it would warrant designation as a State Sponsor of Terrorism,” like Iran and North Korea.

In 2014, Vice President Joe Biden told his Harvard University audience that Turkey and others had been giving “hundreds of millions of dollars [and] tons of weapons” to al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, and ISIS.

According to Turkey’s counterterrorism chief from 2010-2013, Ahmet S. Yayla, “Turkey was a central hub for… over 50,000 ISIS foreign fighters, and the main source of ISIS logistical materials [including] IEDs, making Turkey and ISIS practically allies.”

Continue reading

Quiz III: Fourteen Clues

Quiz III: Fourteen Clues

Compiled by Michael Copeland

We have actually allowed a Trojan horse to settle everywhere in our neighbourhoods, which wants to undermine our way of life.
Nadine Romano, French MEP.

[Its] pattern is this: intimidate, humiliate and expropriate until you can annihilate.
— mortimer, comment

a savage subhuman criminal warlord death cult of oppression, murder and mayhem.
— Dan S., comment

a corruptor of good morals, a superstitious paradigm that promotes violence and bigotry as divine truth
— Agostino Armo Pellegrini, comment Dec 15, 2019 at 9:38 am

….inherently hostile—a costly lesson that countless innocents have been paying for nearly 1,400 years.
Raymond Ibrahim

a primitive death cult used to control large populations, illegally accumulate wealth, excuse bad behavior and justify perversions.
— Cheechakos, comment

achieved nothing in 1,400 years, except murdering and enslavement
— Spartacus, comment

Continue reading