Friday, December 28, 2007
bin Laden, al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda, and Mullah Omar; Apostates, Blasphemers, Usurpers, Miscreants: It can no longer be denied or ignored that Usama bin-Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda as a whole, and Mullah Omar are apostates, blasphemers, usurpers, and criminal miscreants.
This small group are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or through their brainwashing of innocent Muslims who go out and murder in their names.
bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar have turned their backs on true Islam (apostacy) and are pursuing their own courses of power (usurpation)and influence. Worse, they use the words of The Prophet and Allah (blasphemy)to justify their murderous war against Muslims. Using the words of The Prophet, they teach innocent Muslims to commint suicide in direct contradiction to the Koran.
This so-called "jihad" bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, Omar, and al-Qaeda are waging is killing Muslims every day. The jihad, which is more of a world-wide killing spree than an actual "jihad", is damaging Islam and defaming the words of The Prophet and Allah.
Worse, the jihad is failing on two significant points. First, the jihad is specifically failing in Iraq where jihadists are only killing Muslims and are also being defeated on the field of battle by the Iraqi and American military forces. Second, they have lost the popular support of true Muslims. True Believers have come to understand the jihad is illegal, that Muslims are the ones losing their lives, and that the world is repulsed by the vision of Islam glorified by bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Jihad has failed! It is time for an appropriate influential Islamic authority to declare the "jihad" illegal and bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar to be guilty of apostacy. They need to be stopped through the issuance of an authoritative Fatwa that will be respected and enforced by true Believers.
The time is now!
This small group are responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims either directly or through their brainwashing of innocent Muslims who go out and murder in their names.
bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar have turned their backs on true Islam (apostacy) and are pursuing their own courses of power (usurpation)and influence. Worse, they use the words of The Prophet and Allah (blasphemy)to justify their murderous war against Muslims. Using the words of The Prophet, they teach innocent Muslims to commint suicide in direct contradiction to the Koran.
This so-called "jihad" bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, Omar, and al-Qaeda are waging is killing Muslims every day. The jihad, which is more of a world-wide killing spree than an actual "jihad", is damaging Islam and defaming the words of The Prophet and Allah.
Worse, the jihad is failing on two significant points. First, the jihad is specifically failing in Iraq where jihadists are only killing Muslims and are also being defeated on the field of battle by the Iraqi and American military forces. Second, they have lost the popular support of true Muslims. True Believers have come to understand the jihad is illegal, that Muslims are the ones losing their lives, and that the world is repulsed by the vision of Islam glorified by bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar.
Jihad has failed! It is time for an appropriate influential Islamic authority to declare the "jihad" illegal and bin-Laden, al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar to be guilty of apostacy. They need to be stopped through the issuance of an authoritative Fatwa that will be respected and enforced by true Believers.
The time is now!
Labels: apostate, bin Laden, blasphemer, Iraq, Islam, jihadists, miscreant, Mullah, Omar, Prophet, Qaeda, Qaida, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Obama Announces Willingness to go to War- Against an Ally!: Barak Obama seems to have darted to the right in order to get the "let's go to war" vote with his announcement of his willingness to invade Pakistan- a U.S. ally. You read it right. Democrat Barak Obama announced that if President Musharraf of Pakistan didn't follow his (Obama's) orders, he (Obama) would be perfectly willing to invade the country to see his (Obama's) will done.
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
A couple points:
1. It's so early in the campaign we probably can't fault the U.S. Senator for being unfamiliar with diplomacy, foreign affairs, declaration of war, invasion of soveriegn allies, or consultation with the U.S. Congress.
2. It's also probably too early to expect the U.S. Senator to understand the ramifications of a jihadist government led by Ayaman al-Zawahiri- al-Qaeda's number two in command- taking control of Pakistan, Pakistan's military, and Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.
You don't need to believe me on this one, here's the source:
Obama might send troops into Pakistan
By NEDRA PICKLER,
Associated Press WriterWed Aug 1, 8:22 AM ET
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.
The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.
"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.
Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.
Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."
The speech was a condemnation of President Bush's leadership in the war on terror. He said the focus on Iraq has left Americans in more danger than before Sept. 11, 2001, and that Bush has misrepresented the enemy as Iraqis who are fighting a civil war instead of the terrorists responsible for the attacks six years ago.
"He confuses our mission," Obama said, then he spread responsibility to lawmakers like Clinton who voted for the invasion. "By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences."
Obama said that as commander in chief he would remove troops from Iraq and putting them "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." He said he would send at least two more brigades to Afghanistan and increase nonmilitary aid to the country by $1 billion.
He also said he would create a three-year, $5 billion program to share intelligence with allies worldwide to take out terrorist networks from Indonesia to Africa
(Source Link: Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan)
Labels: Barak, Barak Obama, bin Laden, Clinton, Democrat Party, Democrats, Musharraf, Obama, Pakistan, War, War in Iraq, War on Terror, Zawahiri
Sunday, May 20, 2007
bin Laden, Jihadists Winning?: Personally, I think yes. But I have an article that supports my position. The item is by Bernard Lewis, a leading expert on the Middle East and on Islam.
Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Source Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html
Was Osama Right?
Islamists always believed the U.S. was weak. Recent political trends won't change their view.
BY BERNARD LEWIS Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"
A few examples may suffice. During the troubles in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s, there were many attacks on American installations and individuals--notably the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, followed by a prompt withdrawal, and a whole series of kidnappings of Americans, both official and private, as well as of Europeans. There was only one attack on Soviet citizens, when one diplomat was killed and several others kidnapped. The Soviet response through their local agents was swift, and directed against the family of the leader of the kidnappers. The kidnapped Russians were promptly released, and after that there were no attacks on Soviet citizens or installations throughout the period of the Lebanese troubles.
From the writings and the speeches of Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, it is clear that they expected this second task, dealing with America, would be comparatively simple and easy. This perception was certainly encouraged and so it seemed, confirmed by the American response to a whole series of attacks--on the World Trade Center in New York and on U.S. troops in Mogadishu in 1993, on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000--all of which evoked only angry words, sometimes accompanied by the dispatch of expensive missiles to remote and uninhabited places.
Stage One of the jihad was to drive the infidels from the lands of Islam; Stage Two--to bring the war into the enemy camp, and the attacks of 9/11 were clearly intended to be the opening salvo of this stage. The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.
More recent developments, and notably the public discourse inside the U.S., are persuading increasing numbers of Islamist radicals that their first assessment was correct after all, and that they need only to press a little harder to achieve final victory. It is not yet clear whether they are right or wrong in this view. If they are right, the consequences--both for Islam and for America--will be deep, wide and lasting.
Mr. Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton, is the author, most recently, of "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Labels: al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Democrats, Hoyer, Iraq, jihadists, Levin, Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Terrorism, War on Terror
Friday, March 09, 2007
How Would al-Qaeda Vote?: The Democrats in Congress are about to try to pass legislation mandating a date certain for withdrawl of U.S. forces from Iraq, probably in 2008. One simple question clarifies the issue completely for those who may not understand the Democrat position:
How would al-Qaeda vote on the legislation?
To clarify even further, you can answer these questions:
1. How will Republican vote on the bill?
2. How will Democrats vote on the bill?
3. How would Osama bin Laden vote on the bill?
4. How would Ayman al-Zawahiri vote on the bill?
5. If he was alive, how would Saddam Hussein vote on the bill?
6. Whose side are the democrats on?
How would al-Qaeda vote on the legislation?
To clarify even further, you can answer these questions:
1. How will Republican vote on the bill?
2. How will Democrats vote on the bill?
3. How would Osama bin Laden vote on the bill?
4. How would Ayman al-Zawahiri vote on the bill?
5. If he was alive, how would Saddam Hussein vote on the bill?
6. Whose side are the democrats on?
Labels: al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Democrats, Osama, Usama, Zawahiri
