After all, they must kill Jews wherever they are found -- even if all they are doing is selling cosmetics.

Palestinian Authority Arab terrorists attacked a group of young Israelis at a stand in a Danish mall early Wednesday evening.

Local police said the attack took place at approximately 3:20 p.m. at the Rosengirdscentret Center, one of the largest shopping centers in the city of Odense, located about 200 kilometers from Copenhagen.

According to Foreign Ministry spokesman Yossi Levi, an undetermined number of Palestinian Authority gunmen approached the group of young Israelis at a "basta", or stand which sells Dead Sea products and other items from Israel and opened fire "with guns or rifles."

I'm curious -- how long until the world is willing to acknowledge that there is something fundamentally dysfunctional within the so-called "religion of peace" that leads its followers to be decidedly unpeaceful?

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

The terrorist front that is the Council on American Islamic Relations has spoken out on the current conflict in the Middle East. As expected, they sided with the Hamas terrorists rather than Israel.

A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today condemned Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip that left more than 200 people dead and called the death toll a “massacre carried out using U.S. taxpayer-funded weapons.” More than 700 people, including women and children, were injured in the attacks.

I won't quote further, and will only note that they use all the standard buzzwords found in the statements of terrorism supporters whenever the victims of terrorism fight back. Indeed, they claim to base their position, in part, on their respect for the sanctity of human life.

A quick perusal of their website, however, will show that not a single word critical of the years of rocket attacks from Gaza exist there. Apparently they view dead and wounded Jews as less significant than dead Terrorstinians. Could it be that the folks from CAIR, with its long history of connection to anti-Semitic Islamic terrorist groups in the Middle East do not view Jews as human beings?

Of course, it shouldn't be surprising that CAIR would speak out on behalf of Hamas -- the organization was an unindicted co-conspirator in the recently concluded trial related to illegal terrorist fundraising activities on behalf of Hamas.

Posted by: Greg at 10:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

In an effort to make sure that the laws of the Terrorstinian Anarchy conform with sharia law, the Hamas government has passed a law authorizing the use of crucifixion.

The Hamas parliament in the Gaza Strip voted in favor of a law allowing courts to mete out sentences in the spirit of Islam, the London-based Arab daily Al Hayat reported Wednesday.

According to the bill, approved in its second reading and awaiting a third reading before the approval of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, as the Palestinian constitution demands, courts will be able to condemn offenders to a plethora of violent punitive measures in line with Sharia Law.

Such punishments include whipping, severing hands, crucifixion and hanging. The bill reserves death sentences to people who negotiate with a foreign government "against Palestinian interests" and engage in any activity that can "hurt Palestinian morale."

Interesting, isn't it, that those who complain that playing rock music to annoy terrorists or putting women's undies on their heads constitutes torture can't find their voices when it comes to the authorization of a truly cruel form of torture and death when it is authorized BY terrorists.

After all, consider this description of what crucifixion does to a person.

The length of time required to reach death could range from a matter of hours to a number of days, depending on exact methods, the health of the crucified person and environmental circumstances.

Death could result from a variety of causes, including blood loss and hypovolemic shock, or infection and sepsis, caused by the scourging that preceded the crucifixion or by the nailing itself, and eventual dehydration. A theory attributed to Pierre Barbet holds that, when the whole body weight was supported by the stretched arms, the typical cause of death was asphyxiation. He conjectured that the condemned would have severe difficulty inhaling, due to hyper-expansion of the chest muscles and lungs. The condemned would therefore have to draw himself up by his arms, leading to exhaustion, or have his feet supported by tying or by a wood block. Indeed, Roman executioners could be asked to break the condemned's legs, after he had hung for some time, in order to hasten his death. Once deprived of support and unable to lift himself, the condemned would die within a few minutes.

Experiments by Frederick Zugibe have revealed that, when suspended with arms at 60° to 70° from the vertical, test subjects had no difficulty breathing, only rapidly-increasing discomfort and pain. This would correspond to the Roman use of crucifixion as a prolonged, agonizing, humiliating death. Zugibe claims that the breaking of the crucified condemned's legs to hasten death, as mentioned in John 19:31-32, was administered as a coup de grâce, causing severe traumatic shock or hastening death by fat embolism. Crucifixion on a single pole with no transom, with hands affixed over one's head, would precipitate rapid asphyxiation if no block was provided to stand on, or once the legs were broken.

I don't know about you, but this certainly sounds like torture to me. But I guess when terrorists (even elected terrorists like Hamas) use such methods, torture doesn't seem like a big deal to the "no torture for terrorists" crew.

And lest you doubt that this penalty is in keeping with the dictates of Islam, consider this Quaranic injunction allegedly revealed to the false prophet Muhammad.

'The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter.' Surah 5:33

Just call this effort to bring back one of the more barbaric aspects of Islam one more reason to hold the Terrorstinians -- and Islam -- in utter contempt.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 668 words, total size 4 kb.

Certainly not after the head of the Organization of Islamic Countries gets the UN to again condemn "defamation of religion"

The world's top diplomat for Islam called on Friday for an end to what he termed efforts to equate the religion with terrorism and said the 'demonization' of Muslims around the world must be fought.

But speaking soon after the U.N. General Assembly passed an Islamic-sponsored resolution condemning "defamation of religion" for the fourth year in a row, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu said his group was committed to respecting freedom of expression.

There was a "rising tide of incitement to religious hatred and discrimination and intolerance targeting Muslims," he told a meeting called by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) at the United Nations in Geneva. The 57-nation OIC, based in Saudi Arabia, represents 1.5 billion Muslims.

"Attempts to equate Islam with terrorism should be stopped. Stereotyping and demonization of Muslims should be combated," said Ihsanoglu, a Turkish history professor who became OIC Secretary-General in 2005.

Frankly, I wish that we didn't have to link Islam and terrorism. Unfortunately, these folks do.

Given that each and every one of these indicted terrorist fugitives is a Muslim, I don't see how we can avoid making a connection between their religion and terrorism -- especially when they themselves make that connection, claiming to engage in their foul acts under the rubric of "jihad", which is the duty of every Muslim.

For that matter, there is this comment, too -- making a clear statement about how terrorism will get you into heaven if you are a Muslim, from a spokesman from a major Muslim organization.

The Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) is one of the media's favourite Muslim organisations - radical and outspoken but not extremist, we're led to believe. One of its spokesmen, Asghar Bukhari, is a particular favourite of the BBC, whose Asian Network describes how he has "set up Media response workshops to educate and engage Muslims about dealing with the media" .

So I was interested to see how Bukhari would "deal" with me when I rang him to ask about an interesting discovery by The Centre for Social Cohesion, in my opinion the most formidable of the think-tanks monitoring Islamic extremism, which has been rooting around Facebook discussions.

In one recent thread, Bukhari says: "Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are 'Mujahadeen' and are blessed by Allah. And any Muslim who fights and dies against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise ... There is no greater oppressor on this earth than the Zionists, who murder little children for sport."

Well, Bukhari didn't evade the question. He confirmed that the Facebook discussion was authentic, and said: "I stand by that [his comments], and I think any Muslim in the world stands by that ... if you think I'm going to tap dance for you and say 'These Muslims are really bad and should sort their own house out', then I'm not going to."

Indeed, he added, if that was my view then I could "p--- off".

Seems like this Bukhari shares a view of Islam with the terrorists above, but not with the OIC.

But I'm prepared to make a deal with Professor Ihsanoglu -- when his religion quits producing the overwhelming majority of terrorists and its apologists, I'll quit drawing a connection. Until then, I'll stand by the position that there is clearly something dysfunctional in a faith that produces a disproportionate number of terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 597 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, that is the word out of the New York Times. The newly elected president wants to give such a speech sometime in the first hundred days of his term -- possibly in Cairo

President-elect Barack ObamaÂ’s aides say he is considering making a major foreign policy speech from an Islamic capital during his first 100 days in office.

So where should he do it? The list of Islamic world capitals is long, and includes the obvious —Riyadh, Kuwait City, Islamabad — and the not-so-obvious — Male (the Maldives), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Tashkent (Uzbekistan). Some wise-guys have even suggested Dearborn, Mich., as a possibility.

Clearly it would be cheating for Mr. Obama to fly to Detroit, talk to DearbornÂ’s 30,000 Arab residents and call it a day. And Male and Ouagadougou, while certainly majority Muslim, canÂ’t really be what Mr. ObamaÂ’s aides have in mind when they talk about locales for a high-profile speech that would seek to mend rifts between the United States and the broader Muslim world.

In other words, look for a kow-tow. The dhimmification of America will be in full swing with such a speech. After all, these are folks who aren’t happy with the fact that the US dared to strike back against al-Qaeda after 9/11. These are folks who aren’t happy that the US dared to remove Saddam Hussein from power after multiple violations of UN resolutions and the brutal oppression of his people. These are the folks who are unhappy about our support for Israel. These are thepeople who want our civil liberties and human rights be curtailed lest they be offended by the free expression of non-Islamic views. How do we “mend rifts” with those who insist that we have been wrong to defend ourselves, oppose dictatorship, support our allies, and live in freedom without repudiating things that are quintessentially American?

But if Obama is going to a Muslim capital to speak, he ought to carry a message of freedom. He ought to speak out against authoritarianism and oppression, and in favor of democracy and liberty. He ought to speak out on behalf of women who are relegated to subservience in much of the Muslim world. He ought to call for full respect for the rights and dignity of non-Muslims in the Muslim world, including freedom of speech and religion. WhatÂ’s more, he ought to speak out against the application of sharia law to those who Islam calls apostates due to their decision to reject Islam in favor of another faith or none at all.

And should Barack Obama be so courageous and honorable as to give such a speech in the Muslim world, it ought to be given in the Saudi Arabian capital of Riyadh, in the presence of the ruler who is also custodian of the holiest sites in Islam. After all, the only terms on which America can legitimately mend the rifts that exist are those that echo the clarion call of freedom that is central to our founding documents – and one which offers no apology for exercising, protecting, and promoting the inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our Creator.

H/T Don Surber (who proposes the speech be in Baghdad), Hot Air (Ed would like Mumbai, but would settle for Dubai), Commentary's Contentions (where Abe Greenwald notes that Obama's "ability to move mountains by speechifying hit its career high exactly one month ago, when it got him elected President of the United States of America.")

Posted by: Greg at 02:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 591 words, total size 4 kb.

Sullivan quotes Hitchens approvingly, and therefore indicates his intent to call the city victimized by Islamist terrorists last week Bombay rather than by its proper modern name, Mumbai. Their argument is that it is illegitimate for brown-skinned to change the names given to their cities by their British masters during the colonial era – especially if that name change reflects the cultural heritage of the majority.

When Salman Rushdie wrote, in The Moor's Last Sigh in 1995, that "those who hated India, those who sought to ruin it, would need to ruin Bombay," he was alluding to the Hindu chauvinists who had tried to exert their own monopoly in the city and who had forcibly renamed it—after a Hindu goddess—Mumbai. We all now collude with this, in the same way that most newspapers and TV stations do the Burmese junta's work for it by using the fake name Myanmar. (Bombay's hospital and stock exchange, both targets of terrorists, are still called by their right name by most people, just as Bollywood retains its "B.")

In effect, the two British expatriates argue that the Indians must accept the decisions of those who colonized their nation and attempted to suppress their religion and culture. I guess that is a sign of the arrogance that still runs deep in British culture – the sun may have long since set upon the British Empire, but they want to pretend that they still rule the world anyway.

Sullivan, though, in a fit of intellectual honesty, does publish a dissent by one of the uppity Indians who insists upon defending their right to give an Indian city a proper Indian name.

I'm a fourth-generation Mumbaikar who loves reading your blog, but your post about the name Mumbai (linked to Hitchens) left me seething.
Hitchens is completely wrong. As someone whose roots go back many generations in Mumbai, let me assure you that we've always called the city Mumbai in our local language Marathi. The name Bombay was given to the city by the British. What do you think the city was called before the Europeans arrived? It was called Mumbai.

No word yet on whether or not either of these Brits will repent of their cultural imperialism and acknowledge that the name change to Mumbai is every bit as legitimate as the decision of Chinese authorities to rename their capital Beijing, or for the Russians to strip the names of Communist dictators from Saint Petersburg and Volgograd.

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 427 words, total size 3 kb.