Archive for the ‘In the Light of Recent Events’ Category

Is Pakistan Looking The Other Way On U.S. Drone Strikes?

— Gul Ayaz

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty December 17, 2010

Authorities in Pakistan claim two U.S. missile strikes have killed dozens of suspected militants in the Khyber tribal agency, close to the Afghan-Pakistani border.

The nearly simultaneous attacks targeted militants’ hideout in the mountanous Tirrah region of the tribal district. Authorities say the missiles were fired from U.S. predator drones, killing seven militants in the first strike. A second attack reprotedly killed three more militants.

In an exclusive interview with RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal, Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said there had been serious disagreements between Pakistan and the United States regarding drone attacks.

Responding to a question about drone attacks in Khyber Agency, Basit said, “So far, as the term of ‘safe haven’ is concerned, I don’t agree with that. Terrorism is an international issue and it should be dealt with internationally. This is not the responsibility of single country, all the countries should work together to curb the menace of terrorism.

“Yes, if there are shortcomings or gaps on the part of Pakistan, at the same time [the] international community also lacks the capacity to combat terrorism effectively. Pakistan sacrificed a lot and the sacrifices continue. The operation in Waziristan is a serious issue and we need the confidence of our people before launching it.”

U.S. drone attacks are very controversial in Pakistan — where, ofiicially, the government considers them an infringement of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Some analysts believe, however, that Pakistan is exploiting the issue for its own strategic interests.

Pakistani journalist Rahimullah Yousafzai believes Pakistan provides ground intelligence to the U.S. military about the whereabouts of militants and then the U.S. drones target them.

“I suspect Pakistan provides assistance for these attacks,” Yousafzai told me. “It is possible for Pakistan to identify targets who are the enemies of the country. As reports show, there is a drone attack in Tirrha that killed Taliban from Swat and Lashkar-e Islam — they are the Taliban who are fighting against Pakistan rather than the U.S. They are a lesser danger for the U.S., but a bigger danger for Pakistan.

“It is possible that in such attacks Pakistani intellgence directly or indirectly supports the United States.”

my response:

There is no way in hell that Pakistani intelligence is NOT providing information on US drone targets. We are shooting in the dark right now with our drones because we have little good information on who is doing what in the region. Without troops on the ground capturing and interrogating terrorists all we have is a guessing game as to who is an enemy of the US and who is just a political rival of the Pakistan government.

The Obama White House is too timid to go after terrorists by putting troops on the ground where they are most needed. Even if we did capture a prime information source what could we do with him? We know that Obama won’t let him go to Gitmo. We know that we can not use enhanced interrogation techniques on him. Obama’s ability to fight this war has been hamstrung by his campaign rhetoric.

If the White House changes hands after 2012 expect Obama’s supporters to jump all over the new administration for its inhumane “murder from the sky” if the same drones are used in the same way as they are being used right now.

Anti-US Taliban forces are in many cases still allies of the Islamic radicals who run Pakistan’s military and intelligence services. So just who are we actually killing with all of these drone strikes and how is it helping our cause?

Our chances of a real victory were slim to none when we invaded Afghanistan. Now that the war has been Obamafied to the extent that it has been, our hopes of anything less that a protracted defeat hinge on one question. Do we go nuclear or not? BR

Iran Using Western Mosques to Plot Terrorism?

In the latest episode of the Stakelbeck on Terror show (watch here), I sat down with a former member of Iran’s powerful and fearsome Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In our exclusive interview, Reza Khalili shared inside information from his years working for the Guards–a group that recently vowed to murder American generals. He was able to infiltrate the organization as a double agent working for the CIA and details his experiences in the fascinating new book, A Time to Betray.

Perhaps the most stunning revelation to come out of our interview was Reza’s admission that Iran uses mosques in Europe and the U.S to plot, finance, recruit and train for terrorism. Reza was personally involved in some of these operations while working for Iran in the Muslim communities of Europe. Given the current controversies that are raging over proposed mega-mosques, not only at Ground Zero but?across America’s heartland, Reza’s insights are vitally important.

Reza Khalili: Mosques are supposed to be a place for prayer. A place for submission to God. But they are used as a recruitment center, for backdoor meetings, transfer of arms and cash and putting together terrorist activities and I was involved in some of their meetings.

Erick Stakelbeck: You made a key point, that Iran used mosques and Islamic cultural centers in the West to further its agenda…could you get a little bit more specific about that? How does Iran uses mosques here in the U.S. and in Europe to plot terrorism?

Khalili: I can tell you from experience: I was part of the operation, I was involved in the Islamic community, and I can tell you clearly that out of mosques, there was a big effort within the Afghan communities by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards members–and with Pakistanis, Turks and others. And they would recruit from them, they would transfer cash and arms. And mosques provided a safe haven, and actually, in my view, were one of the centers of the operation. So if an intelligence agency such as the CIA infiltrates a mosque and understands that there is a specific Guards member who runs it, then actually they could be very successful in drawing a chart of all the terrorist activities in that specific region. That’s how central the mosque operation was.

Stakelbeck.: And that’s in Europe–you were involved in some of these operations in Europe. How about the U.S.?

Khalili: It’s absolutely the same. They recruit, they train, they sell the ideology of martyrdom, and many, many are guided and connected to terrorist groups. And you’ve seen this: many U.S. born citizens, Muslims, unfortunately, have been sold this idea and are sent to Al Qaeda camps or others. But the Iranians are very active in this country through the mosques and Islamic cultural centers to make those connections and run those operations.

my response:

Mosque means “fortress” in Arabic! Once we understand that little fact, we need to understand that although many American citizens may not be “at war” with Islam, Islam is at war with and intends to destroy the United States of America.

Mosques in the US must be monitored and when discovered to be plotting violence against our society the individuals must be prosecuted and when possible the Mosque must be prosecuted under the RICO act. ? BR

US ambassador to UK visits jihadist mosque, expresses “great admiration” for it

Article printed from Jihad Watch

Posted by Robert on December 2, 2010 8:05 AM

Could Susman — and Obama — really be this clueless? Really? “Empowering Islamists: Repeating U.K. mistakes, Obama’s ambassador to Britain reaches out to Muslim radicals,” by Shiraz Maher in the [1] Wall Street Journal, December 1:

The East London Mosque is among Britain’s most extreme Islamic institutions. Built with financial aid from Saudi Arabia, the sprawling facility is home to the London Muslim Center where incendiary preachers are regularly welcomed. On Monday, the East London Mosque hosted a very different kind of visitor–the U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, Louis Susman. Urged by President Barack Obama to engage with British Muslims, Mr. Susman spoke of his “great admiration” for the mosque and his enthusiasm for meeting its staff.By any measure the East London mosque is a troubling institution. Last year, for example, it hosted an event titled “The End of Time: A New Beginning,” where pamphlets were distributed showing Manhattan crumbling under a Hadean apocalypse of meteors, which shattered the Statute of Liberty asunder and set the city ablaze. One of the invited speakers, Khalid Yasin, described the beliefs of Christians and Jews as “filth.” Most worryingly, the event also featured a live video question-and-answer session with Anwar Al Awlaki, the U.S.-born preacher aligned with al Qaeda.

Awlaki’s terrorist credentials rival those of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Two of the 9/11 terrorists as well as Major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 U.S. soldiers in Fort Hood last year, attended his sermons in Washington. From his new base in Yemen, Awlaki called Major Hasan a “hero” and boasted of having directed the “underpants bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, in his bid to blow up a Delta airlines flight last Christmas.

Last year was not the first time Awlaki’s vitriol resonated through the East London Mosque. In 2003 the mosque hosted him for an event on policing where he told the audience that “A Muslim is a brother of a Muslim, he does not oppress him, he does not betray him and he does not hand him over… You don’t hand over a Muslim to the enemies.” The enemies in this context were the police.

A trustee of the East London Mosque, Azad Ali, has been quite explicit about his feelings in this regard. “I really do love [Awlaki] for the sake of Allah, he has an uncanny way of explaining things to people which is endearing” Azad Ali said, before going on to support the killing of British and U.S. troops in Iraq.

Mr. Susman’s visit illustrates the blunders Western politicians often make by reaching out to the wrong Muslim “dialogue partners.” The U.S. ambassador could have easily found out about the mosque’s sympathies for reactionary Islamism by consulting the British government. A report published last year by the Department for Communities and Local Government on the Pakistani Muslim community in England states that “the East London Mosque [is] the key institution for the Bangladeshi wing of JI [Jamaat-e Islami] in the U.K.”

Jamaat-e Islami is the radical South Asian party created by Syed Abulala Maududi, which aims to create an Islamist theocracy. The Bangladeshi government is currently investigating scores of Jamaat members for alleged war crimes during the 1971 war of independence from Pakistan.

None of this should come as a surprise to Mr. Susman. Congressional reports from as far back as 1993 have warned of Jamaat’s links to terrorism, particularly in Kashmir….

my response:

The Obama White House is still playing the role of the dumb kid who thinks that he can be “friends” with those who bully him. Islamists don’t want to be our friends. The Qur’an forbids them from having Infidel friends. As long as we appear foolish and weak we will invite them to make war against us.

If we desire peace we must be strong and we must act with determination to prevent their hostile actions toward us. When we can not prevent hostile actions we must react swiftly and do great damage in response to any attack.

We must not “admire” their buildings, their so-called culture, their fake religion, or their historic significance. Islam requires that all Infidels be murdered, converted, or enslaved. As a Christian I can not admire that.? BR

The lesson of Ghailani’s trial fiasco

Al-Qaida declared war on the US in 1998, so let’s not be moral idiots: try their combatants in Guantánamo, not civilian courts

Pamela Geller

On Wednesday, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the first Guantánamo detainee to be tried in civilian court in New York, was acquitted of all but one charge, that of conspiracy for his role in jihadist terror bombings in Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam, which killed 224 people. His acquittal is the first poisonous fruit of Obama’s policy of treating acts of war as law enforcement issues. It also shows what is wrong with doing so.

Apparently, the evidence charging him with 224 counts of murder could not be used in court, because “coercive” techniques were used to get information from him. The jury did find him guilty of “conspiracy to destroy government buildings”. So, the al-Qaida terrorist killed 224 people and he’s guilty of… destruction of public property?

This is a serious setback for the US – another breathtaking failure on the part of the Obama administraton, yet again putting Americans and national security at risk.

Yet, former prosecutor and executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth has argued that such trials, including the trial of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, should be in New York, since “the victims’ families have a right to witness these trials.” Yet, on 11 September 2001, all of America was under attack, not just the 9/11 families – it was an act of war against the United States of America.

Roth claims that “by choosing a federal court over the discredited military commissions, the US would show that it values the rule of law, trying even those accused of the worst crimes in a system that is broadly recognised as fair.” In reality, by choosing a federal court, we are once again refusing to address the root cause. By pretending that these attacks were not intended to take down America, and work toward overthrowing the government and installing a Sharia-based Islamic government, we yet again surrender to Islamic supremacism and imperialism.

There have been close to 20,000 documented Islamist-inspired attacks worldwide since 9/11; all were inspired by the same Islamic jihadi ideology and given the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric. This is war. It takes incomprehensible delusion and a denial of objective reality?to think that combatants in that war are comparable to civilian criminals and should be tried in the same way.

Yet, Roth contends that civilian trials are necessary because “any verdict by the military commissions will inevitably be tainted by the stigma of Guantánamo, where they are held.” Barack Obama also claimed, in May 2009, that there was “no question that Guantánamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.”

I disagree. If America prosecutes those who kept this country safe from people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as Obama seems prepared to do, that would set back our moral authority. If America turns her back on the jihad against women, Christians, Jews and non-believers, that would set back America’s moral authority.

What’s wrong with Guantánamo? Allegations of torture there have been politically motivated, spurious, and pale in comparison to Saddam Hussein at his most lenient. The idea that it is a bad thing that Gitmo is holding jihadists who would?slaughter thousands if given the opportunity is evidence of dhimmitude and surrender to the enemy narrative, and to the disinformation that the enemy has been producing.

Moreover, detaining enemy combatants without trial is entirely consistent with the “rule of law” that applies in wartime. Indeed, the Obama Justice Department has found itself making just this argument, albeit without fanfare. In short, indefinite detention at Gitmo “destroyed our credibility” only with Bush-deranged leftists – isn’t it amazing how uninterested in our credibility they’ve suddenly become now that their guy is accountable?

Some of Roth’s attempts to justify New York civilian trials for jihadis are bizarre; others simply wrong. “Some opponents of holding the trials in New York,” says Roth, “cite purported security concerns, but these fears are overblown.” Really? Only if you consider human life?worthless, as our enemy does. Roth also says that “the war framework is wrong for such awful crimes since it allows the suspects to glorify themselves as combatants.”

Actually, a civilian trial is much more likely than a military tribunal to turn into a dog-and-pony show. In a civilian court in New York, the mass-murdering jihadis would not be on trial; Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the military would be the real defendants. Such trials will become veritable jihadi circuses, in which jihadists can propagandise to the whole world in courtrooms choked with reporters.

It would also be much easier for them to game the system. Andrew McCarthy, who prosecuted the jihadists who bombed the World Trade Centre in 1993, recalled that one of them told another: “Tell them, ‘I don’t know. I’m not talking to you.?Bring my lawyer.’?Never talk to them. Not a word. ‘My lawyer’ – that’s it!?That’s what’s so beautiful about America.”

Even worse, as defendants in civilian trials, the 9/11 masterminds would be granted access to material from American intelligence services about jihadi activity in the United States. They would be granted a look at everything the US knows about al-Qaida and its allied groups, and would be able to pass this information on to active jihadists.

McCarthy explains that “the criminal-justice system is tailored to address ordinary crimes committed in peacetime America. It is designed to favor the defendants,” and is wholly unequipped to deal with jihadis who “operate from overseas redoubts where American law does not apply, where foreign regimes like Iran and the Taliban are only too happy to abet them.”

How much intelligence would be compromised when these jihadists enemies of America are all lawyered up?

They should be tried as the war criminals that they are, at Guantánamo – in a military court.

my response:

From the beginning of the Obama administration two traits have stood out in its efforts to prosecute terrorists, cowardice and stupidity. The Obama Justice Department’s failed experiment with treating an act of war as a civilian legal issue should now be over!

If they learn from the Ghalilani trial that they should NOT use civilian courts for terrorist trials, then we still have to contend with the issue of cowardice. The Obama White House has already decided to hold off on some terrorist trials until after the 2012 elections.

Mr Obama seemed to have all of the answers while he was a candidate for the office of president. Now that he is responsible for the safety of our nation, he seems to be much less capable of getting the job done.

Is anyone surprised? BR

Pakistan mosque shootout leaves 18 injured

Gun battle followed dispute between rival religious factions over who should lead prayers

A shootout in a mosque in south-western Pakistan, caused by a dispute over who should lead prayers on one of Islam‘s most important holidays, has left 18 people injured, police said today.

Followers of the two rival religious leaders pulled out weapons and began shooting after arguing over which one should start Eid al-Adha prayers at a small mosque in the Khuzdar district of Baluchistan province, Javed Ahmed, a police official, said.

Khuzdar is about 550 miles south-west of Islamabad. Many of the region’s ethnic Pashtuns carry rifles.

Millions of people throughout Pakistan have been peacefully celebrating Eid al-Adha. The three-day festival – known as the Feast of the Sacrifice – involves the slaughter of sheep and cattle in remembrance of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son.

Pakistan began the religious holiday a day later than many other countries because of local authorities’ interpretation of when the new moon was sighted.

Many mosques have increased security measures to guard against attacks by the Taliban and other Islamist extremists.

Earlier this month, at least 70 people died when a suicide bomber targeted a mosque frequented by anti-Taliban elders and a grenade exploded at another place of worship in Pakistan’s north-west.

my response:

Any time Muslims can kill each other instead of killing infidels that’s just fine with me. We should do all that we can to encourage Muslims to satisfy their blood lust by killing off those who may otherwise wish to go to paradise by killing us. BR

Bret’s opinions are brought to you by:

จิตวิทยาราคาบอล_การันตีเงินรางวัล_สูตร ตู้ สล็อต ผล ไม้ สนุก ฟรี_คาสิโนออนไลน์ ต่างประเทศ _เกมยิงปลาออนไลน์

29 charged in bust of sex slave ring tied to 3 Minneapolis gangs

Please read the article linked here. You can guess what kind of “gangs” they are talking about.

my response:

Welcome to America! Slavery and the sexual abuse of children are illegal here. Just because the Qur’an says that it’s OK to do it does not mean that you can do it in the USA. We do what we can to protect human rights here. BR

Obama admin says the use of Child Soldiers in conflict is in the ‘national interest of the United States’.

(AP) — In a move criticized by human rights organizations, the Obama administration has decided to exempt Yemen and three other countries that use child soldiers from U.S. penalties under the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act.

In a memorandum to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, President Barack Obama said he had determined that “it is in the national interest of the United States” to waive application of the law to Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen. He instructed Clinton to submit the decision to the Congress with a written justification for the move.

Obama’s memo, released by the White House on Monday, did not include the justification. Administration officials have said, however, that cutting off military aid to those four countries as required by the law would do more harm than good. And they have said that continuing close cooperation with them can be a more effective way of changing their practices.

Jo Becker, children’s rights director at Human Rights Watch, said Obama had supported the legislation when he was in the Senate.“This is a ground breaking law,” she said. “This is the first year it has taken effect and he’s undercutting it.

The law was signed by President George W. Bush shortly before he left office but did not take effect until this year.

my response:

Muslim warlords are using child soldiers to murder millions of African Christians. G W Bush signed a federal law preventing the United States of America from giving cash and weapons to any regime anywhere on earth that used child soldiers.

Our Dear Leader considers it “in the national interest of the United States” for the Muslim warlords of Sudan, Yemen, Chad, and the Democratic Republic of Congo to continue to use child soldiers in the mass murder of unarmed non-Muslim civilians.

I admit that we have a very delicate situation in our ongoing relationship with Yemen. It is going to be a long and difficult struggle to keep Yemen from becoming another Afghanistan. Giving Yemen a free pass on child soldiers is not the way to earn their respect and it forces the United States out of the position of leadership and into a second tier status roll in the eyes of our partners in Yemen.

So, what about the Christians in the Congo, Chad, and Sudan? They have just been sacrificed by a US president who can not seem to focus on too many complicated issues all at once. Perhaps they might have lived if this problem had not popped up during an election year.? BR

The Eternal Flame of Muslim Outrage

Sunday, 12 September 2010 03:57 Michelle Malkin – FrontPageMag

Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The “Muslim world” will “explode” if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the “Muslim world” not ready to “explode”?

muslim_protest_-_no_surprise_hereAt the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways.

Just a few months ago in Kashmir, faithful Muslims rioted over what they thought was a mosque depicted on underwear sold by street vendors. The mob shut down businesses and clashed with police over the blasphemous skivvies. But it turned out there was no need for Allah’s avengers to get their holy knickers in a bunch. The alleged mosque was actually a building resembling London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral. A Kashmiri law enforcement official later concluded the protests were “premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere.”

Indeed, art and graphics have an uncanny way of vitiating the Muslim world’s atmosphere. In 1994, Muslims threatened German supermodel Claudia Schiffer with death after she wore a Karl Lagerfeld-designed dress printed with a saying from the Koran. In 1997, outraged Muslims forced Nike to recall 800,000 shoes because they claimed the company’s “Air” logo looked like the Arabic script for “Allah.” In 1998, another conflagration spread over Unilever’s ice cream logo — which Muslims claimed looked like “Allah” if read upside-down and backward (can’t recall what they said it resembled if you viewed it with 3D glasses).

Even more explosively, in 2002, an al-Qaida-linked jihadist cell plotted to blow up Bologna, Italy’s Church of San Petronio because it displayed a 15th century fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented in the ninth circle of Hell. For years, Muslims had demanded that the art come down. Counterterrorism officials in Europe caught the would-be bombers on tape scouting out the church and exclaiming, “May Allah bring it all down. It will all come down.”

That same year, Nigerian Muslims stabbed, bludgeoned or burned to death 200 people in protest of the Miss World beauty pageant — which they considered an affront to Allah. Contest organizers fled out of fear of inflaming further destruction. When Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel joked that Mohammed would have approved of the pageant and that “in all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them,” her newspaper rushed to print three retractions and apologies in a row.

It didn’t stop Muslim vigilantes from torching the newspaper’s offices. A fatwa was issued on Daniel’s life by a Nigerian official in the sharia-ruled state of Zamfara, who declared that “the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed. It is abiding on all Muslims wherever they are to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.” Daniel fled to Norway.

In 2005, British Muslims got all hot and bothered over a Burger King ice cream cone container whose swirly-texted label resembled, you guessed it, the Arabic script for “Allah.” The restaurant chain yanked the product in a panic and prostrated itself before the Muslim world. But the fast-food dessert had already become a handy radical Islamic recruiting tool. Rashad Akhtar, a young British Muslim, told Harper’s Magazine how the ice cream caper had inspired him: “Even though it means nothing to some people and may mean nothing to some Muslims in this country, this is my jihad. I’m not going to rest until I find the person who is responsible. I’m going to bring this country down.”

In 2007, Muslims combusted again in Sudan after an infidel elementary school teacher innocently named a classroom teddy bear “Mohammed.” Protesters chanted, “Kill her, kill her by firing squad!” and “No tolerance — execution!” She was arrested, jailed and faced 40 lashes for blasphemy before being freed after eight days. Not wanting to cause further inflammation, the teacher rushed to apologize: “I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone, and I am sorry if I caused any distress.”

And who could forget the global Danish cartoon riots of 2006 (instigated by imams who toured Egypt stoking hysteria with faked anti-Islam comic strips)? From Afghanistan to Egypt to Lebanon to Libya, Pakistan, Turkey and in between, hundreds died under the pretext of protecting Mohammed from Western slight, and brave journalists who stood up to the madness were threatened with beheading. It wasn’t really about the cartoons at all, of course. Little-remembered is the fact that Muslim bullies were attempting to pressure Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. The chairmanship of the council was passing to Denmark at the time. Yes, it was just another in a long line of manufactured Muslim explosions that were, to borrow a useful phrase, “premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere.”

When everything from sneakers to stuffed animals to comics to frescos to beauty queens to fast-food packaging to undies serves as dry tinder for Allah’s avengers, it’s a grand farce to feign concern about the recruitment effect of a few burnt Korans in the hands of a two-bit attention-seeker in Florida. The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago.

my response:

“If the enemy is quick to anger, provoke him.” SunTzu

Islamists idiots will want to attack us whether we are nice or not. Let’s stop playing nice and let’s start jerking their chains. If they want to riot every day of a few years, let’s provoke them daily! Spell “Allah” backwards on KMart underwear. Use quotes from the Qur’an in a painted pig contest at the county fair. Sell “Muhammad’s Bacon Bits” as a new salad topping. Print Qur’an quotes on toilet paper. Name the president’s dog Muhammad. Put lard on tables in restaurants as a condiment. Televise a new situation comedy about two gay Muslim men living in Texas and working at WalMart.

Piss them off until they are too exhausted to riot and they have broken every window, burnt every bus,? and filled every emergency room in the Islamic world. Then we can sell them replacements made from pork bi-products.? BR

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Somali Feminist Appearing at Town Hall, Draws Veiled Protesters

By Nina Shapiro, Thu., Sep. 30 2010 @ 10:38AM

It was a scene you don’t see everyday in Seattle: Some three dozen Islamic women in cloaks and veils descended on Town Hall last night to wave pickets and pass out fliers. They were there to protest the appearance of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the controversial Somali émigré who’s been speaking out against Islamic fundamentalism and oppression of women.

Hirsi Ali, a former Dutch member of parliament who’s now a fellow at the conservative D.C.-based American Enterprise Institute, came here at the behest of the World Affairs Council to talk about her views on Muslims and her new book Nomad: From Islam to America: A Personal Journey Through the Clash of Civilizations.

“We don’t want hate speech here,” said Entisar Ibrahim, one of the protesters, her black hijab revealing only her eyes. But when asked exactly how Hirsi Ali was a “virulently Islamaphobic bigot,” as the fliers labeled the visiting author, Ibrahim couldn’t say.

She said nevertheless that she and her fellow protesters–whom she said came from all over the city rather than any specific neighborhood or mosque– were worried that Hirsi Ali’s message would incite anti-Islamic feeling in Seattle. She added that the city at the moment was mostly free of such sentiment but that she occasionally gets pointed comments about her appearance, such as: “Don’t you know you’re free here?”

At least one woman coming into Town Hall for the talk seemed confused by the branding of Hirsi Ali. “I thought she was a Muslim woman,” the audience member said.

Not exactly. Answering questions from the audience and World Affairs Council CEO Ian Moncaster, a very Western-looking Hirsi Ali, in leather boots and a cowl-neck sweater, described herself as a “dissident of Islam.” She certainly didn’t promote violence against Muslims. But she did put forward the deeply contentious idea that Islam was simply incompatible with modernity and feminism. Moderates who yearned for spirituality were better off converting to Christianity. (Judaism could work too, she said, but the Jews stubbornly refuse to proselytize.)

As for the protesters outside, she said, “I welcome them in the room.” She said she’d like to directly ask them about a passage in Islamic doctrine that counsels husbands to beat their wives.

my response:

This is the epitome of anti-Islamic Asymmetric Warfare. A “dissident of Islam” speaking publicly to all about her personal experience as a former slave to Islam and now as a free individual. No one I know in his or her right mind hates Muslims. Islam itself is one of the worst crimes ever inflicted upon humanity, but Muslims are the primary victims of this crime.

Christians can defend themselves from Islamic expansionism with love better than Islam can attack us with hatred. OUR LOVE CAN NOT BE IN THE FORM OF TOLERANCE. Tolerance of Islam is for cowards. We must go to Muslims with love and intolerance of their slavery. We must go forward with love and support for their way out of slavery.

Shelters for battered women need to have staff trained to deal with Muslim women and children. Our police need to be trained for Muslim-specific domestic violence issues and each state needs to have protective laws that prevent Muslims from hiding behind religious reasons for brutality. BR