Posts
Why should we care about what is happening in Iran? Are any of you worried that your lives will be impacted negatively by the civil unrest there? Do any you have a burning desire to spend your next vacation there? How many of you are eager to see such cultural attractions as a public hanging of a woman accused of adultery or a flogging of a girl for exposing some of her hair in public? Why should anyone living in the United States spend even a few seconds pondering the events unfolding there and their possible implications?
Despite the fact that we live thousands of miles from Iran, we are not immune to the events occurring there. The days of willful isolationism have ended. The people of the United States can no longer rely on the notion that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans provide sufficient buffers against any harm emanating from that region of the world. The tremendous distance between the United States and one of Iran’s neighbors, Afghanistan, did not prevent the launching of suicide attacks from the other side of the world on the United States on the eleventh of September 2001.
For thirty years, the Iranian regime has been involved in undeclared war against the United States. One of the first acts of the Islamic regime was the seizure of American embassy. On the fourth of November, 1979, militants backing the Islamic regime attacked the American embassy in Tehran and seized the occupants. The Iranian regime imprisoned these fifty Americans for four hundred forty-four days.
On three occasions in 1983, terrorists who received funding and logistical support from Iran attacked Americans. On the eighteenth of April, a suicide bomber from the Shiite terrorist group, Hezbollah, crashed a pickup truck laden with explosives into the American Embassy in Beirut. Seventeen Americans and forty-six others died as a result. On the twenty-third of October, Hezbollah struck in similar fashion; this time the group targeted the U.S. Marines’ barracks in Beirut. The Marines had been sent to Lebanon to serve as members of a multi-national peace-keeping force during the Lebanese civil war. On the twelfth of December of the same year, another Shiite terrorist organization supported by Iran, Al Dawa, sent a suicide truck bomber to attack the American embassy in Kuwait. Five people died and more than eighty suffered injuries.
Attacks on embassies and military installations are blatant acts of war. All embassies are considered sovereign territory of the nation-state maintaining the embassy, regardless of location. However, Americans failed to realize that they had been dragged in this war and refused to reply to repeated attacks.
Iranian regime has been involved in terrorism and other threats to peace and stability in the Middle East. Iranian-backed Hezbollah suicide bombers also struck the French peacekeepers in Beirut the same days as the attacks on the Marines’ barracks. Hezbollah members have repeatedly engaged in kidnappings of Lebanese Christians and foreign journalists, professor, members of the media and others since the mid-eighties. These same militants periodically fire rockets at Israeli civilians from inside Lebanese borders. They smuggle suicide bombers into Israel who then set off explosive vests full of shrapnel on buses or in other public places.
Additionally, the Iranian theocracy has been working to acquire nuclear technology for several years. One must question why a country possessing such an abundance of petroleum would pursue a more costly and less secure form of energy. Iran’s petroleum reserves, one of the largest in the world, serve as the foundation of its economy. Claims for the need to acquire atomic power appear, at best, as a bizarre waste of resources considering Iran’s staggering illiteracy and poverty rates. These problems will only continue to mount considering that nearly a majority of the population is less than thirty years old. Ahmadinejad’s bellicose pronouncements against Israel, the United States and anyone else who may oppose Iranian hegemony in the Middle East betray his regime’s true, malignant designs for the acquisition and implementation of nuclear capability.
Iranians have been suffering under yoke of totalitarian government for thirty years. A pretense of representative democracy has existed in Iran since the revolution. However, these elections should be misconstrued as free and open. All candidates for any office must receive approval by the Guardian Council, twelve men appointed by the true leader of Iran, the unelected and unimpeachable Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Anyone deemed insufficiently adherent to Shiism is disqualified. In the parliamentary elections of 2008, this despotic dozen barred nearly two thousand of the nine thousand candidates who applied to run for seats. Political debates are illegal. No political advertisements ever appear on Iranian television which a governmental monopoly.
Azeri Turks, an ethnic minority comprising a quarter of the Iranian population, are targets of slander in governmental media. News reports have portrayed Azeris as cockroaches and dimwits because Azeris typically speak Farsi, the official language of Iran, with difficulty. The Persian majority of the regime has outlawed the use of Turkish names for geographic locations and children. The mere act of printing anything in Turkish has been deemed a criminal offense.
The Arab minority in Iran face continuous harassment and loss of property. The Arab minority lives in the southwestern portion of Iran. The government regularly seizes their property to give to the burgeoning Persia populace. When the Arabs protest, they are rounded up under the charge of subverting the Shiite regime as agents of the Saudi kingdom.
Oppression of women has been sited as one of the contributing factors to the tumult. An entire generation has grown up under Islamic tyranny yet the governmental propaganda has not fully brainwashed all of those born since the establishment of the Shiite regime. Iranian women and girls catch glimpses of liberated women across the world despite the extensive censorship of foreign media by the Islamic morality police. They realize that women elsewhere do not endure beatings, fines or imprisonment for not covering their hair or wearing anything other than shapeless and oppressively uncomfortable outfits.
Multiple forms of legalized sexual exploitation and abuse haunt Iranian women. Three decades have been blighted with the executions of women and girls for offenses such as adultery, many of whom were in fact raped and did not consent to any extramarital sexual acts. Thousands of teenaged girls from impoverished rural families have been sold off to men in their forties or older. These arranged marriages last only short-term, leaving the girls as destitute as before but also stigmatized as a discarded wife. Additionally, Iranian law permits de facto prostitution under the moniker of “temporary marriages”. These arrangements consist of a man signing a legal contract with a pre-determined termination date of the so-called marriage and a sum paid to the woman. These marriages typically last only a few days or even hours, depending on the whim of the man signing the document.
Persecution of religious minorities has grown rampant under the Islamic theocracy. Applicants to universities must pass a test of knowledge of Shiite Islam, even those Iranian citizens who belong to another sect of Islam or to another religion altogether. Laws forbid the scriptures of any other religion to be translated in Farsi. Only Shiites are allowed to evangelize; members of any other religious group face imprisonment or execution for trying to convert Shiites Iranians to any other faith. All religious minorities must serve in the Iranian military but are barred from becoming officers. If a Shiite kills a non-Shiite, the Shiite cannot be executed under Iranian law. If one member of a non-Shiite family converts to Islam, then that convert automatically inherits all of his/her family’s property regardless of the family’s wishes. If an Iranian was born and raised as a Shiite, he/she faces execution for leaving Islam to accept another religion.
The Jewish population has dwindled to twenty-five percent of its total before the Islamic Revolution. Iranian Jews are forbidden to travel as an entire family outside of the country to prevent their emigration. They are not allowed to operate their own private schools. Officials of the Islamic regime control the school with obvious antagonism such as mandating Saturday as a school day, in violation of the Jewish Sabbath. Any Jewish protests against the hostile policies result in arrests, imprisonment or executions on baseless charges of espionage or subversion under the auspices of Israel.
Since the beginning of Ahmadinejad’s presidency four years ago, persecution of Sufis, a minority sect of Islam, has increased remarkably. Agents of the Shiite regime have destroyed Sufis’ place of worship, shrines and other locations where Sufis gather. Additionally, Sufis are regularly arrested then flogged or forced to sign documents renouncing Sufism.
Christians in Iran have endured oppression since the early days of the Islamic regime. Assyrians and Armenians, ethnic minorities who are Christians, constantly endure governmental surveillance of their religious services. The Ministry of Islamic Guidance has ordered the closing of many churches and other Christian buildings, including all their bookstores in 1990. The Iranian government forbids both groups to accept any new members among other ethnicities in the country.
Zoroastrians, the majority of the people in pre-Islamic Iran, suffer oppression as well. Their faith predates Islam by at least a thousand, seven hundred years yet less than hundred thousand at the present time. They face the same third-class status as other religious minorities.
Bahais, another indigenous religious sect, have not even received the flimsy promises of tolerance accorded to Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians by the Shiite government. This persecution persists despite the fact that the Bahai faith originated in the mid-nineteenth century in Iran when it was called Persia. Almost immediately after Ayatollah Khomeini and his legions seized power in 1978, the mullahs exhorted the followers to pillage Bahai temples and assault the congregants.
The Iranian theocracy has demonstrated similarities to other repressive regimes since its inception thirty years ago. Totalitarian regimes have engaged in banning of any use of minorities languages. The fascist government of Spain suppressed all public use of the Basque and Catalan languages by those two ethnicities. The Communist Chinese government has engaged in a systematic effort to eliminate the Tibetan language and distinctive culture. The Nazi and Soviet regimes fanned the flames of religious hostility toward their Jewish population to rally support for wide-spread imprisonment and seizure of Jewish property. Popular revolts against tyranny met ruthless crackdowns just as those which occurred in Tiananmen Square in 1989 and in Nazi-occupied Warsaw in 1943. The mullahs in charge of Iran have either modeled their oligarchy on preceding authoritarian factions or are engaging in a frightening similar coincidence.
The current resistance movement has been swelling for years. The suspicious outcome of this presidential election only served as the tipping point. Years of misogyny, ethnic chauvinism and religious persecution have all contributed to the boiling cauldron that Iran has become. Finally, the contentious situation has boiled over and spilled into the streets throughout Iran.
The United States stood by passively when the Islamic militants toppled the Shah of Iran. Granted, the Shah headed an autocratic and corrupt regime. However, the most egregious sins of the monarchy pale in comparison to the totalitarians currently in power in Iran. The consequences of the outcome of this tumult far outweigh any importance associated with the death of an androgynous pop singer or that of faded sex symbol from the 1970s.
All of these examples I have cited should motivate every American to support efforts to assist the toppling of the Iranian theocracy. The United States must organize an international boycott of Iran petroleum. Additionally, American naval forces should lead a blockade of Iranian ports used to export its petroleum. Without the profits from the sale of its petroleum, the Iranian regime will soon collapse. Then all of the citizens can unite to establish a true republic with legitimate multi-party elections, equality under the law for women and the end of antagonism toward non-Shiites and non-Persians. Finally, this undeclared war will come to an en
COPYRIGHT JULY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT
Sources for this article:
http://www.cswusa.com/Countries/Iran.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/again_religious_persecution_in.html
http://forums.contracostatimes.com/topic/islamic-republic-of-irans-persecution-oppression-of-minorities-islamic-apartheid
http://www.iranfocus.com/en/human-rights/iranian-authorities-destroy-sufi-holy-site-in-isfahan-17207.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903488_2.html
http://parsikhabar.net/irans-last-zoroastrians-worried-by-youth-exodus/
http://www.henryjacksonsociety.org/stories.asp?id=343
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88148974
Friday, July 3, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Iranian Rebellion: linear or meandering?
Popular rebellions throughout history have proved extremely difficult to gauge. Pundits and politicians attempt to project their final results. Often sparked by dour economic conditions combined with repressive governmental actions, rebellions open the portals for inundations of demands for economic and social transformations.
The French Revolution started when peasants' crops failed leading to famine. Decades of deficit spending precluded the ability of King Louis the Fourteenth's regime from doing much to alleviate the suffering. The knowledge of the aristocracy's opulence sparked the peasantry's rage. Intermingling with this anger, advocates of the Enlightenment, enthralled with novelties called representative democracy and liberty, joined the anti-monarchical chorus. The fervor eventually led to verbal and physical assaults on Catholic installations and clergy. The urge to overthrow all peripherals of the system even lead to abolition of the Christian calendar and its replacement by a week of ten days and a year that started on the day of the autumnal equinox.
The Russian Revolution grew out of opposition to Czar Nicholas the Second's decision to enter the First World War. Political minorities, factions of Marxism, anarchism and capitalism, became involved in the opposition to the monarchy; they disagreed on what form of government should replace it but all openly pushed for the end of the Czarist autocracy. Eventually, the totalitarianism of the Bolsheviks replaced the autocracy of the Czar. This upheaval led to fundamental changes such as the full-scale oppression of the Orthodox Christian Church and its institutions, even its calendar which the monarchy had used for centuries.
At the present, the world is watching the tumult occurring in Iran. After thirty years under a totalitarian government, the Islam-based oppression is chafing some teens and twenty-somethings. Despite the mullahs' efforts to isolate Iranians, increased ease of communication with the Free World has allowed the penetration of non-Islamic concepts. During the street protests, women have dared to pull back their legally-mandated head-coverings to un-Islamic standards, if not remove them completely. Reports indicate that demonstrators have yelled, "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei!" If those have been occurring, the rebellion exceeds a mere burst of outrage by devotees of a candidate who lost an election. The suicide bombing of the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution which installed the Islamic regime, carries profound significance. That act of violence may portend opposition to the entire theocracy, not simply to the loony figurehead who holds the position of President of the Islamic regime.
Some question Mir Mousavi's alleged reformist agenda. Considering that politicians truly antipathic toward Islamic regime are never permitted to seek offices in the government, such skepticism is warranted. Therefore, one can rightfully question Mousavi's commitment to advocate for personal freedom and legitimate democracy in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never attempted to hide his mental instability. He openly denies the Nazi genocide directed at Jews. He leaves a seat vacant just in case a supposed messianic figure called the "Twelfth Imam" happens to stop by wherever Ahmadinejad is making a public appearance. He actually says with a straight face that Iran wants a nuclear energy program for strictly peaceful purposes. How can any sane person justify the pursuit of nuclear technology for energy production in a country which is one of the largest exporters of petroleum in the world? I suppose Ahmadinejad expects that the "Twelfth Imam" will provide some sort of rational explanation or just bring the nuclear weapons himself, rendering the secretive program obsolete.
No one knows how this tumult will resolve itself. The theocrats in Iran may unleash a torrent of violence to crackdown on the protestors. However, that could possibly fan the blames of opposition causing undecided Iranians to side with the anti-regime forces. Middle Eastern experts might try to predict the outcome yet they have limited access to current developments inside Iran. Intelligence agencies of various countries are undoubtedly extracting all possible information that their agents can obtain. Nevertheless, a multitude of surveillance technology and inside sources cannot provide perfect clairvoyance and clairaudience. In the end, we will only know the fate of Iran after the demonstrations have concluded, either victoriously or in vain.
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The French Revolution started when peasants' crops failed leading to famine. Decades of deficit spending precluded the ability of King Louis the Fourteenth's regime from doing much to alleviate the suffering. The knowledge of the aristocracy's opulence sparked the peasantry's rage. Intermingling with this anger, advocates of the Enlightenment, enthralled with novelties called representative democracy and liberty, joined the anti-monarchical chorus. The fervor eventually led to verbal and physical assaults on Catholic installations and clergy. The urge to overthrow all peripherals of the system even lead to abolition of the Christian calendar and its replacement by a week of ten days and a year that started on the day of the autumnal equinox.
The Russian Revolution grew out of opposition to Czar Nicholas the Second's decision to enter the First World War. Political minorities, factions of Marxism, anarchism and capitalism, became involved in the opposition to the monarchy; they disagreed on what form of government should replace it but all openly pushed for the end of the Czarist autocracy. Eventually, the totalitarianism of the Bolsheviks replaced the autocracy of the Czar. This upheaval led to fundamental changes such as the full-scale oppression of the Orthodox Christian Church and its institutions, even its calendar which the monarchy had used for centuries.
At the present, the world is watching the tumult occurring in Iran. After thirty years under a totalitarian government, the Islam-based oppression is chafing some teens and twenty-somethings. Despite the mullahs' efforts to isolate Iranians, increased ease of communication with the Free World has allowed the penetration of non-Islamic concepts. During the street protests, women have dared to pull back their legally-mandated head-coverings to un-Islamic standards, if not remove them completely. Reports indicate that demonstrators have yelled, "Death to the dictator!" and "Death to Khamenei!" If those have been occurring, the rebellion exceeds a mere burst of outrage by devotees of a candidate who lost an election. The suicide bombing of the mausoleum of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution which installed the Islamic regime, carries profound significance. That act of violence may portend opposition to the entire theocracy, not simply to the loony figurehead who holds the position of President of the Islamic regime.
Some question Mir Mousavi's alleged reformist agenda. Considering that politicians truly antipathic toward Islamic regime are never permitted to seek offices in the government, such skepticism is warranted. Therefore, one can rightfully question Mousavi's commitment to advocate for personal freedom and legitimate democracy in Iran.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never attempted to hide his mental instability. He openly denies the Nazi genocide directed at Jews. He leaves a seat vacant just in case a supposed messianic figure called the "Twelfth Imam" happens to stop by wherever Ahmadinejad is making a public appearance. He actually says with a straight face that Iran wants a nuclear energy program for strictly peaceful purposes. How can any sane person justify the pursuit of nuclear technology for energy production in a country which is one of the largest exporters of petroleum in the world? I suppose Ahmadinejad expects that the "Twelfth Imam" will provide some sort of rational explanation or just bring the nuclear weapons himself, rendering the secretive program obsolete.
No one knows how this tumult will resolve itself. The theocrats in Iran may unleash a torrent of violence to crackdown on the protestors. However, that could possibly fan the blames of opposition causing undecided Iranians to side with the anti-regime forces. Middle Eastern experts might try to predict the outcome yet they have limited access to current developments inside Iran. Intelligence agencies of various countries are undoubtedly extracting all possible information that their agents can obtain. Nevertheless, a multitude of surveillance technology and inside sources cannot provide perfect clairvoyance and clairaudience. In the end, we will only know the fate of Iran after the demonstrations have concluded, either victoriously or in vain.
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Videos of Islamic Infection of the Free World
Here is a video from Arkansas of an Islamist spouting anti-Jewish and anti-American lies plus the usual Islamic disinformation. This occurred on the day of the memorial service for Private William Long who was murdered by one of her fellow savages. Her vehicle is a Toyota minivan, license plate is from Louisiana, number PNE 729. If you see her, yell the pro-violence, anti-Jewish and anti-Christian Koranic verses at her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqopnIAnmAw&feature=related&pos=0
Here is one from the Czech Republic. An undercover crew of journalists infiltrated a mosque. They expose a Czech Mohamadan denying the existence of misogynistic and violent Koranic verses despite having them read to him and justified by a Islamic cleric.
http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-muslim.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqopnIAnmAw&feature=related&pos=0
Here is one from the Czech Republic. An undercover crew of journalists infiltrated a mosque. They expose a Czech Mohamadan denying the existence of misogynistic and violent Koranic verses despite having them read to him and justified by a Islamic cleric.
http://kitmantv.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-muslim.html
Monday, June 1, 2009
Religious Indoctrination Led to Murder
A murder occurring this week has not caused a huge nation-wide outrage that it merits. A blatant act of terrorism occurred in the United States, in broad daylight and front of witnesses that demonstrates the gall of the murderer. A violent religious fanatic fatally shot a man simply because that man had training in and engaged in a legal profession. Granted, the victim’s form of employment has raised controversy in some narrow-minded social circles. Although these virulent critics would viciously accuse the victim of engaging in murder, he had not done so under any definition of American jurisprudence. The victim was never arrested for nor charged with any homicides. Despite those circumstances, a blood-thirsty zealot assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner.
American society cannot survive such unapologetic aggression based on a malevolent ideology masquerading as religion. Apparently, this assassin believes that he had divine sanction for his blatant and pre-meditated murder. Undoubtedly, he will defend his action by quoting his faith’s scriptures. This trial will display the oppressive bigotry of the murder’s ilk, bent on imposing their despotic theocracy on the entire United States of America. People who cherish the freedom to live their lives without the shackles of the murderer’s hateful constraints can no longer remain silent. Do the American people want a representative democracy that functions under the rule of law determined by the consent of the governed and not by the dictates of practitioners of an intolerant ideology which originated in the Middle East more than a millennium ago?
The myopic sheep of his congregation will likely distance themselves from this crime, at least, publicly. A few might openly condemn his act. However, away from cameras and prying eyes of non-believers, they will smile, laugh and shout his praises for slaughtering a man that they all loathed. They will strive to assure the country that his actions do not represent their movement’s true intentions and that the killer had strayed from their guidance into extremism. The adherents’ spokesmen have mastered duplicitous statements that fool the bulk of non-believers. Too many gullible Americans so desperately want to avoid conflict that they swallow the double-speak despite glaring inconsistencies. Eventually, that forced consumption of disinformation will lead to either the expectoration of the multitude of lies or irrevocable asphyxiation. Sadly, a significant number of the alleged intellectuals among the media, academia and other spheres of influence have already succumbed to the latter, leading to their obvious brain-dead status.
In conclusion, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s murder of Private William Long at an Army-Navy recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas should remind all Americans that jihadis do not exist and operate solely in backwaters in which Islam reigns. This latest act of Islamic aggression directed at a defender of freedom should serve notice that those residing in the United States must maintain vigilance against future incidents of savagery. Additionally, this incident underscores the necessity of the total elimination of the malignancy from the entire world, starting within the borders of the United States of America.
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
American society cannot survive such unapologetic aggression based on a malevolent ideology masquerading as religion. Apparently, this assassin believes that he had divine sanction for his blatant and pre-meditated murder. Undoubtedly, he will defend his action by quoting his faith’s scriptures. This trial will display the oppressive bigotry of the murder’s ilk, bent on imposing their despotic theocracy on the entire United States of America. People who cherish the freedom to live their lives without the shackles of the murderer’s hateful constraints can no longer remain silent. Do the American people want a representative democracy that functions under the rule of law determined by the consent of the governed and not by the dictates of practitioners of an intolerant ideology which originated in the Middle East more than a millennium ago?
The myopic sheep of his congregation will likely distance themselves from this crime, at least, publicly. A few might openly condemn his act. However, away from cameras and prying eyes of non-believers, they will smile, laugh and shout his praises for slaughtering a man that they all loathed. They will strive to assure the country that his actions do not represent their movement’s true intentions and that the killer had strayed from their guidance into extremism. The adherents’ spokesmen have mastered duplicitous statements that fool the bulk of non-believers. Too many gullible Americans so desperately want to avoid conflict that they swallow the double-speak despite glaring inconsistencies. Eventually, that forced consumption of disinformation will lead to either the expectoration of the multitude of lies or irrevocable asphyxiation. Sadly, a significant number of the alleged intellectuals among the media, academia and other spheres of influence have already succumbed to the latter, leading to their obvious brain-dead status.
In conclusion, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad’s murder of Private William Long at an Army-Navy recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas should remind all Americans that jihadis do not exist and operate solely in backwaters in which Islam reigns. This latest act of Islamic aggression directed at a defender of freedom should serve notice that those residing in the United States must maintain vigilance against future incidents of savagery. Additionally, this incident underscores the necessity of the total elimination of the malignancy from the entire world, starting within the borders of the United States of America.
COPYRIGHT JUNE 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Timely Reminder
Among the ongoing debates within the Obama Administration and the rest of the American society about the fate of the war criminals detained at Guantanamo Bay, jihadis reminded those paying attention why the facility exists in the first place. Four career criminals were in the process of waging jihad in New York. In the nearly eight years since the Islamic terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center, the Koran and its exhortations to violence and oppression of non-Mohamadans have not changed. The Islamists' will to impose Islamic dictates on the Free World has not evaporated either.
The continued detainment of jihadis at Guantanamo Bay does inspire other Mohamadans to respond to calls for jihad, as well as it should. If they die in the process of killing non-Mohamadans, they believe an eternity in a free bordello awaits them. If they succeed in murdering so-called "infidels" yet survive the attacks, they will be hailed as heroes throughout the Islamic bloc. If they are captured in the process of jihad, they will be rewarded with three halal meals per day plus a Koran, prayers beads and rug in addition to exercise equipment and furnished living quarters, all paid for by the suicidally naive U.S. government. With these three possible outcomes serving as the only consequences of engaging in jihad versus Americans, one must wonder why all Mohamadan males are not pursuing this path to limitless sex, fame or leisure.
This latest Islamic plot to attack Americans also raises an inexplicable phenomenon. The sheer stupidity of permitting Islamic clerics to enter American prisons stands out as astounding act of national self-immolation. These Islamists prey on criminals who already have little to no regard for the lives and property of law-abiding Americans. The Islamists give them an excuse for their rage against democracy, capitalism and freethinking. Then they encapsulate their lusts for murder, theft and rape by justifying such crimes as permissible by following the example of Mohamad ibn Abdullah (May he burn in hell forever) as recorded in the Koran and the hadiths.
Never in the history of the United States were enemy agents allowed to enter the country so openly and operate so freely as during this current war. The Nazi regime was not allowed to send representatives to scour Depression-era American jails for potential recruits for the SS or Wehrmacht. Without a doubt, Americans with Fascist or Marxist sympathies cruised "Hoovervilles" to stir up anti-republicanism or anti-capitalism. However, they did not do so with explicit approval of federal, state or local governmental sanction. The politically-correct acquiescence to Islamists' demands will continue to produce future enemy agents bent on murder and destruction within the United States. Prison authorities or the politicians controlling the funds supporting those authorities must halt this treacherous permissiveness before more home-grown jihadis strike again.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
The continued detainment of jihadis at Guantanamo Bay does inspire other Mohamadans to respond to calls for jihad, as well as it should. If they die in the process of killing non-Mohamadans, they believe an eternity in a free bordello awaits them. If they succeed in murdering so-called "infidels" yet survive the attacks, they will be hailed as heroes throughout the Islamic bloc. If they are captured in the process of jihad, they will be rewarded with three halal meals per day plus a Koran, prayers beads and rug in addition to exercise equipment and furnished living quarters, all paid for by the suicidally naive U.S. government. With these three possible outcomes serving as the only consequences of engaging in jihad versus Americans, one must wonder why all Mohamadan males are not pursuing this path to limitless sex, fame or leisure.
This latest Islamic plot to attack Americans also raises an inexplicable phenomenon. The sheer stupidity of permitting Islamic clerics to enter American prisons stands out as astounding act of national self-immolation. These Islamists prey on criminals who already have little to no regard for the lives and property of law-abiding Americans. The Islamists give them an excuse for their rage against democracy, capitalism and freethinking. Then they encapsulate their lusts for murder, theft and rape by justifying such crimes as permissible by following the example of Mohamad ibn Abdullah (May he burn in hell forever) as recorded in the Koran and the hadiths.
Never in the history of the United States were enemy agents allowed to enter the country so openly and operate so freely as during this current war. The Nazi regime was not allowed to send representatives to scour Depression-era American jails for potential recruits for the SS or Wehrmacht. Without a doubt, Americans with Fascist or Marxist sympathies cruised "Hoovervilles" to stir up anti-republicanism or anti-capitalism. However, they did not do so with explicit approval of federal, state or local governmental sanction. The politically-correct acquiescence to Islamists' demands will continue to produce future enemy agents bent on murder and destruction within the United States. Prison authorities or the politicians controlling the funds supporting those authorities must halt this treacherous permissiveness before more home-grown jihadis strike again.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Catering to Islamists' tastes
We, the members of the Society for the Defeat of Islam, are promoting a boycott of both Kentucky Fried Chicken and Domino's Pizza. As detailed in these two links below, both companies have kowtowed to demands by Islamists to implement "halal only" locations. We must not allow these incidents of Sharia-creep to continue unchallenged. If these two dhimmified corporations value the business of Mohamadans this much, then they should try to survive financially without the business of freedom-loving people. Credit for the links goes to Cuhraytin Erumy.
KFC: http://tinyurl.com/c7jl5v
Domino's: http://tinyurl.com/r87nq5
Additionally, we ask for everyone to contact both KFC and Domino's to voice our objections to their pandering to Mohamadans. It is vital to inform them of our campaign. If we succeed in reducing their profits yet they do not know about our campaign, they may just assume the losses were due to the economic decline.
Here is the contact information for KFC: http://www.kfc.com/contact
This is for Domino’s: https://info.dominos.com/dominos_pizza/contact.nsf/frmContact?openform
We must inform both that we will continue with the boycott of all their restaurants until they end all halal menus. This means revoking halal menus at corporate-owned locations and terminating franchises for those who maintain halal outlets.
Will you join our effort?
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
KFC: http://tinyurl.com/c7jl5v
Domino's: http://tinyurl.com/r87nq5
Additionally, we ask for everyone to contact both KFC and Domino's to voice our objections to their pandering to Mohamadans. It is vital to inform them of our campaign. If we succeed in reducing their profits yet they do not know about our campaign, they may just assume the losses were due to the economic decline.
Here is the contact information for KFC: http://www.kfc.com/contact
This is for Domino’s: https://info.dominos.com/dominos_pizza/contact.nsf/frmContact?openform
We must inform both that we will continue with the boycott of all their restaurants until they end all halal menus. This means revoking halal menus at corporate-owned locations and terminating franchises for those who maintain halal outlets.
Will you join our effort?
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Echos of the 1930s
In the 1930s, adherents to Fascism and to Communism both claimed to stand on the verge of seizing control of various nation-states, with the goal of inevitable global domination. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had been carved out of the corpse formerly known as the Russian Empire. Fascists in Italy had bullied their way into power, threatening ideologues who opposed them then bludgeoning or incarcerating those who persisted in resistance. Their German counterparts followed suit several years later. Communists were sowing havoc within the fragile society of China throughout the 1930s, provoking a civil war. With the Great Depression gripping most of the world's economies, it appeared that capitalism and representative democracy were stumbling toward extinction.
Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.
Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!
Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.
The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Fortunately, Fascists and Communists spent a considerable amount of time and resources attacking each other. These two sects of totalitarianism fought each other in venues such as the Spanish Civil War and in the streets of towns in Germany, the Netherlands and other European lands. In the next decade, they continued their blood feud on the Eastern Front of the Second World War. The Free World survived in part due to the fact they did not focus solely on destroying freedom first before turning on each other.
In our current decade, Islam and neo-Marxism both threaten the Free World.
Neo-Marxists seek to destroy the Judeo-Christian cornerstone of Western societies; Islamists share the same objective. Neo-Marxists have knee-jerk sympathies for "people of color" if those people have disputes with Europeans or descendants of Europeans, regardless of the merits of the claims of either side. Islamists have insidiously convinced their useful idiots that the jihad to destroy Western civilization exists as merely a response to the establishment of Israel and prevalence of American influence in the world. Neo-Marxists instinctively lionize those perceived as "poor", regardless of the poverty resulting from centuries of contempt of scientific research, the creation of works of art or the study of history or philosophy except for those glorify or propagate Islam. Neo-Marxists' immoderate paranoia of receiving accusations of exhibiting any politically incorrect "ism" leads them into moral contortions like justifying or excusing suicide bombings of civilians, oppression of women's rights and freedoms in addition to death threats against and murders of critics of Islam. Socialist governments throw open their borders to Mohamadans for immigration in hopes of gaining future voters. In turn, Islamists readily accept state-supplied housing, food allowances and financial support from the governmental girth created and maintained by Socialist governments. Anyone paying attention can easily discern their symbiotic relationship.
Further credence to this alliance can be found in a widely-reported event from a few years ago. In an audio recording broadcasted on the al-Jazeera Network on the eleventh of February 2003, Osama bin Laden referred to the impending battles in Iraq. He advocated, "Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2751019.stm) What a ringing endorsement of cooperation from the world's most famous jihadi!
Recent news has demonstrated that the British government has strengthened this totalitarian alliance. Home Secretary Jacqui Smith released the list of personae non gratae. The Labor Party-led government played the role of Socialist appeasers by banning radio talk-show host, Doctor Michael Savage, from entering the United Kingdom. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
Apparently with a straight face and no hint of sarcasm, Secretary Smith stated, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country."
Despite having never engaging in public demonstrations against any "community" in Britain, Doctor Savage has been offered as a sacrificial lamb to Islamists. Savage's frequent denouncements of Islam and those who advocate it has already led to the fifth column calling itself the Council on American Islamic Relations to file suit against him in American courts in an effort to silence his dissent. Considering that Savage's show is not broadcast in Britain, one must question how Brown's socialist regime decided that Savage deserved the ban and public defamation accompanying it.
The current British government has revealed its hypocritical enforcement of standards. Where was Smith's concern about tension or violence when five thousand Mohamadans marched in London on the third of February in 2006? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1509664/Muslim-protests-are-incitement-to-murder-say-Tories.html)
Were their signs with messages such as "Slay those who insult Islam", "Europe, take some lessons from 9/11" and "Butcher those who mock Islam" not likely to provoke tension or violence? Have Britons already kowtowed to Islamists and accepted dhimmitude so those slogans no longer qualify as threats? Who is more of a threat to public order, someone who criticizes a totalitarian ideology or someone who advocates the murder of that critic? This spineless administration has chosen to bar one Savage instead of the tens of thousands of savages already within its borders, poised for a demolition of the last vestiges of liberty in Britain.
COPYRIGHT MAY 2009 BY CHARLES KASTRIOT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)