GraniteGrok

Chechnya.  Bali. US Embassies in Africa. Diplomats and ex-pats.  USS Cole.  London.  Pentagon.  The Twin Towers.

How much more will it take for the West to name its enemy?  Sure as shootin', we are in a war and it is not against a nation-state (although there are nation-states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia that support it) but a far flung ideology.  It is not fighting in just one spot nor in just by one means.

And now, Mumbai.  Women, children, Christian, Jew, the unarmed, the helpless, the unsuspecting; if you are not Islamic, if you do not believe as they do, you are their enemy.

Melanie Phillips has been a tremendous writer concerning this and the culture wars.  Here is what she sees from the aspect of an encroaching Islamic threat (emphasis mine):

The atrocities in Mumbai have left reporters and commentators floundering for explanations. Why India? Was this a local terrorist group or al Qaeda? Why single out Americans and Brits if they also targeted Indians in the railway station? Why attack some obscure Jewish organisation? And so on.

They are floundering because they still just don’t get it. The atrocities demonstrated with crystal clarity what the Islamist war is all about – and the western commentariat didn’t understand because it simply refuses to acknowledge, even now, what that war actually is. It does not arise from particular grievances. It is not rooted in ‘despair’ over Palestine. It is not a reaction to the war in Iraq. It is a war waged in the name of Islam against America, Britain, Hindus, Jews and all who refuse to submit to Islamic conquest.

The Mumbai atrocities told us very clearly a number of things.

• The Islamists want to murder as many Americans, Brits, Hindus and Jews as possible. That is because they are waging all-out war against civilisation.
• They singled out Americans, Brits and Indians in the financial heart of India to break the ever-more important strategic alliance between India and the west.
• They went to some lengths in addition to single out a centre for observant Jews. Rabbi Holtzberg and his wife Rivka were murdered not because of Palestine but simply because they were Jews. That is because hatred of Jews as Jews is fundamental to the Islamists’ hatred of the west – and of Israel.
• The Islamists showed a degree of organisation and co-ordination which are more akin to commando raids by an army than acts of terrorism.
• They have the capacity not merely to commit mass murder but to cause mortal damage to a country’s economy.
• If they can do this in Mumbai, they can do it in London or other British cities; the infrastructure of Islamist terror is more extensively developed in Britain, and the authorities more paralysed in the face of what they have allowed to grow in their midst, than anywhere else in the west.
  

And yet still the west is scratching its head...

Indeed.  Previous to the present administration, this was seen as "one off" attacks and not connected. The preferred way to handle it was as a "legal" issue which plays into the hands of the Islamists.  We do need to concern ourselves with ideologists that take the long view - after all, they are still upset over the Crusades and we can't even be patient when confronting a credit card purchase that is delayed...

Posted by Skip at 7:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As soon as I saw the news and some details of the terrorist attacks in India, I was reminded of the Tet Offensive.

Gunmen have carried out a series of co-ordinated attacks across the Indian city of Mumbai (Bombay), killing 101 people and injuring 287 more. At least seven high-profile locations were hit in India's financial capital, including two luxury hotels where dozens of hostages are being held.

The buildings are now ringed by troops. Gunmen are also said to be holding people captive in an office block. Police say four suspected terrorists have been killed and nine arrested. As day broke in Mumbai, the situation on the ground was still confused with reports of gunfire and explosions at between seven and 16 locations.

Recall that in late January, 1968, American forces and their South Vietnamese allies found themselves completely surprised with an unexpected series of attacks occurring almost simultaneously in numerous cities and towns across the entire area under US protection. This event is known as the Tet Offensive. The US effort never fully recovered from this multi faceted strike.

The attacks in India should serve as a warning to us here in America. Imagine this: A white van pulls up in front of a Wal Mart or a grocery store filled with holiday shoppers as they prepare for the season. Suddenly, 5 men with semi-automatic weapons burst out and enter the store firing. Who's going to shoot back? Suppose this scenario plays out in, say, 20 states? That's 100 people attacking famous, all-American symbols of business and retail distribution. What would be the result? Remember what happened to the economy of the area where the "Beltway Sniper" operated? People were afraid to leave their homes-- they couldn't buy gasoline or go to Home Depot without fear of getting shot. No airplanes. No weapons of mass destruction. Just 100 determined, hate-filled men and 100 guns and 20 vans. Just imagine...

The events in India MUST be a wakeup call that, with or without the Obamassiah, the world is still a VERY dangerous place.

Eternal Vigilance. Words to live by more than ever...

Posted by Doug at 4:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So often, we here in the Westare accused of being Islamophobic, that we just don't fully understand, that we refuse to be tolerant of other beliefs.

So, tell me, what am I supposed to be tolerant of here.  In their own words as reported by Nonie Darwish:

On October 31, 2008, an Egyptian female lawyer by the name of Nagla Al-Imam suggested on the Arab TV channel “Al-Arabiya” that Arab men should sexually harass Israeli women, stating: “Leave the land so we won’t rape you.” She then argued that Israeli young girls and women are fair game for all Arab men and that there is nothing wrong in using this kind of threat as a form of resistance.

Well, that seems awfully neighborly, doesn't it?  Full of tolerance for my fellow man, er woman?  Equality for all, respect for difference, a kumbaya moment.

No, it proves that there is evil in the world that will take good men and women to stand up and say "This is true evil, this is true intolerance - not in my house or my country".

Does Ms. Al-Imam know the consequences of her message to sexually repressed young Muslim men? Does she have any human feelings towards the suffering of a woman being raped, even if she is an enemy? Isn’t she worried about the impact of this ‘license to rape’ on the character of young Muslim men and its impact on society as a whole?

Doesn’t her suggestion confirm the existence of Muslim Sharia laws that allow the sexual slavery of captive women in time of war? Doesn’t she know that such statements and action by Muslim men will increase the worldwide fear of Islam?

All of this is not very good for those who want to improve the image of Islam.

True - this is akin to saying one thing to the world and another to the clan.  Again, as with politicians, the Internet is the true leveler.  And now you know one reason why there are those countries that wish to control the Internet instead of the US - this kind of information would be censored in a femtosecond.

Things said and done, even by intellectuals, in the Middle East, personally no longer surprise me anymore. What I always ask myself is: Where are the protests of the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims? Where are the voices of those who want to ‘educate’ and give ‘sensitivity training’ to the American public about how Islam is a religion of peace? Why are they not shouting “not in the name of my religion”?

Heck, where are the words of those moral mavens of modernity - the feminists?   Where is their outrage?  Where is their fulminations against the patriarchy? 

Oh yeah, I get it.....

I found it amusing to see the moral compass of the Muslim world when I watched an interview with the Egyptian cleric Zaghloul Al Naggar, who said on Iqra TV on September 11, 2008, that Muslims must reform the moral corruption of the West. Or when I listen to Muslim leadership say that we should take the opportunity of the financial crisis in the West to spread Islam. We, Arabs and Muslims, must think of how low we will allow our morality to go for (presumably) land we can hardly see on the map of the Arab world. If that will not wake the West up, I do not know what will.

I get accused all the time of always seeing things in black and white, that I am not sufficiently nuanced and am unwilling to see arguments from all sides.

Right.  So tell me, if I was Jewish, living in Israel, I would have to show my tolerance by letting my wife be raped? Already, I am kurffir - and don't rate much above the Jews in a Wahabi's eyes anyways. 

So, black and white, I take them at their word - I believe what they say.

So there is a reason to be scared, right?

Posted by Skip at 10:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This has been asked before - and refused.  I just don't understand why people here are not taking in the fact that these bad actors' own countries won't take them back? Especially when quite some number of them are recidivists - we find them dead on the battlefield when they attack our troops.

Amnesty International appealed Monday to Germany and other European nations to provide homes to 50 detainees from the US detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

The men cannot return to their home countries "for fear of torture or other serious human-rights violations," the human-rights group said in Berlin.

Right - they are captured in terrorist training camps or on the battlefield...and their home countries are supposed to be welcoming them home with open arms?  Those countries, understandably, are saying "YES - they aren't our problem any more!"  And these do gooders just don't seem to understand that when bad people do evil things, NO ONE WANTS THEM.

It said it was making the appeal with four other rights groups in the expectation that the next US president, Barack Obama, would close the detention center in Cuba.

About 250 people accused of being terrorists are currently held at the camp. Some 80 are expected to face trial by court martial.

And so, they will come here...and will Obama's Dept of Justice jigger it so that they could go free?

Amnesty said the remainder included 50 from nations such as China, Libya, Russia, Tunisia and Uzbekistan.

The human-rights groups made their call after a two-day workshop in Berlin.

"Guantanamo cannot be closed until these men have a country which will accept them, and where their lives and liberty are not in jeopardy," the statement said.

So, after railing against the US and its camp in Cuba for so many years, is there a partial realization that these combatants might be....dangerous?

Separately, advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have said they were putting together a proposal to ship dozens of the imprisoned terrorism suspects to the US to face criminal trial.

And this is part of the problem - once again, the Democrat idea is that we are fighting against criminals and not Islamofacists enemy combatants.  One is a judicial matter - the other is war.

I just wish those that wish to try these people in our judicial courts would have to house them if found innocent....

Posted by Skip at 8:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

No, not the types of troops.  Not the types of tactics by our troops.  Not the terrain.  Not the people.  And not the ideology of the opposing side.

Sure seems like our opponents learned a lot from our disasterous results of "ending the war" in Vietnam.  When one doesn't win, when the other side does not give up, you have surrendered and lost.  Doug wrote about THE tactic employed by North Vietnam General Giap here; use propaganda more effectively in an asymmetrical information war.  He knew that militarily he could not defeat the US but he also knew that if he could turn the tide internally in the US against the war, he would win.  And did.

So, involved in another asymmetrical war where once again our foes have played to the pacifist side of the US (and aided in no small amount by Bush Derangement Syndrome), why was I not surprised to see this touting their own horn as one of our President-elect's main messages has been "I will end this war":

Jihadi Leader Says Radicals Share Obama Victory

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The leader of a jihadi group in Iraq argued Friday that the election of Barack Obama as president represented a victory for radical Islamic groups that had battled American forces since the invasion of Iraq.

The statement, which experts said was part of the psychological duel with the United States, was included in a 25-minute audiotaped speech by Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, an umbrella organization that claims ties to Al Qaeda. Mr. Baghdadi’s statement was posted on a password-protected Web site called Al Hesbah, used to disseminate information to Islamic radicals.

In his address, Mr. Baghdadi also said that the election of Mr. Obama — and the rejection of the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain — was a victory for his movement, a claim that has already begun to resonate among the radical faithful. In so doing Mr. Baghdadi highlighted the challenge the new president would face as he weighed how to remove troops from Iraq without also giving movements like Al Qaeda a powerful propaganda tool to use for recruiting.

This is why if you do not win, you lose.  As the only superpower in the world, it shows up the only weakness in our capability -> our political will.  Our political unwillingness (and that would be the ONLY reason to not succeed), so close to establishing a self-sustaining Iraq, to see the mission to its completion, will be shown to have been exploited.

“It would be no exaggeration to say that we Arabs and Muslims were the main unseen voters who decided the outcome of these elections,” wrote Abdelbari Atwan in Wednesday’s issue of the London-based pan-Arab daily newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi.

He wrote, “The transformation that will begin in the U.S. starting today in various political, economic, military, and social domains may well have been delayed for decades, had the new American century been crowned with victory, and had the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan taken the directions sought by the neo-cons — in other words, had there been political stability and economic prosperity, and had the citizens of the two countries targeted by the U.S.’s designs been totally subjugated by it.”

I'll agree to the political stability and economic prosperity part of that last paragraph - our initial tactics and strategies were wrong and only after General Petraeus took over did things start to go in the right direction.  However, the subjugation part?  I think a tad overblown and wrong...

“On behalf of my brothers in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Chechnya, I offer you what is better for you and us: you return to your previous era of neutrality, you withdraw your forces, and you return to your homes,” Mr. Baghdadi said. “You do not interfere in the affairs of our countries, directly or indirectly. We in turn will not prevent commerce with you, whether it is in oil or otherwise, but with fairness, not at a loss.”

A hudna - and I'm hoping that Obama knows what that is.  If the war is "ended" as it was in Vietnam, we will have lost and I expect similar results flowing from it.

Posted by Skip at 9:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Cyrus the Great

by Amil Imani

Once again October 29th is rolling around. And once again, free people all over the world celebrate the memory of Cyrus the Great, the author of mankind’s arguably greatest document, the first Charter of Human Rights. This benevolent king, ruling over a vast empire of diverse people, enshrined in the Cyrus Cylinder, nearly three millennia ago, the principles that define and protect human dignity.

Cyrus Cylinder

It has been well over four years since the International Committee to Save the Archeological Sites of Pasargad initiated a massive celebration for the International Day of Cyrus the Great all over the world. For the past four years, especially, the courageous Iranian people have gathered by the tomb of Cyrus the Great, to commemorate this momentous international event, despite numerous intimidations and harassments by the agents of the Islamic Republic.

Cyrus the Great’s recognition of human rights, irrespective of any and all considerations, was instrumental in advancing the social and cultural precepts of the diverse people throughout the vast expanse of his empire. Although ethnically Persian, the benevolent king considered himself a trustee of the diverse nationalities of his kingdom. Parochialism and ethnocentrism were alien to this visionary monarch. 

In the same way that Cyrus the Great considered all people members of the same human family, the human family of today holds the great trailblazer of human rights as one of its own. The vast plateau that is the presently encompasses Iran has been inhabited by the most diverse people of any region of the planet. Yet, in adherence to the lofty principles of Cyrus, these people found unity in diversity. They remained loyal to their own unique heritage and successfully linked it to a larger loyalty. The present Iran is a living testimony to this remarkable togetherness where ethnic Persians, Turkic, Kurds, Lurs, Turkmen, Baluchis, Arabs, and others live as one people.

Cyrus’ Charter of Human Rights is the first written document which stipulates that all humans have universal inalienable rights, without regard to any and all demographic considerations such as ethnicity, nationality and religion.

Continue reading "Honoring Cyrus the Great and his Charter" »

Posted by Amil at 7:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Major Kirk Luedeke

[Ed. note: It's been a while, but we are pleased to welcome our milblogger, Major Kirk, back to the pages of GraniteGrok. See his prior dispatches from Iraq here...]

I just reached a small personal milestone- my 180th day home since the 4th Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division- Task Force Dragon- redeployed to Fort Riley from the Rashid District in Southern Baghdad. Life has been great for me, but hit me the other day that I really didn’t have a lot of visibility on what’s been going on in the old Iraqi neighborhoods since we departed in April.

It took a recent 60 Minutes segment by Lesley Stahl on CBS about the March and April battle for Sadr City- one that occurred out of our sector, but happened while we were still in Baghdad and in the process of handing over responsibility for Rashid to our counterparts- the 1st “Raider” Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division. The story is extremely well done and if you haven’t seen it, take a look (I’ve posted the link below).

The segment brought back a lot of memories for me. We saw some spillover in attacks directed at us by renegade Shia special groups criminals as a result of the fighting to our east across the Tigris. In fact, on the very night he arrived by Chinook helicopter my public affairs counterpart was standing next to my desk when a 107mm rocket screamed over the FOB Falcon wall and landed close to our brigade headquarters building. It exploded, violently spraying the structure with lethal shrapnel, shattering windows and shaking the foundation. Nobody was killed that night and there were only a few minor injuries, but the attack served as a wakeup call for all of us- we were short but our tour wasn’t over.

“Wasted away again in Mortaritaville,” I later deadpanned to my fellow PAO Dave (no, I wasn’t calm and collected enough to do it in the heat of the moment), and unfortunately for us, there would be other attacks to come at Falcon. A few days later, we would even get trapped in the Green Zone for several hours, compliments of some of the mortar and rocket attacks from Sadr City which forced the U.S. to take the action depicted on 60 Minutes.

When we left Iraq in late April, the battle had already started to move away from our collective consciousness, so seeing that story some six months later reminded me about how disconnected I’ve become from the events and life that I spent 430 days experiencing in 2007-08.

Being there, I was immersed in a never-ending news cycle. Even if my focus was on monitoring the various events and stories coming out of our area or Iraq/Afghanistan, I had a steady pulse on news from around the world as well. Never in my life have I felt more connected than I did in my job while deployed to Iraq.

So, fast forward to October 2008;

Continue reading "Dragon Soup Blog: Get yourself connected" »

Posted by Major Kirk at 2:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

..

Can America Afford Another Jimmy Carter?

by Amil Imani

The current presidential election is reminiscent of the presidency of Richard Nixon; one cannot help but be reminded of the Watergate Scandal, the biggest political scandal in American history. Watergate caused the American public to lose faith in the presidency and especially the Republican Party. As a result, in 1977 Democrats and some conservative Christian voters rushed to the polls to elect a virtually unknown political figure outside of Georgia and one of the most unqualified liberal presidents in the history of America, Mr. Jimmy Carter. 

"Carter began the race with a sizable lead over Ford, who was able to narrow the gap over the course of the campaign, but was unable to prevent Carter from narrowly defeating him on November 2, 1976. Carter won the popular vote by 50.1 percent to 48.0 percent for Ford and received 297 electoral votes to Ford's 240."

During the Watergate crisis, the American public's faith in the government had been severely tarnished and reduced to its lowest level and the work of many federal agencies had been disrupted by the Nixon impeachment fiasco.

Ironically, history seems to be repeating itself. Again, after 30 years or so, we are faced with a similar dilemma. By now, many Americans believe that President Bush's two terms in office have been a profound failure. For months, Bush's approval ratings have hovered around 30 and now at 24 percent, the same as President Nixon when he left office.

Once again, as a result of these approval ratings, the Democrats are tripping over each other to put another highly unqualified man, Senator Hussein Obama, in the White House. Ironically, with his past ties to racism, terrorism and hating America, America's survival remains at peril.

Currently, the foremost topic on the mind of the voter is the economic mess. Finger pointing goes in all directions without a clear understanding of who is to blame. Some goodhearted, naïve Americans again think that Democrats can indeed be the answer. Unfortunately, their answer, most likely, will be disastrous and will lead America to the biggest quagmire in its entire history. We do well to recognize that shortsighted people with short memories are prone to make terrible choices, even when they have the best of intentions.

Therefore, we want to refresh the voters' memory and help them in making wise decisions. The vote you cast will not simply replace one politician with another. Today, every vote has great existential implications. The economic crisis aside, whether we like it or not, we are truly in a war of survival with Islamofascism and Mr. Obama is not the man who can defend this country.

Now, is all the above just fear-mongering and Democrat-bashing at election time? You are free to see it that way. Nevertheless, it is always more prudent to go with the facts than fiction. In order to understand Obama, we must first re-examine the preeminent presidential negotiator with the dictators and terrorists, Mr. Jimmy Carter.

Continue reading "An examination of "the preeminent presidential negotiator with the dictators and terrorists, Mr. Jimmy Carter" (until Obama, that is)" »

Posted by Amil at 12:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Vets For Freedom is an organization that has one main purpose:

We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain.

So, in the eyes of that group, how do our lawmakers in the US Senate rate?  I'd say, very well indeed!

Here is the complete report.   For giggles (and for real concern), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) got an F - so much for supporting our troops!  So did Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy (who got a 0!),

For some of the votes that they have tracked for Senator Sununu's votes, click here.  For Senator Gregg, click here

After all, one of the main strictures that are laid upon those that we select to govern us is to protect us and our nation.  This shows that they are doing well by us as considered by those that have had to implement their policies on the battlefield.  

I'm apt to accept this (especially as I am a Blue Star Dad twice over (first Marines and now Army).

So, who are they?

Vets for Freedom is a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Our mission is to educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq.

We support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain.

Vets for Freedom is the largest Iraq and Afghanistan veterans organization in America.

Vets for Freedom PAC is a Political Action Committee whose mission is to help candidates—mostly combat veterans—who believe in achieving success in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the overall War on Terrorism, get elected to the United States Congress and other Federal positions.

Established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on November 11, 2007, Veterans Day, VFFPAC will endorse and offer extended support through financial contributions and media assistance to Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who support victory in the Global War on Terrorism. Bottom Line: VFFPAC will support those who support victory — that is our only litmus test.

Victory against those that would enslave us because we believe in our own way, our love of freedom, and our total rejection of their Middle Ages intertwining of religion, government, and Shariah law.

And this is a concept people should argue against.....why?

Posted by Skip at 8:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.

Mr. King Never Asked...

by Amil Imani

CNN's king of the talk-show hosts and the icon of one of the major television networks, Larry King, hosted an interview on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 with the devil himself.  Many Iranians felt completely betrayed by Mr. King's line of questioning. They felt that Mr. King was missing key questions. I am not advocating a hostile interview here, but how could Mr. King allow Ahmadinejad to easily dance away. It seemed he was deliberately making Ahmadinejad look and act like a human being.

As the old saying goes, "There's no such thing as a stupid question." However, in the minds of many Iranians as well as many non-Iranians, there is such a thing, and Mr. King lost huge points with his line of questioning. Yet, valid questions remain about media performance and the role of public communication practitioners in shaping perception. The role of media is not to impose self-censorship and avoid critical questions.

It is hard to digest how the liberal media has single-handedly, in a matter of three short days, managed to make Ahmadinejad look statesmanlike. Mr. Ahmadinejad was given a forum to reiterate his deception, repeatedly. Larry King would not even say that he himself is Jewish and that he supports Israel. He looked very mesmerized by the presence of this evil man who is responsible for the death and misery that exists in Iran. He did not contradict Ahmadinejad, did not show him up. He allowed him to make points to undermine the existence of the friendship between Israel and the United States.

Ahmadinejad's utterance on Tuesday echoed the past remarks he has made, including calls to annihilate Israel and threats to the U.S. and other countries that support Israel. On September 18, 2008, he said, "the Zionist regime is a regime that will disappear." But, I have news for him, most Iranians believe that the Islamic Republic is an illegitimate regime and will soon disappear. On February 28, 2007, he said, "Zionists are the true incarnation of Satan." Ironically, most Iranians believe that Ahmadinejad is the Satan and does not represent the Iranian people any more than his turbaned-colleagues presently ruling Iran do. What needs to be understood is that in fact Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, above all else, are true Muslims and despise anything "Iranian" and its ancient "pre-Islamic" heritage.

When Mr. King asked him about his statement last year that there are no homosexuals in Iran, Ahmadinejad replied, that it is not the way it is here. It's disliked in Iran. Then he asked Mr. King if he were concerned for 70 million Iranian people or a few homosexuals.

Mr. King should have asked how many homosexuals he has hanged this year and instead of asking him how many children he has, he should have asked him how many children he has hanged in the four years he's been in office.

Mr. King missed an opportunity to ask him why he is so interested in securing Palestinian rights, while he is denying such rights to the Iranians. Why doe he want a referendum for the Palestinian people to decide their own destiny, while he refuses the same to 7o million desperate and unhappy Iranians.

Over the years, much of the world has been preoccupied with its own problems and shown little concern for the plight of the Iranian people until the Mullahs installed a firebrand Islamist, Ahmadinejad, as the President of the country. This man, called "The Monkey," by many Iranians is now alarming the world by being at the control of the Islamofascist train and throttling it full speed ahead for a cataclysmic collision. Ahmadinejad and his gang are loading their guns and doing all they can to obtain the bomb to bring about the biggest and most dreadful death that would usher in the "Mahdi", their savior-ruler of the world. 

In dealing with the mullahs ruling Iran, what you see is not what you get, and what you hear is not what they mean. Transparency and honesty are not their strong suit. So, we need a first-rate understanding of the Mullahs to see through their smoke-and-mirrors, as well as beyond their twisted tongues into their warped brains:

Continue reading "Sympathy for the Devil" »

Posted by Amil at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I found it rather interesting when I got the Sunday paper (Union Leader's NH Sunday News) a couple weeks back from the box, and contained within it was an eye catching insert with a DVD of the chilling movie "Obsession":

The back of the piece noted that the movie, which is a couple of years old, has been shown on CNN and Fox News Channel.

I do recall watching parts of the movie during several airings and, much like the work of Steve Emerson (Jihad in America), it presents grim details of what is happening among the radical Islamic "street" (regular people, if you can use that term) that is not often presented in the mainstream media.

When I visited my parents later that Sunday, my Dad commented on the DVD, which he too got with his paper. We discussed what a good thing this movie was getting around, as we believe when at war, ordinary citizens must understand why, and who the enemy is. This movie does both. Then I began to wonder why this came to us and took a close look at the list of newspapers that this appeared in, which was printed on the package:

Interesting. I told my Dad, "This is pretty clever. Look at the list... it's all newspapers in swing states. I'm glad somebody's reminding people about this... that we still have a huge problem on our hands, something people ought not forget as they vote." And then we went to the beach.

At the beginning of this week, several of my employees showed up with copies they got... in the mail:

Now the wheels started to turn. Whoever was doing this was doing a great service to our country as we get ready to choose the next war time president. Many people forget that there is a growing number of religious fanatics and their brainwashed automatons waiting for the next chance to take a whack at America. This movie is a good reminder. Near as we can tell, the guys at work that got the mailed DVD have military connections, or perhaps it's that they voted in a Republican primary-- it's hard to pinpoint. *Perhaps some 'Grok readers can report whether they've received a copy through some means.

Anyway, my observations about the distribution of the movie are in tune with none other than the pro-Islamist propaganda arm here in the US, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR). And guess what?

Continue reading "Movie exposing threat of radical Islam doesn't sit well with, well, radical Islamists..." »

Posted by Doug at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

.

by Amil Imani

To understand Ahmadinejad’s mind set and behavior requires a close scrutiny of the elaborate and intricate theology of Hujjatiyyah Shiism, perhaps the most fundamentalist of the numerous Shiite sects.

In the 1950s, a group of Islamic clergy led by Sheikh Mahmoud Halabi (a close associate of Ayatollah Khomeini) formed a society called the Anjoman-e Khayryyehye Hujjatiyyah-ye Mahdaviat (Charitable Society of the Mahdi), based in Mashhad, Iran. The Hujjatiyyah membership was mostly composed by the bazaar-i  businessmen and fanatical mullahs. Among many things, they were against the communists, Marxists, and atheists. Their overarching "raison d'être," however, was to prepare the world for the upcoming of the 12th Imam -- the Mahdi.

However, the most important immediate agenda item on their list was to harass and persecute the Baha'is, a religious group representing a small percentage of Iran's population. In fact, the Hujjatiyyah-y's alternative name became "The anti-Baha'i Society" (Anjuman-e Zidd-e Baha'iyat). They collectively worked for a single purpose: the eradication of Baha'is.

The terrible plight of the Baha'is in Iran is particularly heart-wrenching, since they are the largest non-Muslim population in the country and have been, from day one, severely brutalized by Muslims. Baha'i teachings of tolerance and openness to science are anathema to the Islamofascists on many levels, but the history of the faith includes direct challenges to the theological legitimacy of the mullahs. These slaveholders find the Baha'i faith a threat to their own version of Islam and the absolute theocratic power it puts their hands.

The egomaniac President Ahmadinejad is a member of Hujjatiyyah. He sees himself as the personal vassal of the Mahdi-Messiah or Hidden Imam, with whom he has fantasized tête-à-têtes frequently.

Ahmadinejad, a man driven by his religion, has a spiritual advisor in Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi (the defacto leader of the Hujjatiyyah). The President's advisor is known for his extremist views on Islam and promotes suicide bombings and attacks on civilians in the West.  There is only view of Islam for him. He once said, "...if anyone tells you their own interpretation of Islam, punch them in the mouth!"

President Ahmadinejad has in a short time acquired great many descriptors at home and overseas: zealot, fascist, fanatic, anti-Semitic, lunatic and more. One prominent Western columnist called him "unhinged."  But we cannot just dismiss the man as an aberration, someone who is in urgent need of psychological help, a person out of touch with reality, who represents nothing of substance.

Once again the West is misreading and misjudging people and events in the Middle East, due to the fact that it views things through its own prism.

Looking at the man through Western spectacles, he indeed appears to be all of the above and more. Yet Ahmadinejad is far from unhinged. As a matter of fact he is firmly hinged to a set of beliefs that dictate his views of the world, and inform him how he should deal with it from his position of power.

An unhinged man has the potential of becoming once again hinged. But, there is very little that can be done to a person who is inseparably hinged, and Ahmadinejad views are firmly rooted in the most orthodox philosophy of Shiism.

For our purposes, however, it is sufficient to document the fact that Ahmadinejad is not mentally disturbed; there is no display of contradictory thoughts and behavior. There is a full internal consistency in Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's words, deeds and beliefs show a fully hinged person.

Below are a few examples of his sayings, beliefs and actions. Whether one agrees or disagrees with them, they all fit perfectly into a consistent pattern:

Continue reading "Who is this guy Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?" »

Posted by Doug at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Religious Imprinting and Jihadism

by Amil Imani

Religious belief is emotional at its core. And emotions are not governed by logic or reason. Becoming religious is similar to imprinting, most dramatically seen in ducklings. During a critical period of time after hatching the ducklings become imprinted on any moving object—be it the mother duck, a mechanical duck, or a moving human. It doesn’t matter. The ducklings simply follow the initially moving object.

Religion, for most part, is infused into the mind of children from the moment of birth. Early childhood is the time that children are most imprintable. The strength and permanence of this imprinting process depend on a variety of influences. Over time, some people retain the initial imprint and strengthen it, some adopt a middle course, and some might even discard it altogether. A significant number in any religious faith becomes extremely committed to the extent that they are willing to kill others and themselves in the service of their religion.

The human mind is a battleground of contending forces where the two most powerful are reason and emotion: where reason assesses life and produces measures that are adaptive, to the best of its ability; while emotion, by-and-large, operates on feelings. Ordinarily, an uneasy truce prevails between the two generally incompatible powers.

In many situations, the clash between dictates of reason and promptings of emotion result in intra-psychic conflicts. In any given case, the conflict may settle by one party getting its way, reaching a compromise, or a deadlock producing paralysis of inaction.

Beliefs, as is the case with all living and non-living complex systems, are targeted by forces that aim to break them down. In the case of beliefs, any threatening event, particularly when severe, produces great anxiety in the believer.

Anxiety produces aversive reaction. The mind deals with anxiety by a mix of chemical and psychological measures. On the psychological side there are defense mechanisms such as rationalization and denial. Both these measures reduce the debilitating impact of anxiety by the person literally misleading himself. Rationalization supplies faulty reasoning by telling the person that the bad thing, or the threat, is not all that bad; while denial completely refuses to admit it exists. Alcoholism, for instance, is known as the disease of denial since the alcoholic denies that he is an alcoholic even in the face of irrefutable objective evidence.

Continue reading ""Rigidly-imprinted foot-soldier Islamic automatons that have little choice"" »

Posted by Amil at 8:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here at the 'Grok, like many Americans, we value this wonderful thing known as the Internet. Whether for work, play, or communication, its uninhibited use is something that all of us take for granted. Can you imagine being someplace where that wasn't the case? Certainly many people got a small glimpse at Internet control during the Olympic time in China, although the communist government worked hard to keep such revelations to a minimum, and foreign guests weren't really subjected to the same constraints as those who live there.

And of course, China isn't the only culprit, as you might well imagine. You can pretty much assume that anyplace where freedom takes a back seat to authoritarianism, Internet access is either resricted, or monitored, or both. Take for example, Islamic Iran. Here is an excellent op-ed from the Voice of America (yes, THAT Voice of America so loved and used by Ronald Reagan) that discusses the subject as it relates to that country. The top of the piece notes, "The following is an editorial that reflects the views of the US government."

Internet Repression in Iran

The promise of the internet is the free flow of information and ideas – at the touch of one’s fingertips. The appeal of that promise is obvious among Farsi speakers. In 2004, a survey found that Farsi was the fourth most popular language of bloggers on the internet. And internet usage in Iran has been steadily increasing. The press freedom organization Reporters Without Borders calculates that in 2004 there were just over one million internet users inside Iran; today it says, that number has climbed to eighteen million.

But the government of Iran views access to the free flow of information and ideas by the Iranian people as a challenge to its legitimacy and power. At a workshop on media censorship sponsored by the U.S. government’s Broadcasting Board of Governors, Iranian-born journalist Babak Yektafar explained the regime’s mindset:

“They do see this as a direct threat to their existence, to their stability.”

As a result, the Iranian government goes to great lengths to control internet usage, and its attempts at control are increasing. All internet service providers must be approved by the Ministry of Culture and Guidance, and the government uses filters to block thousands of websites.

In 2006, authorities banned high-speed connections, making it difficult to download western cultural products, including songs and films. In 2007 the Iranian government arrested more than ten bloggers, mostly women demanding an end to severe gender discrimination in Iran. This month, four women who contributed to feminist websites were given six-month prison sentences for threatening national security.

Paula Dobriansky, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs and co-chairperson of the Global Internet Freedom Task Force, views the internet as a potent tool for democratization and individual freedom. It is the task of free people, she says, to support those journalists and citizens who struggle under the restrictions placed on internet usage by oppressive regimes like Iran. She is optimistic about the outcome:

“With the partnership of fellow democracies, industries and non governmental organizations, efforts to regulate and restrict free speech will ultimately prove an unsuccessful attempt to hold back the rising tide of democratic change.”
 
President George Bush is also hopeful. “Young people who have grown up with the freedom to trade goods,” he says, “will ultimately demand the freedom to exchange ideas, especially on an unrestricted internet.”

(H/T Amil Imani)

Posted by Doug at 8:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just an observation:

Most Liberals seem to place the entire blame of Islamic terrorism on President Bush because of what he has done in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  Something or someone gets blown up - Bush's fault.  Obama said it was due to a "lack of empathy" on our part towards those that attacked us.  Generally, it seems to come down to "the US has failed to talk to people".  The bad people - the people who pretty much want us dead.  And the Liberals seem to be rather upset that President Bush's policies have caused a lot of deaths - lately, Al Queda deaths (Peace not be upon them).

We are supposed to talk to Muslim extremists, we are to understand them, we are to be tolerant of their beliefs.

Well, how do they explain this?

NEW DELHI (AP) _ Police commandos carried out raids across New Delhi, detaining several people believed to be connected to a series of blasts that ripped through the Indian capital, killing at least 21 people and wounding about 100 others, police said Sunday.

A series of at least five explosions struck a park and crowded shopping areas in New Delhi just after sundown Saturday, a prime time for weekend shoppers in the crowded, chaotic city.

An Islamic militant group claimed responsibility for the bombings in an e-mail sent to several Indian news organizations.

By Sunday the death toll had risen to 21, said city police spokesman Rajan Bhagat. At least 97 others were wounded, he said.

The Indian Mujahideen, a previously unknown group, claimed responsibility for both of those attacks, as well as for Saturday's blasts.

As in the previous attacks, the group sent a number of Indian media outlets an e-mail message just before the blasts Saturday evening warning that India was about to receive "the Message of Death."

"In the name of Allah, Indian Mujahideen strikes back once more. ... Do whatever you can. Stop us if you can," the message said.

Yup, they'll blame Bush but avoid the question - if America is not in India, not in Pakistan (or Bali, or Chechnya, or lots of other places), why are Islamists killing people?

Yup, Religion of Peace. Sure....

Posted by Skip at 9:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.     ...

Today is the anniversary of the worst terror assault on American soil- the third major attack on the homeland by enemy forces since the end of the Revolutionary War.

September 11, 2001 is a day that everything changed. Throughout history there have been few events that, in the big scheme of things, impacted nearly every person in a nation-- even fewer that affect the entire world’s population. The events of seven years ago today did just that. Like the sacking of Rome some 1600 years back, what happened on that jarring day will be remembered until the end of time. What we continue to do (or not) in the aftermath, will likely determine the course of civilization for the next millennia. It is up to us to ensure that the Dark Ages that followed the collapse of the Western Roman civilization does not repeat itself.

If you don’t think that a calamity of that nature could befall us here in modern times, it might be wise to recall your ancient world history. When you understand the heights of civilization achieved by the Roman Empire, it is all the more incredible to contemplate the shear magnitude of its fall and aftermath. In the absence of Rome’s long nurtured institutions, the next 1000 plus years were spent trying to undo the systematic destruction wrought by the attacking barbarians working in concert with internal cultural decay.

What would a world without the United States look like? Just imagine Europe in World War II without the help of America. The European “union” flag would undoubtedly feature a Swastika as its centerpiece. By our present time, how much of the world would be “ethnically cleansed” of Jews and other so-called “undesirables”? How many millions in the Pacific Rim would be toiling today beneath the banner of the “Rising Sun” for the benefit of some Emperor-god?

A resurgent Russia is on the march. The mad mullahs of Iran work feverishly towards a nuclear bomb. Al Qaeda continues to issue threats and brainwash new footsoldiers on the Internet and through a world-wide system of mosques. China is still ruled by the communists. Make no mistake about it—without the United States; a tide of slavery and totalitarianism would most likely envelope the globe.

We must remind those who cannot see the threat—like Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who views the Iranian problem as “small” compared to the “dire circumstances” of the Cold War-- not to forget the intentions of the September 11 murderers. On this day of anniversary, we must, as a Nation, carefully reflect on the objectives of our attackers. Never forget that our enemies’ intention was not to teach some lesson. Seven years ago, the objective was not to exact some sort of revenge. The goal was, and still is, the absolute downfall of the United States of America, along with Western Civilization, as we know it. Consider the targets. The symbolic centers of our economic lifeblood, our national defense, and our national seat of government were marked for destruction. To what end did our attackers work other than total collapse?

Those who think that I exaggerate the danger need to consider some facts. Ever since the Iranian hostage crisis in the late 70’s right on up to September 10th, the United States has been seemingly helpless in the face of numerous acts of terror and outright war perpetrated by the growing Islamic fundamentalist extremist movement: Iran hostages, Beirut barracks attack, Khobar Towers, the USS Cole attack, the African embassy suicide bombings, the  WTC bombing 93 and possibly even Oklahoma City are among the most notable. What was our response? Nothing. The U.S. couldn’t even really complete the first Gulf War. Why wouldn’t our enemies, fresh from routing the Soviets in Afghanistan and perpetrating the Somalia debacle think, that if they struck us hard and terribly enough, we might utterly collapse from the chaos sure to follow?

Just in case you’ve forgotten, here are the numbers, as found at the Wikipedia:

Excluding the 19 hijackers, 2,974 people died in the attacks. Another 24 are missing and presumed dead. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 90 different countries. In addition, the death of at least one person from lung disease was ruled by a medical examiner to be a result of exposure to dust from the World Trade Center's collapse, as rescue and recovery workers were exposed to airborne contaminants following the buildings' collapse.

George Bush spoke of the events of September 11th, 2001 at a ceremony remembering that other day of infamy when the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor:

“We’ve seen their kind before.  The terrorists are the heirs to fascism.  They have the same will to power, the same disdain for the individual, the same mad global ambitions.  And they will be dealt with in just the same way.  Like all fascists, the terrorists cannot be appeased:  they must be defeated.  This struggle will not end in a truce or treaty.  It will end in victory for the United States, our friends and the cause of freedom.” 

Posted by Doug at 8:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Women's rights in the Islamic world

Our friend Amil sent a heads-up to this story that seems to be one that repeats itself again and again. One wonders if the process of "honor killings", covered in some depth by Michelle Malkin at her blog (even in America?), is rising in popularity in the Islamic world, or are reports simply receiving greater coverage by the media?

How can any rational person think that this is anything but barbarism laid bare... A parent murdering a child... in the name of Allah? From the Daily Telegraph (UK):

DESPAIR among human rights workers in Pakistan over a rash of so-called "honour killings" intensified yesterday when it was disclosed that a girl forced into marriage with a 45-year-old man at the age of nine had been killed by her parents because she asked for an annulment.

The girl, 17, who had been fighting a lonely but successful legal battle, was coming out of court in the Punjabi city of Sahiwal after being granted the annulment by a judge when she was surrounded by a group of men and shot in view of police.

While the article goes on to reveal not all are in favor of such acts, the fact is, when they occur, the society and its government tend to do little in the way of justice. Oh sure, they might denounce it, but it seems to me the only motivation is that it brings unwanted publicity to the "religion of peace":

"We condemn this barbaric act. This is against Islam, against humanity and against civilised culture."

Why, it's so bad that

the Government bowed to pressure and ordered an inquiry into the killings.

Oooh... an INQUIRY. That'll show em!

As radical fundamentalists consolidate their grip on all aspects of the Islam "religion", why wouldn't their hardline "teachings" become more and more widely accepted and practiced? Whether beheading infidels, committing suicide bombings, or murdering their very own children for perceived "crimes" contrary to the "faith", at the end of it all, it really is a cult of death-- One that must be stopped.

The Telegraph piece talks about another recent "honor killing" that took place in Pakistan, involving three young girls. Imagine, they actually wanted to marry men of THEIR choice, contrary to the wishes of tribal elders. The punishment for three teenagers and two elderly relatives trying to help them? They were buried alive:

"When the fuming elders of the Umrani tribe came to know about the intentions of these girls, they picked them up from their homes along with two of their elderly relatives," one account said.

"The crying girls were pushed into official cars and driven to a deserted area. There they were pushed out of the cars, made to stand in a queue, and volleys of shots fired at them. As the bleeding girls fell to the sand, the tribesmen dragged them into a nearby ditch and levelled it with earth and stones.

"As the two shocked elderly women tried to rescue the hapless girls, they too were gunned down and buried in the same manner. The killers after burying these women returned to their tribe like conquerors without any action taken against them."

And we beat ourselves up over what WE must have done to cause these people to hate us... to attack us in the way they did on 9/11. If only we try to understand them... Rot! There is nothing to understand. We're talking about people that murder their own children without remorse. Where are the feminists? Oh that's right-- they're too busy denouncing Sarah Palin for NOT doing the right thing and aborting her Downs Syndrome child... and not encouraging her pregnant teenage daughter to do the same.

Posted by Doug at 7:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From the same mold?

Vote to Keep America Alive

by Amil Imani

America is a nation and an ideal, birthed by a group of visionaries that gave it the Constitution to nurture it and protect it. What makes America, America the Beautiful, more than just a blessed land is our legacy, the Constitution. Sadly, the Constitution also makes for America the Vulnerable by enshrining freedom that enables the malevolent to subvert and destroy America from within. You, the voter, are the guardian of the Constitution. Your vote determines the health and survival of America.

America is defined by the last phrase of our national anthem: The land of the free and the home of the brave. Freedom, in all its forms, is our greatest legacy, which this nation