Palestine – FATAH and HAMAS united

May 5, 2011

The implications are minimal to the US, but Israel is in the cross hairs.

Obama seems to love to do EVERYTHING to set it things up in the worst way for Israel.

FATAH and HAMAS are two very different type of organizations with both guns pointed at Israel.  And for what?

Everytime Israel gave them anything they destroyed it.  Israel gave up some very nicely developed areas, which had parks and schools and water aquifers

The hate is their enemy.  Israel and the Jews (real Jews) will survive.

Palestinians Celebrate Fatah-Hamas Reconciliation Ceremony In Cairo

Posted by John J. Xenakis May 5th 2011 at 11:01 am in

Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and refugee camps celebrated on Wednesday. In Gaza’s Square of the Unknown Soldier, a demonstration turned into a raucous party of thousands cheering, chanting and waving flags, according to the Guardian.

Palestinians celebratePalestinians celebrate

The occasion was a ceremony in Cairo, attended by representatives from the U.N., the EU, and the Arab League, for the signing of a reconciliation agreement between Fatah and Hamas. The two factions have been bitter rivals since a 2007 war, when Hamas defeated Fatah for control of Gaza. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the governing body associated with Fatah, and Khaled Meshaal, leader of the Hamas, identified by the U.S. as a terrorist group, met for the first time in five years to sign the agreement.

The reconciliation agreement is an important step on the way to getting the United Nations General Assembly to unilaterally create a Palestinian state in September by international mandate. A reconciliation is an important prerequisite.


Vodpod videos no longer available.

PA TV defines Palestine – Tel Aviv, Haifa, Gali…, posted with vodpod

PA TV defines Palestine: Tel Aviv, Haifa, Negev, Galilee and all of Israel
Short film shown beginning with the words:
“Palestine – one day we will return to our home and bask in the warmth of our hopes”
[the line is from a song by Lebanese singer Fairouz, about longing for Palestine]

Afterwards there are scenes of various places, labeled with their names: Jerusalem, Tel Aviv – labeled ‘Tel Al-Rabi’a’, Haifa, the Dead Sea, the Negev, the Galilee, Caesarea, Masada – labeled ‘Jericho mountains’, and Acre.

At the end the following appears:
“For your sake, Palestine, the youth have been demonstrating for 25 days to end the [Fatah-Hamas] rift.”


Abbas said that they had forever turned “the black page of divisions.” Meshall spelled out Hamas’s goal:

“Our aim is to establish a free and completely sovereign Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip, whose capital is Jerusalem, without any settlers and without giving up a single inch of land and without giving up on the right of return [of Palestinian refugees].”

In fact, several years ago, the Middle East Quartet (United Nations, Russian Federation, United States, European Union) set three conditions for Hamas: recognize the state of Israel; renounce violence; and honor past Israeli-Palestinian agreements. Hamas has said that it will not agree to any of these conditions.

Furthermore, Hamas officials have been openly criticial of the U.S. military action that led to Osama bin Laden’s death, according to the Jerusalem Post. On Monday, Hamas Gaza prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, said:

“We condemn the assassination and the killing of an Arab holy warrior. … We regard this, as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.”

Benjamin Netanyahu in London with David Cameron
Benjamin Netanyahu in London with David Cameron

Thus, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was extremely critical of the agreement:

“What happened today in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism. I think the fate of the Middle East and the fate of peace hangs in the balance.”

Netanyahu made this statement while visiting British prime minister David Cameron. Cameron’s office had issued a statement critical of Netanyahu that said:

“This is a time to pursue not ignore the Middle East peace process. That will be his main message to Mr Netanyahu today. We need to study the detail of the agreement but, as the prime minister was making clear in the House of Commons yesterday, we hope that Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas will be a step forward.”

However, after the meeting, Cameron was more conciliatory:

“The leaders discussed today’s announcement on Palestinian unity. Prime Minister Cameron said that any new Palestinian government must reject violence, recognise Israel’s right to exist and engage in the peace process, and that Britain would judge it by its actions.”

It’s always interesting to watch politicians dance like this, waiting until they have a chance to conduct a public opinion poll, so they’ll know what to believe.

On the one hand, it almost seems that a Palestinian state in September has become an unstoppable train. On the other hand, there are many serious issues standing in the way.

Netanyahu: Fatah-Hamas unity a blow to peace process

05/04/2011 15:58

“3 days ago, terrorism was dealt a resounding defeat with the elimination of bin Laden. Today, in Cairo, it had a victory,’ says PM.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu

LONDON – The signing of the Hamas-Fatah unity deal in Cairo is a setback for peace – and an advancement for terrorism – Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told reporters in London on Wednesday.

“What happened today in Cairo is a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism,” he said. “Three days ago, terrorism was dealt a resounding defeat with the elimination of Osama bin Laden. Today, in Cairo, it had a victory.”

In signing this deal, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas had “embraced” an organization that had condemned the American operation against the al-Qaida leader and called him a “great martyr,” the prime minister said.

“When he embraces this organization, which is committed to Israel’s destruction and fires rockets on our cities, this is a tremendous setback for peace and a great advancement for terror,” Netanyahu said.

“What we hope will happen is that we find peace, and the only way we can make peace is with our neighbors who want peace. Those who want to eliminate us, those who practice terror, are not partners for peace.”

He spoke before a meeting set for late Wednesday night with British Prime MinisterDavid Cameron.

Israeli officials said Netanyahu hoped to persuade Cameron to promise that the UK would not support the deal unless Hamas accepted the three principles set out by the Quartet for international recognition of the Islamist movement: that Hamas recognizeIsrael, renounce terrorism and abide by the PLO’s agreements with Israel.

Hamas refused to do so.

On Thursday, Netanyahu is expected to make the same request when he meets with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

A spokesman for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Wednesday that Ban had always supported efforts for Palestinian unity, but wanted them to play out within the framework of the Quartet’s principles – and urged all Palestinian factions to adhere to them.

Still, he sent Robert Serry, the UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, to Cairo for Wednesday’s ceremony.

The European Union was even more cautious about supporting the Fatah-Hamasagreement and sent only a councilor from its embassy in Cairo.

The US did not have any formal representative at the ceremony.

Speaking on Channel 2 on Wednesday evening, Middle East Quartet envoy Tony Blair gave a plug for Palestinian unity, but only with certain conditions attached.

He said he was “in favor of Palestinian unity. It is essential for peace, but it must be unity on the right terms; it must be genuine unity.”

Blair added, however, that the contrasting Palestinian reactions to the killing by US forces of Osama bin Laden earlier this week “expresses what the issue is” regarding the worrying aspects of the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement.

“[PA Prime Minister Salam] Fayyad said the death was good news and [Hamas Prime Minister Ismail] Haniyeh said he [bin Laden] was a ‘warrior.’” “If Hamas was changing… in peaceful means… this would be positive… but you just need to look at Haniyeh’s comments” to understand this has not been the case, Blair said.

As for Netanyahu’s comments that the agreement was “a victory for terror,” Blair said, “I think the reaction of the Israeli government is justified. For us in the international community, the door is open to come into this [peace] process – but only if conditions are made.”

He criticized Israel’s decision to stop transferring tax funds to the PA, now that Hamas is joining the PA government.

“In respect to the [tax] revenue made on behalf of the Palestinians, it should be given to them,” Blair said.

He also reiterated his objection to a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood.

“The only way you will get a Palestinian state is by negotiation,” Blair said.

But Netanyahu’s largest coalition partner, Israel Beiteinu, said on Wednesday that the time for negotiations had passed. It announced that in light of the agreement between Fatah and Hamas, it would demand that the government cease all contact between Israel and the PA. The party called to stop various inter-ministerial initiatives with the PA, as well as the transfer of money to its government.

“It is impossible to expect the State of Israel to transfer money to Hamas – and in doing so, to fund terrorism activities against Israel’s citizens,” Beiteinu said.

“Those who declared bin Laden to be a Muslim freedom fighter, as Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh did, and those who refuse to allow the Red Cross to visit Gilad Schalit cannot be partners in negotiations, either directly or indirectly.”

Separately, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon (Israel Beiteinu), who is in Eastern Europe, called on the European Union to threaten the Palestinians with financial consequences, should they fail to follow the Quartet’s principles.

“As the largest funders of the Palestinian Authority, you have a heavy responsibility to make it clear to the Palestinians that failure to comply with the Quartet’s conditions will be met with sanctions,” Ayalon said.

He spoke after meeting with Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet.

Rebecca Anna Stoil contributed to this report.


ISLAM is EVIL and the Left are it’s DEMONS – “Thanks to your democratic laws, we will overtake you; thanks to your religious laws, we will rule over you.” — Imam from Izmir

February 5, 2011

Sunday, December 19, 2010


Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe

“Europe is not occupied by any external force, but in spite of this fact the continent finds itself in the throes of one of the greatest demographic upheavals in its history…”The following analysis of the Islamization of Europe was written by Michael Mannheimer in 2009 and originally published in German at the Bürgerbewegung Pax Europa website.The translation below was adapted from a pdf document. Since the original has both footnotes and endnotes, I have taken the footnotes and converted them into endnotes with a different sequence, based on lower-case letters enclosed in square brackets (example: [a]

Vibevej Moske
Eurabia: The Planned Islamization of Europe
by Michael Mannheimer

“Thanks to your democratic laws, we will overtake you; thanks to your religious laws, we will rule over you. — Imam from Izmir1

The Example of Denmark

The Islamization of Europe is in full swing. The majority of Europeans are helpless against this development. They are informed neither about the true essence of Islam, nor about the background of Islamic politics on European soil. The Muslims have not come to integrate into European societies. Their goal is the transformation of Europe into an Islamic realm where Shari’a alone, the law of Islam, will rule.

This series of documents brings important information to light with regard to this issue with the hope that the expansionist desires of the Muslims and their supporters in the Western Elite will be met with much-needed resistance.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Part 1: The Political, Ideological and Religious Background Behind the Islamization of Europe

The Plan of the Left for Islamization

— and its persistent realization to this day

At the beginning of the 1990s, the representative from Bündnis90/Die Grünen (Coalition90/Greenpeace) for German-French Europe and one of the leading leftwing politicians, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, announced accordingly the following:

“We, the Greens (Green Party), must strive to this end that as many foreigners as possible be brought to Germany. If they are in Germany, we must fight for their right to vote. Once we have achieved this, then we have the segment of voters we need to change this republic.”

Jürgen Trittin, Federal Minister for Environment, Natural Protection and Reactor Security under the chancellorship of Schröder (1998-2005), and then after October 2005 the Federal Minister for Consumer Protection, Nutrition and Agriculture, has preserved his 1968 Peace Movement spirit [68er spirit] to this present day. Even today he is beholden to his prior membership in the Maoist “Communist Federation” (Kommunistischen Bund [KB]) (Their motto being: “Never again Germany!”). Regarding this, he says:

“This is no sin of the youth[a]. I believe that there are even more things that a person can stand for to this day…”2

In the context of this declaration is Trittin’s interesting opinion regarding the concept of democratic elections.

They have not so much to do with the organization of parliamentarian majorities, but much more the attaining for oneself the power of

“dominant minorities and the leadership of opinion.”3

This is nothing short of post-Communist propagation of the Leninist Doctrine of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat on the part of a prominent German politician[b]. That was the same Communist justification for decades-long oppression of their citizens through a radical, arrogant, and above all decidedly left-wing/Fascist minority. With that same strategy of opinion control that has been successful until now, Trittin has sketched out a much more penetrating plan regarding the real relationships of power among Western European countries. Even the political scientists have not been able to achieve this with their long-winded analyses. It is true that parliamentary power lies mostly in the hands of the conservative parties in Europe. However, the leadership of opinion of which Trittin speaks, and the power that arises there from, has been overwhelmingly in the hands of highly-organized, primarily left-oriented minorities (Keyword: leftwing [fascist] opinion cartel) who still find themselves to be unchallenged regarding what is politically correct and what isn’t. We will come to speak more often of this.

Jilted Politicians Seek for Themselves Another People

How a political satire eventually becomes reality

Let us come to alpha-beast of the Greens (Greenpeace), the German Joschka Fischer, who was The long-time chief of his party and served previously as the German Foreign Minister. In his youth he was a militant enemy of his country, a police-fighter, RAF-sympathiser [RAF = Rote Armee Fraktion, “Red Army Fraction”, communist revolutionaries] and a hater of the Western system[c]. He blew the same horn as his party-friend and fighting companion Cohn-Bendit. Fischer (“I discover more and more how much I have remained a Marxist.”) reveals the political intentions behind massive immigration in his book with the revealing title “Germany — The Risk” (1994). The content of this book was summed up in the “WELT” newspaper as follows:

“Germany must be hemmed in from without, and within she must be heterogenized by influx (of foreigners) or quasi “thinned out.”4

In plain language, the idea of a voter fraud of historical proportions was crafted, the result being a stealthily and carefully executed plan with a pre-determined result. In 1960 only 600,000 Muslims lived in all of Europe, today, however, there are already over 30 million, and the greatest mass immigration in the history of man continues unabated. Each year 1 million new Muslim immigrants stream into Europe. This is done legally through the reunification of families, the process of asylum, or they come as “political fugitives” from their Islamic countries where human rights are trodden underfoot. Ever and again they receive residency rights, more and more receiving European citizenship without having to accede to rudimentary skills of culture, education or employment necessary to cope with the requirements of high-tech European society.

But they haven’t come here to integrate into Western society. This is forbidden by their faith[d] as well as their religious leaders who are highly organized and have long since held the real leadership over European muslims. Their primary political goal is to complete what their religion, what Allah has commanded: the rule over all “infidels” in this world. This is what it says in the Koran; this is what their prophet (Muhammad) also commands. And this is what every representative of Muslims strives for in every European country, regardless of what party they belong to.

World Domination is the principal goal of Islam

Whether it be Vural Öger[e] (German-Turkish SPD-Representative), whetherBoumediennes[f] (former Algerian head of state), whether Izbetbegovic[g](Bosnian ex-president), whether Erbakan[g] (former Turkish prime minister), or whether it be Ibrahim El-Zayat[h], (President of the Islamic Fellowship in Germany): every one of them knows well the mandate for world conquest, and every one of them is applying every bit of power they have to accomplish this end.

Only Western do-gooders and the leftist elite insistently refuse to acknowledge the Islamic push for world dominance, for they naïvely follow the motto of do-gooders and good-willers who think that that which is not allowed to exist simply cannot exist. But let it be said to all who refuse to accept reality: the Muslim doesn’t care one iota what the non-Muslim thinks of him. What Islam entails, what it really means, every Muslim understands perfectly. To express it coarsely, Western ideals of morality or other values are considered rubbish. Khomeini, among others, formulated this idea unambiguously when he said

“The rule over the world is the end goal of Islam”5

This statement is confirmed by all who know Islam. The German-Syrian orientalist and Islamic scientist, Bassam Tibi, says in addition:

“Everywhere, in that place where Muslims live, Islam claims for itself the sole owner of validity (dissenting ideas are invalid).”6

<This is a very EXCLUSIVE statement.  It is OFFENSIVE.  >
Even the Chief of Police in Cologne — bound to the requirements of his office not to take positions — concluded soberly as a result of unhindered border openings and the high birth rate of Islamic people that the German State will be overtaken in 2030. Since Islam is striving for world dominance, it could come to a bloody civil war in Germany and Europe.7His colleague in Vienna, Alfred Ellinger, President of the Association of Austrian Criminologists (Vereinigung österreichischer Kriminalisten), sees it the same way. In a comment regarding the state of Europe in connection with Islam, he writes: 

“A Moslem has the duty to defend his territory against attacks from infidels and at the same time to destroy the world of the infidels to the end that Islam will rule the whole globe. Jihad comes to an end only when all people have either accepted the Islamic faith or have bowed to its authority. The border of Islam is the border of the world.”8

google translated (not so good, but you get the point) HIGH COURT OF APPEAL, illegal "Anatolian Federated Islamic State Union of the Islamic community and Societies" (AFİD / İCCB) administrator Text Kaplan, "attempting to change the constitutional order by force of arms" from the aggravated life sentence overturned. Kaplan's sentence before the Supreme Court procedural deficiency disrupts the investigation and the missing, now violating the constitution "has decided to not develop the offense. Kaplan, an armed organization "set up or managing the" punishment of imprisonment up to 15 years were asked to more than 10 years.

Also, the Turk Metin Kaplan — who is smiled upon as the “Caliph of Cologne,” founder of the militant Muslim organization “Caliph-State,” Hater of Jews and Israel, and a recognized fugitive (Asylbewerber) — proclaimed in countless sermons the creation of an “Islamic Theocracy Germany” and prophesied the imminent coming of Islamic world dominance.9 At the end of 2008, the Islamic scholar of Indian origin, T.K. Abdullah declared in an open presentation in Qatar the coming takeover of the world by Islam after Communism and Capitalism have finally failed.10

Adolf Hitler himself had only a marginal understanding of Islam, but he collaborated with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in order to build a death camp for the Jews living in Palestine. Nevertheless, he was able to grasp the Islamic charge of world dominance better than most modern educated Europeans can.

Adolf Hitler“If we had become Mohammedans, we would have owned the world today.”11

Muslims everywhere are working toward the takeover of power, and neither an ostensible leftwing opinion or a Green opinion can hold them back. Muslim Coalition90/Grünen (Bündnis90/Greenpeace) politician Nargess Eskandari-Grünberg expressed this fact in an Education and Integration Caucus when a Frankfurt citizen complained about the overwhelming contingent of foreigners in his part of the city.

“Migration is a fact in Frankfurt. If that makes you uncomfortable, then you need to move somewhere else,”

she said.12

Stadträtin Dr. Nargess Eskandari-Grünberg (DIE GRÜNEN im Römer), © Stadt Frankfurt am Main

Councillor Dr. Nargess Eskandari-Grünberg (THE GREEN in Romans) Integration Picture Details / Download ...


Eskandari-Grünberg, was born in 1965 in Tehran, and in 1985 she fled Iran as a political fugitive and was granted asylum in Germany.

How European Politicians Are Executing Policies Against Their Constituents with the Help of Muslim Voter Policy

The influence of Muslims in European daily politics and their political power have become overwhelming in the meantime. Remember Gerhard Schröder’s reelection bid (Audio Schröder: “Yes, I am a Marxist!”), which he barely won with a razor thin majority of votes. With the possible threat of a loss before his eyes, Schröder put his bets on the Turkish vote and promised that, under his watch, the way would be irrevocably cleared for the EU-membership of Islamic Turkey. This message was geared to the approximately 600,000 naturalized Islamic immigrants, the majority being of Turkish origin and on whom Schröder had placed his hopes. His approach was successful. Thanks to the Turkish-German voters who gave the majority of their votes to Schröder, the SPD and Greenpeace parties were able to garner a noteworthy mandate majority, an advantage of a mere 6,027 votes was just enough to get him reelected to the Chancellorship.13 This, however, was achieved against the will of the German people (which fact was kept silent), for without the votes of the naturalized Turkish-German immigrants, Schröder would have lost this election to the opposition by a margin of over half a million votes. Imagine this: politicians practicing politics against their own people. This is the very thing that Cohn-Bendit called for, and it is the implementation of the same plan all over Europe by the left-wing power cartel, which calls for the “thinning out” of the native Europeans proportion of the electorate. And now the fruit of this endeavor is starting to show.

The shifting around of population groups is by no means a novel invention. As a means of “non-military” final solution, this shift has been accomplished in foreign areas that were already occupied, or perhaps the conquered people had their original populations replaced over time by means of “gentler” methods of crowding out until the original population was no longer there. A fine example in recent history is North Cyprus. Occupied since 1974 by Turkey, hundreds of thousands of Anatolian mainland Turks have been placed there. The result today is that the relationship between Greek and Turkish Cypriots has shifted dramatically in favor of the erstwhile Turkish minority.

An example from Tibet: This giant, autonomous region of 1.2 million square kilometers (Germany area by comparison is only 350,000 square kilometers) came under Chinese occupation in the 1950s. Since then China has seen to it that millions of Chinese have moved to Tibet, so that in the meantime Tibetans have become the minority in their own land. In both of these cases the thing that holds true is that the redistribution of population groups was guided by the authority of the occupying power, and indeed the result was logically to the advantage of the ethnic group of that occupying power.

Europe, on the other hand, is not occupied by any external force, but in spite of this fact the continent finds itself in the throes of one of the greatest demographic upheavals in its history by means of new and mostly Muslim ethnic groups that are successfully replacing indigenous Europeans. This upheaval has been steered by Europe’s own politicians and was programmed long ago to stand against the interests and needs of native Europeans. Those politicians have neither asked their constituents for permission regarding this issue, nor do they react to the growing unrest of the European people, because such a mass immigration has led to the fact that Europe as the Europeans have known it is becoming less recognizable. In many places Europeans have become foreigners in their own lands, and from the beginning they have not wanted this large influx. This immigration policy carries with it all the signs of a totalitarian concept of rule from the political elite of Europe, and harkens back to the giant population shifts in the Soviet Union and Communist China under Stalin and Mao. These shifts were decided within the circle of a small political group, and were carried out without one single referendum by the indigenous people involved.

The plain and short: with regard to Europe, the left-wing/green power complex has been behaving for quite some time in certain essential political core areas (i.e. migration, EU expansion, citizenship) in a way that resembles an external occupation force. Since those who have been responsible for this mass immigration have been unable to win over their home-grown European voters to this political work, they have set out to cause the occupation of their own lands by millions of people with a foreign language, culture, and religion. Their intention, in the meantime, is to “thin out” the European portion of the population, and eventually to disempower them altogether.

This is nothing short of a new form of “ethnic cleansing.” Moreover, there are certain perverse warning signs: No controlling external occupying force, but rather a small and determined minority from within the indigenous population; this ruling minority will meanwhile and eventually in the long term exchange the current population for those who promise a stronger support of their policies.

The left-wing/green master plan is already producing the desired results. As an example, in Brussels, Milan and Oslo, the name “Mohammed” is now the most common name given to newborns. In England the traditionally most common name was “Jack.” However, in the meantime “Mohammed” has taken the lead. In 2004 in Holland, 56% of all the children and youth in the large cities were foreigners, most of them Muslim.

In Switzerland, the statistics for 2040 show that 76% the population will be Muslim, assuming the policies of this Alpine country do not change. According to an Austrian study, in 2051, every third Austrian pupil will be a Muslim. A study from the Islamic Archive in Soest (2006) regarding developments of the German population predicts that in 2045, the German population will stand at 51.72 million Muslims in contrast to only 45 million native Germans. A fact that has already been carefully calculated by the leading Muslim authorities for accomplishing the takeover of power in that most important country in Europe.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Part 2: Facts about the Islamization of Denmark

For decades Denmark has been one of the few worldwide examples of a truly peaceful community with a nearly perfectly functioning state social system. For Europe and for others, this little country has been the example to follow, for it has a strong environmental conscience, one of the best education systems, and a low crime rate. For decades this was the cornerstone of the liberal policies carried out by the Danish Social Democrats.

However, in the ’90s disenchantment began to settle in, in parallel with the sudden explosion of immigrants from Islamic countries. The Danes came to a shocking conclusion as to how many Muslims already were living in the most important cities, and just how little if any desire they really had to integrate into Danish society. On the contrary, it became more and more clear that the leaders of the Muslims were beginning to attack the lifestyle of the Danes, using ever sharper language to express their contempt for so-called “Western decadence.”

‘Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.’ ‘Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.’ ‘Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.’ ‘Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem’ ‘Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.’


Only gradually and much too slowly did the Danes begin to comprehend that, with the Muslims, they had taken in a group that not only could not accept the core values of the Danes (belief in the freedom of the individual, freedom of speech, equality for women, tolerance for other ethnic groups) but also would attack those values with ever-increasing force. In the place of “Western decadence,” they would set up the archaic societal model of Islam, which they would institute over time in Denmark as the future and only model of faith and justice to be desired.

Hindu Being Beaten To Death By Muslims Outside A Mosque In Bangladesh. He had the nerve to pass-by a Mosque minding his own business just as moderate Muslims were leaving Friday prayer.

The "Religion of Peace" At Work In Mumbai

Also, in Denmark as in other “lands of war[j], Islam is working on a massive infiltration of the country with the goal in the meantime of making Denmark into an Islamic state. The Islamic Party of Denmark is already declaring an imminent takeover of power in Denmark. The central and single assignment of the party is eventually to make Denmark an Islamic state through the occupation of important positions by Muslims. Moreover, they have threatened that a “wrong” treatment of Muslim children will be met with the unleashing of unrest on the part of Muslims living there.

The first Muslim scarf-wearing woman appointed to a position in President Barack Obama’s administration met with lawmakers Monday and discussed her role on an interfaith advisory board the new administration hopes will broaden dialogue and understanding.

General Facts

Muslims in Birmingham

Times Online… Birmingham’s top Muslim leader urged his followers to “vent their feelings” against anti-Islamic protesters during a weekend rally that ended in violence and dozens of arrests, The Times can reveal

Like many other Western lands, the Danes are having problems with riots fomented by the Muslim immigrants. And this has not been just since the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. Already in November 1999, several dozen youths in the heavily Muslim district ofNørrebro rioted while police looked on and did nothing. The Muslims smashed about 100 picture windows, set automobiles on fire, and threw stones at the police. According to the police report, the riot took place because of a judgment that was handed down for the deportation of a Danish criminal of Turkish origin. Ercan Cicek was to be returned to Turkey after serving a 3-year sentence.14 We should remember the recent Muslim tumults in France that were similarly tied to Muslim criminals and in which thousands of automobiles were burned and destroyed, as well as public buses having fire bombs thrown at them, and police being shot up with shrapnel weapons. The message the Muslims sent, not only in Denmark and France, but to others was this: “We are the future rulers of this country!”

Condy Rice with Jack Straw former British Foreign Secretary, currently Leader of the House of Commons

In the course of the week-long raging protests by the Muslims after the publishing of the Mohammed cartoons by the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten (the result of the uprisings: 140 dead and over 800 injured worldwide), Denmark was also criticized by other Western governments. Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US State Department, as well as the British Foreign Minister Jack Straw characterized the cartoons as “injurious”. To every democracy belongs

Mohammedcartoons Muhammad Cartoons Mumbai Style Terror Plot Foiled by Danish Intelligence

“in addition to freedom of opinion, aspects such as the fostering of understanding and respect for minority rights.”15

McCormack meant by his critique that the Muslim minority in Denmark had allegedly been oppressed by the Danes. Since time immemorial, the Muslims have boasted of their ostensible tolerance of religious minorities. Murat Hofmann, a German Islam convert, educated jurist, former diplomat, and author of numerous books, describes Islamic minority rights as

“the most liberal statute for other faiths that the world to this day has ever seen or used as a standard,”16

one of the many myths about Islam that doesn’t hold up when scrutinized more closely. Let’s look at an example from Denmark as to just how Islam really deals with non-Muslim minorities.

Because of Racist Muslims, Original Danish Natives Have to be Relocated17

The island of Greenland belongs to the little country Denmark. However, for years now, the native inhabitants of Greenland, the Kalaalit, do not have the confidence to go out into their streets anymore. The reason for this: the Muslims will throw rocks at them, or they regularly attack them in some other way. The reason for this is incomprehensible and at the same time surreal: many adherents to this “religion of peace” see the Greenland natives as “infidels” and even as wild beasts that have no human rights at all. And even though the Danish government has attempted by many means to improve the situation between the Kalaalit and the Muslims, no improvement has been achieved, and in may cases the situation has worsened. Among the actions taken by the Danish government was the creation of an Internet site in the Arabic language in which they attempted to show that in dealing with the Kalaalit, the Muslim were dealing not with beasts but really with people. Already in 2007, the yearly traditional festival of the Kalaalit in Aarhus (every June 21st) could only take place under the purview of police protection. And in 2008, the festival didn’t even happen, the result the increasing Muslim violence against the Greenland natives.18

Greenland — Arabic
This Danish Internet campaign in the Arabic language did not help the Kalaalit —even more Muslims are attacking them.19
Also, the natives have had to forego even their beloved football games, for the Muslims would throw rocks at them if the natives were caught practicing alone. The attacks have taken on such a great ferocity that the Kalaalit now barricade their windows in order to keep the Muslims from breaking into their flats. This problem has for some time already been known by the authorities, and they react just as any authorities in countries run by decent, unassuming people would react: instead of attacking the evil at the root, instead of arresting the perpetrators and putting them in jail, and instead of deporting them, the city council of Aarhus is financing the transfer to the Danish mainland for any Kalaalit who wishes to leave their homeland due to fear of the Muslims, and they are also subsidizing their search for flats outside of the large cities where the Muslim immigrants themselves have taken up residence. A step that the Muslims have already had in their sights, considering the exploding number of Muslims already in Denmark. Johanne Christiansen, one of the women from the Kalaalit group who gladly accepted the state assistance, says:

“I could not bear anymore being the constant target of their attacks.”

They have been exclusively attacked by Somalis and Arabs. “They simply have no respect for us.” Moslems tell the Kalaalits that they shouldcompletely urinate upon themselves because Denmark is their country.”20

With the exception of one or two insignificant Danish local newspapers, the mainline European media have to this day remained silent regarding this issue. Much the opposite is happening, however; the Süddeutsche Zeitung, a leader in the suppression and denial of the “allegedly threatening Islamization” of Europe21, signifies on a regular basis that the few who are warning of the Islamization of Europe are in error, or are kooks or haters of foreigners, and they accuse them of mockery and malice.

And even the countless human rights organizations that would otherwise expose the slightest error committed by Western governments at worldwide information and protest campaigns have remained unusually quiet, and to this day they have not said one word in protest against these activities in Denmark. As with most Western journalists, artists, and intellectual individuals, the boldness of Western freedom and human rights activists consistently ends exactly where Islam begins. And this boldness mutates in the face of the dark determination of that theocratic totalitarianism, which threatens its critics and opponents with murder in order to get them to shrink away in cowardice and dishonesty, a totalitarianism that encourages its adherents not to shy away from committing murder to accomplish its goals.

In any case, a democratically elected administration that has been totally unable to protect its own native people from attacks by immigrants does not deserve to have the name “government.” The policy of relocating the Kalaalit is interpreted on the part of the Danish Muslims as exactly this: a further act of the successive subjugation of Denmark to the Islamic claims of lordship over that country — and as an indirect encouragement to the Muslims to continue their practice of terror that, so far, has been quite successful against the West.

The previously mentioned international criticism against Denmark because of their allegedly lacking respect for its Muslim minority is a farce,

<Just like the Conservatives here, in the US, are intolerant and are HATE mongers.  This is not true.  The conservative right in the US is very inclusive, as long as they are not being killed.>

considering how much hate and lack of respect the Danish Muslims have demonstrated against their Danish native counterparts. This is scandalous when, in hindsight, we recognize how the rights of minorities in Islamic countries are actually implemented (or are actually not implemented)[k]. Moreover, this shines a light on the lack of knowledge or complete ignorance within the highest political ranks about the true character of Islam, which in practically all of its countries simply heaps the rights of minorities into a pile of dirt, especially when those rights have to do with “infidels.” Of a truth, there is no other religion that is nearly as antagonistic towards minorities in this fashion as Islam is. SPIEGEL (one of the few publications that even dares to attempt some criticism regarding Islam, even though it does believe that a moderate Islam is not evil) reports: “Violence, terror and a growing influx of Islamists threaten oriental Christendom. In some countries the unloved minority already struggles for survival — or seeks salvation in flight”22

<Is this what is to become of us?>

Detailed Set of Facts

In the following section a few reports from Denmark will be presented with respect to the subject of Muslim immigrants.

1. High Social Expenditures for Muslims in Denmark

  • Direct immigration into the Danish social system Contrary to the oft-repeated and differing opinions of the politicians, immigration into Denmark costs far more for the state than citizens have been told. A Danish think tank estimates these costs to be up to 50 milliard Krone (about 6.7 milliard Euros) per year. The study mentions even further that if a sudden cessation of this immigration were to occur (especially that of Muslim immigration), gigantic sums of money would be saved. Another study states that one out of two immigrants lacks the qualifications for even the least skilled positions — especially among those immigrating from the Islamic world. This problem of direct immigration into the social system of Denmark is one that follows the pattern of other European countries where large increases in immigration has been an issue. The media, on the other hand, give a politically and Islamically correct report regarding these issues.23
  • Immigrants from the Third World Most of them are Muslims from such countries as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Lebanon and Iraq — they make up 5% of the population — but receive over 40% of the social expenditures.24
  • The average per-capita contribution to taxes and GDP by immigrants in Denmark, 80 percent of which originate from Islamic countries, is 41% below that of the Danes.25
Vodpod videos no longer available.

2. the Extremely High Rate of Crime Among Muslims in Denmark


  • 70 percent of all crimes in Copenhagen are committed by MuslimsIn February 2009, the Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels published a book with the title “Among Criminal Muslims. The Experiences of a Psychologist in Copenhagen.” His conclusion: “The integration of Muslims in European societies is impossible.”Here is a segment of an interview with Nicolai Sennels:

    “Everywhere, there are painful measures being taken to integrate Muslims into society, but all these efforts seem to be futile. According to the Danish police and the Bureau of Statistics, 70 percent of all crimes in the Danish capital were committed by Muslims. Our national bank published a short study that shows that each Muslim immigrant costs on average more than two million Krone (about €300,000) in state subsidies, the sole cause for this being their limited participation in the employment market. Aside from this, they receive further benefits from the social system for unemployment, for the cost of translators, special hours at school — whereby 64 percent of the children of Muslim parents still can’t read or write properly by the age of 10 — plus the cost of social workers and, of course, the cost of more police personnel.”26

    The book had consequences. Nicolai Sennels says,

    “My comments led to a forbidden conclusion with threat of being fired if I didn’t change my conclusion. If one follows the Danish authorities, then one could say that the serious problems that Muslims have are caused by poverty, by the media, by the police, or by the Danes in general. What one absolutely is forbidden to do is: first to bring the cultural background of immigrants into the discussion, and second to point back to the personal responsibility of the immigrants to integrate into society.”27

    When America had morals and standards, immigrants were held to standards and this ensured cohesion instead of adhesion:

    Literacy Test: Anti-immigration forces had been trying to impose a literacy test since the 1880s as a means of restricting immigration. They finally succeeded with the Immigration Act of 1917, passed over President Woodrow Wilson's veto. This law required all immigrants, 16 years or older to read a 40-word passage in their native language. These dual-language cards were used by inspectors to test immigrants' literacy.

  • The statistics in Germany are identical to those of Denmark Already at the end of 2002, the internationally famous historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler came to the same conclusion about the Muslims living in Germany. In an interview with “taz”:

    “The Federal Republic (of Germany) doesn’t have a problem with foreigners; it has a problem with Turks. This Muslim diaspora is for all intents and purposes unable to integrate.”28

    When America had standards the IMMIGRANT had to PROVE that they would be able to integrate and not ingratiate.

    In addition to using standard tests, Ellis Island doctors devised many of their own tests to help diagnose mental defects. Puzzle and mimicry tests were favored because they did not have to be explained to an immigrant through an interpreter; nor did an immigrant have to know how to read or write in order to solve them.

    The statistics agree with Wehler: At 5.4 percent, the criminal quotient of immigrants in Germany is twice that of the general population. Indeed the level for foreign youth lies at 12 percent. Around 30 percent of all murders, rapes and robberies (with injuries) are committed by foreigners. The figures for the general population, however, stand merely at around 10 percent. Those who commit the extreme crimes are above all youth from foreign families — for example, in Berlin only one German in five is a repeat offender.29 What the authorities in Berlin will not say, however, is the actual degree of foreigners that take part in criminal activity in the German capital, for the real truth is that more than 80 percent of all felons in Berlin are of “non-German origin.”30

    After the medical inspection, each immigrant filed up to the inspector's desk at the far end of the Registry Room for his or her legal examination, an experience that was often compared to the Day of Judgment. To determine an immigrant's social, economic, and moral fitness, inspectors asked rapid-fire series of questions, such as: Are you married or single? What is your occupation? How much money do you have? Have you ever been convicted of a crime? The interrogation was over in a matter of minutes after which an immigrant was either permitted to enter the United States or detained for a legal hearing.

  • Terror in the streets: more and more Danish are fleeing from their own cities31Whether Denmark, France, Norway, Sweden or Holland, everywhere the same pictures of street wars between the Muslim immigrants and the police seem to appear. Such is the substance of reports from Danish newspapers that civil-war-like conditions exist in practically all of the large cities in the country, especially Copenhagen and Aarhus, Denmark’s second largest city. The media also report how, more and more, the native Danes are being threatened and tyrannized by the Muslim immigrants. Whole neighborhoods have been converted to quasi-Islamic territories and thereby declared as “no-go areas” for the native Danes. The young Muslims declared at a weekend riot in Aarhus that this was “their city.”32 Similar expressions can be heard in Holland, Belgium, England, France, Sweden, Germany and Austria. Danish police report how they are yelled at and spat upon by Muslim immigrants. In order to be politically correct, the mainstream media in Europe have remained silent regarding these inconceivable situations, thereby deceiving their readers about the true state of affairs in their countries.
  • Drastic drop in urban real estate pricesAmid all of this, the value of real estate in almost every Danish city has plummeted, while at the same time rural real estate prices have shot up to heights hitherto unheard of. The reason: whatever Dane can afford to do so will flee from the big city and look for a quieter and above all more peaceful plot of land. It is here that the Muslims are — still — to be found at a minimum. It is here that the riots occurring daily in the large cities can be felt at a minimum, for in the large cities war has been the rule for a long time now. Only a short while ago did the Copenhagen Post finally declare the Danish capital a “war zone.”33
  • Mass rape as a new and hitherto unrecognized phenomenon Muslims make up only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 Million population, but they make up the majority of condemned rapists in the country; a burning political fact is that practically all female victims are non-Muslim (Christian). Most of the media remain silent about this out of fear or political unrest. Similar ratios are to be found in other categories of criminal activity.34 As pertaining to mass rape of non-Muslim women, the same numbers are the case in Sweden and Norway as well.

Parts of Malmo are no-go areas due to the behaviour of Muslim gangs and the city's inability to face the problem


3. Persecution of Christians and Jews in Denmark

  • The Church of Aarhus pays protection money Since the summer of 2008, the church of the 2nd largest Danish city, Aarhus, has achieved at least a little peace. After Muslim rioters — especially in the multicultural nucleus of Gellerup, a suburb of Aarhus — repeatedly tyrannized the Christians, the church finally paid Muslim bodyguards to protect the church from vandalism and protect the churchgoers on the way to and from their cars. Up until now, this measure has had complete success, and the church reports their expenditure as a success in multicultural integration.35
  • Arabs want to murder Jews in order to gain recognition among Muslims What originally sounded like a bad joke turned out to be fatally serious: a Danish Muslim of Lebanese descent, Wissam Freijeh, 27, at the beginning of 2009 in the Danish township of Odense, attempted to murder two Jews in broad daylight. In a pedestrian shopping zone, he shot a number of times at both Jews who fortunately managed to survive the murder attempt and are now healing from their wounds at a specialist clinic. In the meantime, the Danish newspapers, among others, found out the following information about the criminal involved: he had already been cited in a Danish newspaper in 2004 as “wanting to improve recognition among immigrants in Denmark.” He perceived this to be the most important duty that he had. Aside from this, Lebanese women who would leave their husbands were also to be killed according to Islamic laws.In connection to the near-death shooting of the two Jews, resourceful journalists have invented a new term, “sudden jihad syndrome,” in order to describe the immediate or sudden need of a Muslim to kill an “infidel.”36
  • Danish Jews require police protection Muslim violence threatens Denmark’s approximately 6,000 Jews who are having to depend more and more on police protection. Anti-Israel marches have been acted out in anti-Jewish street battles. One organization called Hizb ut-Tahrir openly calls for Muslims “to kill all Jews wherever they find them.37
  • Jewish pupils have to change schools because they are bullied by Muslims In August 2001, the principal of the Rådmandsgade School in Copenhagen-Nørrebro (Denmark) suggested to Jewish children that they attend another school because he could no longer guarantee their security there. Jewish children had been mistreated before by the Muslim pupils who are in the majority there.38

<what kind of “success in multicultural integration” is that when you have to pay thugs protection money.  BLOOD MONEY>

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Vodpod videos no longer available.

4. Refusal of Integration by Muslims in Denmark

  • Muslims remain more and more among themselves With the increasing number of Muslim immigrants comes ever-increasing separation from the native Danish population. Muslims, as the surveys and statistics show, wish to have fewer and fewer dealings with the native Danes. A more recent survey shows that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would be ready to marry a Dane.39
  • Denmark: Muslim schools bully and beat up pupils In Odense, the fourth largest city in Denmark at 190,000 inhabitants, there also live numerous Muslims, many of whom come from Somalia. There is a special school for their children, the ABC-Skol in Vollsmose. However, this school is a special kind of school, for at this school the rules governing the school are not Danish but rather Somalian. For example, if the children answer the questions from the teacher too slowly, or if they give a wrong answer, then they are publicly humiliated and beaten in their Islamic home, usually with a rod on a finger and sometimes even openly in the face. This is hard for a person in Danish Odense to accept, for this type of punishment in modern Danish classrooms is now the stuff of history books. However, the police are now dealing with the new cultural enrichment provided by the Muslim teachers. Schoolmaster Muhammed Farah had often been warned to put an end to the violence in his school. He simply cannot comprehend why everyone is so excited about his school. After all, violence in Islam is forbidden anyway, the schoolmaster says…40
  • Forced marriages and murders “of honor” also in Denmark Forced marriage — In Denmark, newborn daughters are promised to male cousins in the homeland (of the family), and then forced to marry them under threat of death. This is a problem not only in Denmark, but in other European countries where Muslims live.41
  • Denmark is capitulating to her Muslims The Danes constantly experience civil-war-like conditions in their cities. The German journalist and critic of Islam, Udo Ulfkotte, writes about this:

    In January 2008, after there had been great unrest in the Danish suburbs where Muslims are majority populations, and after young Muslims in the township of Nørrebro set schools, apartment buildings, automobiles, and garbage containers on fire as well as attacking police, firemen and sanitation personnel, the security authorities searched for the cause. The young people had no reason for their excessive behavior. When asked by the media what they wanted in order to put a stop to their violent excesses, they requested that the police no longer examine immigrants regarding the trafficking of illegal substances and weapons. It is no longer allowed that immigrants be examined on the basis of suspicion in “their” neighborhoods. The Danish police responded in kind to this in January 2008 — and put a moratorium on suspect examinations in Copenhagen neighborhoods such as Blågårds Plads and Folkets Park, hotspots for oriental drug traffickers. The written statement from the police authorities was also shown on the TV-2 News show under the headline “Police Change Tactics” in which they reported the pullout of the police from the Copenhagen’s immigrant-inhabited quarters.

    Moreover, it is now no longer permitted for police cruisers to patrol the immigrant neighborhoods because the presence of security authorities might provoke the immigrant citizens to new rioting. From this time forth, the only security measures allowed in the immigrant neighborhoods will be just the local police stations.42


    In February, the stories of a Muslim teenager and a 22 year old Muslim girl, who were saved from arranged marriages under the newly minted Forced Marriage Act hit local UK papers highlighting the potential success of the act as the number of reported cases increased by 80% in 2008. Yet, as more cases come to light, so will a variety of weaknesses in the law. The act, passed in November of 2008, is a civil measure, preventing parents and family members from forcing their children to marry against their will. In many cases, family members use emotional manipulation to coerce the victim into leaving the UK with convincing stories, such as a mother having fallen ill, as was the case with Dr. Humayra Abedin, who moved to the UK six years prior to her forced return to Bangladesh where her parents drugged, bound, and imprisoned her for four and a half months. She was forced to marry a stranger while heavily sedated. The reason? Dr. Abedin had a Hindu boyfriend in the UK at the time.

5. Terrorist Assaults and Support of Terrorism From the Muslims

  • Danish Green Party Candidate calls for terrorist assaults against Danish soldiers Imagine if a Chinese[l] or American parliamentary representative (WHO IS REALLY THE ENEMY – A FOLLOWER OF ISLAM) were to call openly on the Taliban in Afghanistan to kill any Chinese or American soldier whenever the opportunity might arise.Yet, this very thing is happening right now in Denmark. The Danish-Palestinian politician Asmaa Abdol-Hamid has called all her Muslim brothers to kill Danes wherever they might encounter them.43 Abdol-Hamid, along with her family, came as a Palestinian fugitive to Denmark in 1986 where she and they were generously awarded asylum — and where she enjoyed a first-class education. After she worked as a social worker and a family counsellor she was elected in 2005 as representative in the city council of Odense for the left-alternative party Enhedslisten. The political activity of Mrs. Asmaa Abdol-Hamid is considered in Denmark to be a “successful example of prosperous integration” and as “cultural enrichment.” Now, this is the same person that has called for terror attacks against Danish soldiers in Iraq. German and other European newspapers have remained most extremely quiet about the call for attack from this successfully integrated “Danish lady.”

    Asmaa Abdol-Hamid From Alliance-held presentations about being a young and active immigrant women.

    After confirming her call for the murder of Danish soldiers in several subsequent interviews, one would assume that Abdol-Hamid would no longer be worth keeping as the poster candidate for the Greens. However, the opposite actually happened. The Greens, meanwhile, have actually increased their dependence on this famous associate who continues without restraint to promote Islam openly.44

  • 30,000 Dollars as Blood Money rewarded for each Dane slain A 30,000 Dollar reward has been offered by a Muslim group in Denmark to anyone who kills a Jew in Denmark.45
  • Hip-hop singer of Moroccan origin challenges incarcerated terrorist suspects to “stay the course”Isam Bachiri is a Copenhagen-born Moroccan, a singer for the hip-hop band “Outlandish,” which was started in Denmark. The Danish media reports that Bachiri is supporting a 19-year-old Muslim incarcerated as a terror suspect in Denmark with money, clothing and ideological support. In numerous letters to the detainee are written challenges to “stay the course.”46

6. And in Denmark the Muslims Want the Power

  • Copenhagen: Murder attempts against critics of IslamOn Sunday, 21 October 2007, the Danish organization SIAD — critics of Islam — had planned to demonstrate against the increasing Islamization of Europe. Before the protest began, out of nowhere leftwing individuals appeared, armed with iron rods, and their faces showing the intent to kill. The demonstrators were attacked by these individuals and were seriously injured. One of countless indicators that the leftists of Europe are ready to engage themselves — even to the point of inflicting death — in order to bring about the Islamization of Europe. Neither the Danish nor the German media reported anything about this documented occurrence.47
  • Murder upon conversion to Christianity Even in Denmark, Muslims who convert to Christianity must fear for their lives. Such a thing happened to a Kurdish woman living in Denmark. She received many death threats after she revealed why she had left Islam and converted to Christianity. Ever since her public declaration, she has had to hide in fear for her life.48 Murder and threats of murder have for a long time been a successful means by Islam to keep its “umma” together and to prevent any possible internal criticism and solution to that criticism from happening. Internal and external terror — these are unmistakable signs of a religion with a license to kill, even a religion that is called “the religion of peace.”
  • The goal of an Islamic Denmark Muslim leaders openly declare the institution of Islamic law as their goal — Shari’a — as soon as Denmark’s Muslim population has grown enough to enable it. This reality of this is not too far off in the future. One sociologist figures that if the current trends hold out, in 40 years 1 in 3 inhabitants of Denmark will be a Muslim.49

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Part 3: The First Summary Regarding the Islamization of Denmark

“In the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries Western Europe had little to offer foreign traders except slaves, yet its privileged classes craved the luxuries and exotic goods which could be bought in the East. Muslim or Jewish traders established in Marseilles and Garde Freinet offered good prices for slaves.” (Robin Blackburn, The making of New World Slavery: from the Baroque to the modern, 1492-1800, Verso, 1997, p 43)


Muslims want to rule Europe

The list of facts in connection with the Islamization of Denmark can be arranged in virtually any order. However, they mainly show three things:

First, when evaluating all immigrants coming into Denmark, it can be concluded that where criminal activity is connected to religion, the Muslim immigrants stand out the most.


Second, Muslim immigrants are in unrelenting pursuit of the takeover of power in Denmark. This will not be a normal transfer of government, as in normal democracies, but rather a complete transformation of this Christian Democratic country into an Islamic country under the laws of Shari’a — a Muslim Denmark. Muslims in all other European countries are pursuing this same goal where they now live as immigrants.[m]

Third, it appears that Denmark’s Muslim problem is not limited to Denmark. Every Western country in which a notable Islamic diaspora lives has to battle with similar or identical problems. For Islam is no religion — and especially not a “religion of peace” — but rather totalitarianism with an unconditional claim to world dominance. All of this has been going on successfully for the past 1400 years under the disguise of “religion.”

What makes this so difficult to understand, among other things, is the giant vacuum of knowledge that non-Muslims have about Islam. Another problem is that a trusting and well-intentioned[n] global citizen has difficulty accepting the idea that Islam could be such an exaggerated exception among the major world religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Taoism may more or less have their problems, but at their heart they are mostly tolerant and peace-loving. Without exception they teach their believers that the good things they do in this life equip them for the next.

Indoctrination in Islam is Indoctrination into cadaver duty and the ruthless killing of “­infidels”

Islam represents the exception: the capture of world dominance is the ultimate goal; all other goals must be subordinate. The Islamic ban of killing counts only for Muslims, not for “infidels.” Islamic peace will be achieved only by the fulfillment of Muslim world dominance; so the motto goes: When the whole world thinks and believes the according to the will of Islam, only then will peace reign in this world. Communism assumed an unrealistic image of man (in which they put forth the doctrine that all persons are equal) and failed as a result of this flawed perception. Moreover, Islam has an unrealistic image of man because it assumes that every person will eventually believe in one God — the Islamic God — and this image does not fit into to the infinite psychological, intellectual and creative diversity that is characteristic of every human being. The species called “man” is far more diverse, sophisticated, intelligent, creative, chaotic, and ultimately unpredictable than the archaic image of man given by the analphabetic[o]-founded Islam. The “dar-al-Islam,” the Islamic concept of a future world, one in which all inhabitants are Muslim, is nothing more than an unrealistic — and even surrealist — Utopia that will never happen.[p] However, as long as the Muslims strive for such a world and artificially divide our planet into “believers” and “infidels”, as long as they have this sense of a god-like charge for an eternal Jihad against the world of “infidels,” for this long the name Islam will be associated with war, terror and violence.


This continual war against non-Muslims — jihad — is declared by Islam as a religious and holy duty for every single Muslim. Audio from Khomeini:

“The Christians and Jews say, ‘you shall not kill’! But we say, that killing achieves the same value as a prayer when it is necessary!”

There’s more yet: Islam lures its contract killers with the alleged entry into Paradise where numerous dozens of virgins await the “jihadists,” and with whom they will enjoy sexual pleasures forever. And should a Muslim have problems with his conscience about the killing of an “infidel,” there is help and religious support directly from the Quran. In this passage they can read the redeeming words of their god, either before or after their act of murder:

“You are not the one who has slain them, rather Allah slew them. And you are not the one who has fired the shot, but rather Allah fired the shot, in order that He might show great grace from Himself.” Surah 8:17

To make it clear: their Islamic God, the “all-merciful”, not only expects his believers to kill off the “infidels,” but also he caringly provides the necessary therapy to deal directly with the situation. Their god has also seen to it that the sufferings of his hired killers will be kept in check by freeing them from all personal responsibility for their murders, and by taking that responsibility upon himself personally. One can observe this scenario from well-known mass murders in recent times (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot), where the State said: “You are not the one that did the killing; I, your State, am the killer. You are merely my instrument. When authority commands it (especially a god-like authority), it is seems easier to commit murder.

No other world religion has such a perfidious form of murder-culture; no other world religion schools their followers so systematically in how to kill innocent people of a different faith; no other world religion accepts such an outright devilish invention of general immunity for their believers so that they are free from the guilt of murder — and this is written in their “holy scriptures.” Getting to the point, if there really is a Satan, then the name of his religion is Islam, and his prophet is Muhammad.

Islam is therefore precisely the religious “worst case scenario” which normal citizens of the world can neither imagine nor acknowledge. Islam is the only world religion that educates its adherents from youngest childhood on up in the systematic and ruthless killing of non-Muslims. In 206 places (!) the Quran alone gives challenges for rape and murder against the infidels as well as the violent propagation of the faith. This fact alone regarding this “holy book” is what fundamentally distinguishes it from the holy books of the other remaining world religions. In 1800 further passages, their prophet Muhammad himself charges each Muslim to refer to the texts from Sunna and Hadith.

Conclusion: there are evil persons in every religion. But it takes a religion like Islam to make an evil person out of a good person.

The following fact cannot be repeated often enough: Europe has virtually no notable problems with Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Christian immigrants. The name of the European immigration problem is ‘Islam.’ In spite of this long indisputable fact, Muslim agents have a clever method for presenting the immigrant problem that they are causing: classify it as a “general problem with foreigners.” The facts however demonstrate very clearly: remove the Muslim statistics from the Danish crime statistics (and for that matter the other European countries’ statistics), and the immigration problem presents itself more amicably.

The notion of religious freedom is once again in great need of reconsideration. If the religious texts of a given religion, its internal foundations and/or the declarations of its prophets can so blatantly violate the unalienable human rights declaration of the UN, as is the case with Islam, then the status of “religion” must be removed by the highest courts. Otherwise any imaginable human injustice would be allowable and legitimized by law when it is committed in the name of “recognized religion,” and it would therefore be classified under the protection of “religious freedom.” Since this change of status isn’t happening, it is now high time for enlightenment to begin by means of international consensus (excluding, of course, Islamic countries).

It cannot and should not be permitted any longer for Islam to remove historically developed legal systems from power over the countries where they are already established, such as has been happening for a while now in most Western countries. Moreover, religious law must not be allowed to break constitutional law. In the future, it should be called this way:

Constitutional law breaks religious law!

No ifs, ands or buts.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Part 4: The Western Enablers of Denmark’s Islamization

Without the active support of Western intellectuals, pastors, politicians, artists, media personnel, authors and journalists, the Islamization of Europe would never be successful. The following chapter will show in particular what this support looks like.

Politicians as Enablers of Islamization

Mayor Jakob Hougaard gives his speech after recieving the Award

Mayor Jakob Hougaard gives his speech after recieving the Award

Business Manager Bente Overgaard presents the Mia Award 2009 to McDonald'sCopenhagen’s Integration Commissioner, Jacob Hougaard, called in all earnest to increase the visibility of Islam in all Danish schools and in places of employment, and to make the Islamic religion a solid component of public life in Denmark. Audio Hougaard:

“Islam must become a component of public life.”50

He refined his challenge by effectively demanding general school vacation days occur on Islamic holidays, calling for separate bathrooms/washrooms for Muslims, and for a general honoring of the daily Islamic prayer times by private employers, and access to “halal”-slaughtered meat.51

Also, the previous Danish Foreign Minister and a liberal, Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, belongs to the party of appeasers. Ellemann-Jensen sharply criticized the publishing of the cartoons, and on 7 February 2006, he even called for the resignation of the chief editor of the Jyllands-Posten, Carsten Juste.

NORTHERN DIMENSION MINISTERIAL MEETINGMr M KAMYNIN, Russian Director of the Department of information and press (Russian MFA)Mr Stefan MELLER, Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs (right)


When the Polish Rzeczpospolita reprinted the Muhammad cartoons, they were promptly criticized by the Polish administration. Even more: Poland’s Foreign Minister Stefan Meller bent the knee unbidden and officially apologized for the reprint by an independent newspaper, in quick and early obedience to all Muslims in this world. Things like this always please the Muslims of the world because they expect nothing else from the non-Islamic part of the world but their collective subjugation under the Islam’s authoritative claims. After this, the chief editor of the monthly newspaper Wiez, Zbigniew Nosowski, followed up with this criticism of Poland’s government:

“This publication was a provocation that has been amplified by the additional media coverage. Journalistic provocations can be essentially useful when an uncomfortable truth cannot be disclosed by any other means. The only new information that came from the cartoons was … the level of ignorance concerning things religion.”

Here we see a typical Western Journalist who has arrogantly set himself up to speak eloquently of “provocation” and “ignorance in things Religion”, and in this he has proven that he has absolutely no understanding of the essence of Islam himself. You can’t just outdo his commentary; it bristles of ignorance, stupidity and arrogance.

Newly found friendship between Turkey and Syria

It is a given that Turkish prime minister Erdogan would sharply criticize the cartoon publication. However what he didn’t indicate in his harsh criticism was that this was only a drop in the bucket compared to what he demanded from his party in 1997. As coauthor of his party’s manifest, he called for no less than the total annihilation of the Jews. That is the correct thing to do within the context of the Quran’s anti-Jewish contents, and Islamically correct according to the declarations of Muhammad. These things are not and will never be criticized by any Islamic association or leading Islamic theologian.

Media silence

Western “quality” media have kept Erdogan’s declaration silent to this day — a declaration that is not inferior to those of Hitler and Ahmadinejad. Coincidence? Not on your life. If the editors had been able to unearth such declarations by an American or Israeli president from their archives, then they would certainly have dominated the headlines of the world for weeks to come!

Erdogan’s monstrous call for genocide of the Jews of this World seems not to be worth a single headline for most of the media, but for Erdogan it also seems to pose no moral problem as well. On the other hand, exercise any criticism of his prophet Muhammad who challenged his followers many times to wipe out the Jews, and who himself had countless Jews killed, and this causes no small stir. It is well known that the murder of non-Muslims is allowed in Islam. However, the one who exposes this Islamic license to kill, the one who calls it by name and criticizes it, the same is regarded by Islam as an unforgivable offense to the prophets and the religion. That is the hierarchy and hypocrisy of the moral principles of this “religion of peace.”

I accuse the majority of the media of nothing less than complicity with the totalitarianism of Islam and with its most important political and spiritual leaders, whether intentional or unintentional. The reasons for this (often unintentional) complicity has three names:

  • Hate against the society of Western citizens
  • Anti-Americanism
  • Anti-Semitism

These, as well as total ignorance about the tenets and goals of Islam, are the essential portals between Islam and the greater portion of left-leaning Western intellectuals, whether they serve as publicists, media personnel, artists, or politicians.[q]

<I whole – heartedly agree with that! >

Journalists as Enablers of Islamization

The Western press normally recognizes no taboo: whether the subject is Christendom, the pope, Western or non-Western politicians, artists, countries, scientists, ideologies or ideologues, religions or sects. Everything can be analyzed, criticized, caricatured — and the freedom to do so is right.

However, the Speaker of the German Journalist Association (Deutscher Journalistenverband — DJV), Hendrik Zörner, of all people, vehemently criticized the reprinting of the Danish cartoons in German newspapers making a reference to the “Code of the Press.” According to the Code, “publication in Word and Picture that in Form and Content can be possibly injurious to the religious sensibilities of a people group violates the stipulations agreed upon in the Code” (numeral 10 of the German Press Code).52

The question is, whether Zörner will forego any publication of Hitler or Stalin cartoons in the future with respect to the sensibilities of the ever present and internationally recognized standards of the numerous fellowships of neo-Nazis and Old Stalinists? Perhaps he should even call for a cessation of George W. Bush cartoons because the millions who voted for him might have their sensibilities offended as well. No, one can conclude that he wouldn’t do that. But neither personal audacity nor journalistic ethics were the guidebook here: rather the confidence that no danger would threaten him from any corner. Apparently Zörner is not versed in Islam, nor in the ethics of his career and the personal duty of his journalistic guild. These all command the journalist to write with unwavering clarity and with boldness, to write down the truth, even when it is not politically correct to do so, as well as to fight against any form of totalitarian exercise of power — even, and especially when, this exercise of power cloaks itself in theological clothing.

In France, the Nouvel Obs prints an interview with the philosopher Regis Debraywho has aligned himself with the international scenario for subjugation to Islam, and who has done no less than called for a voluntary self-control of expression of opinion with respect to Islam. Debray says:

“We cannot transfer our thought categories and our systems to another culture that has a history and where it has played a structural role like it was with us 300 years ago.”53

The Values-Relativist Debray may be a philosopher, but he understands very little: little of his own history, little of the French Enlightenment, little of the most destructive consequences of an appeasement philosophy — and even less of Islam who, in the above citation from Debray, “today would be the “peaceful religion” in power in France,” but tomorrow might burn even its non-Muslim supporters.[r]

Numerous newspapers and periodicals in the USA have also refused to reprint the Muhammad cartoons. The critical US historian and columnist, Anne Appelbaum, writes about this in the Washington Post:


“Hypocrisy among the cultural left. Dozens of American newspapers, the Post included, have declared that they will not print the cartoons, but that they would rather — in the words of a self-righteous editorial — ‘cease from superfluous attacks against religious symbols’”54

Appelbaum and the German sociologist Wolfgang Sofsky were a couple of the few voices who could correctly classify the religious and political background of the conflict regarding the cartoons and properly conclude that Islam’s aggressive nature was the real cause of that conflict. Sofsky writes in the Welt:

“The crowd is by no means is looking out for democratic freedoms … the impulse that drives them is much older. The righteous multitude desires to have control of their arch enemies; they desire to slay and burn them. In general, they have the West in their sights. The only freedom they are not finished with is the freedom to kill.”55

Authors as Enablers of Islamization

Already back in 1919, the German author Kurt Tucholsky had formulated an answer to the question where the limits should be set for enlightening writings, and especially those that are packed with satirical criticism. His answer became famous:

Coverbild: Kurt Tucholsky - Kleine Geschichten

Kurt Tucholsky - Kleine Geschichte

“What is allowed in satire? Everything!”56

Only a short century later, the German Literature Nobel Peace Prize winner, Günter Grass made the statement about the publishing of the Muhammad cartoons, that it was

“a conscious and planned provocation by a rightwing Danish newspaper.”57

Mr. Grass had already reached an “understanding” about the terror attacks on the New York twin towers and had admitted to a certain sympathy for the Islamic terrorists.

And here he is again: the automatic left-wing reflex of casting each and every criticism of Islam immediately and unchecked upon the right-wing political camp. In an interview with the FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), he utters not a single word about the worldwide agitation of Islam against the “infidels,” not one word concerning the threats of murder against the Danish cartoonists and countless publishers, writers and journalists in the whole world who were bold enough to criticize Islam. Not one word was issued about Muhammad who committed numerous misdeeds against children, the thousands of objectors he had slain, who declared women to be second-class persons, who had a whole Jewish clan beheaded because that clan would not convert to Islam, and who for a long time (though dead) has waged a war, the 1400-year Jihad, in order to increase his borders to his own benefit. And now, today, he is in the middle of Europe, standing ready to take over this continent.

Now, these and similar themes make up the elements of the cartoons that Grass declares to be drawn by the “right-wingers.” However, in contrast to Grass’ opinion, this “Danish paper” puts its fingers into the gaping wounds (caused by Islam) and depicts some of the gravest grievances against Islam. Grass, however, goes so far indeed in his friendship with Islamofascism as to seriously propose on the occasion of Lübeck’s candidacy for being the “cultural capital of Europe” that a Lübeck church be rechristened as a mosque.58 Whatever is preached there doesn’t seem to interest him anymore. Let’s bring to mind the nature the Quran texts[s]that are preached in mosques throughout the world:

“And if you meet the infidel, then off with the head until you wreak massacre among them; and then fasten the bonds!” Sura 47:4

“And strike them (the infidels) dead wherever you encounter them.” Sura 2:191

“And if they turn away (from Islam and give no ear to your challenge to believe), then seize them and kill them where(ever) you find them…” Sura 4:89

“Oh believers, take neither Jew nor Christian as friends.” Sura 5:54

“Oh you who believe, battle against that one of the infidels that is neighbor to you.” Sura 9:123

Etc., etc., etc.

There are only two possible reasons behind Grass engaging himself in this theofascism. First, Grass has no concept of Islam. Second, Grass does know Islam. In the first case, he is an ignoramus. In the second case, he is a friend of a fascist religion.

We could possibly excuse his membership in the Waffen-SS — a confession that came much too late — as the expression of inexperienced youth. However, in his great age, where one should be able to ascribe wisdom and worldly understanding to him, to be a champion for a murderous, people-disdaining, child-raping prophet, and for that religion, is inexcusable. In his blind enthusiasm and criticism-free advocacy for that “religion of peace,” Grass himself has become a danger to the freedom that he believes he has fought for his whole life.

Psychoanalysts as Enablers of Islamization

One other icon of the 1968 Movement, caller of the shots and leading figure of the Peace Movement, is the German psychoanalyst Horst-Eberhard Richter. Like Grass, Richter also sees the fault for the cartoon conflict as primarily belonging to the West. Audio of Richter:

“The West should desist from all provocations and call forth feelings of humility and humbleness. We need to esteem the cultural identity of Islamic countries more highly.”59

This sentence needs to be analyzed. Richter is an icon of the left wing and the Greens, a leading figure practically worshipped by a whole generation of peace-driven deniers of reality and Easter marchers. He exercises no criticism against the cutting off of hands, flogging for no reason, or the stoning of women who have committed no crime other than that they wanted to be free from their husbands. He exercises no criticism against the fact that in Islamic lands today critics of “the religion of peace” have their eyes put out without anaesthetic, that girls at just twoyears of age are forced to marry dirty old men, that women according to Islamic law (Shari’a) are condemned to be second-class people.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini – Mohammed and the Muslims – say that sex with children is ok, sex with animals is ok, men having sex with boys is ok, and Female Genital Mutilation is required. Excerpts from his book “Tahrirolvasyleh.”

He exercises no criticism against the highest courts who give their blessing to the worst of all forms of paedophilia: sex with nursing infants.60

Does he not know all of that? Now, perhaps twenty years ago we could have letRichter get away with this because of his ignorance regarding things Islam. Today, though, after 11 September, after Bali, after Madrid, after London, after the inexpressible activities of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, after the mass killings of homosexuals in Iran (and now recently in Iraq), and now the historically unmatched persecution of Christians that is currently playing out before us in practically every Islam-ruled country, Richter has no excuse. He cannot and will not be allowed to escape the dishonor and disgrace due him, in the face of screaming anti-Western and pro-Islam misanalyses, and in the face of his cowardly and hurried kowtowing to fascistic Islam. Richter, himself a psychoanalyst and psychotherapist for decades, not only in Germany, but well-known in all of the West, passes up no opportunity to ascribe as many aggressions as possible to the West. Indeed he seeks to discredit Western systems by describing them as “power-possessed devils61 and accuse them as being phobicly and paranoidally disturbed.62 However, in the case of the worldwide Muslim uprisings that followed the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, this judge of the system and of capitalism makes an astonishing mutation from a rigorous accuser to a loving grandpa-like figure:

“We know about such temper outbreaks in these countries. We should not heap the rioters and the vandalism of furious masses in with the basic form of the majority…”63

Not one word about the 140 casualties from the uprisings, not one word about the murdered priests and nuns, not a single word about the destruction of dozens of churches, nothing about the killing of the innocent, while Richter, through his description “temper outbreak” trivialized the worldwide persecution of Christianity by Islam. How selective this distortion of perception is. It borders on paranoia, and it comes from one of the “most influential” psychoanalysts in postwar Germany. To think that such incomparable ignorance would come fromRichter, “the one who understands Islam,” who on one hand makes out “man” to be an “inhumane being,” and on the other hand engages himself for Islam — expressly for the most inhumane, most murderous, most morbid variety of masculomania on the globe!

Just like most of his scientific colleagues, Richter addresses the problem of Islam primarily through communications theory. He addresses the issue of a so-called Western deficit of dialog and understanding, a so-to-speak mechanical dialog that occurs because there has been no effort or only a rudimentary attempt to deal with the issues of Islam. For the family therapist and experts in communication deficit, the whole world relies consistently on familiar processes such as the conflict between children, parents and adult-id and therefore it is reduced to treating narcissistic illnesses. For Richter, this is practical because he believes, as a degreed psychotherapist, that he has the correct answers for the political and religious conflicts of the world. This is how an individual psychologist mutates directly into a psychological world philosopher without having to grapple with the issues of politics and religion. But there is a certain point of ignorance about issues where even the best generalist, when lacking the knowledge of facts, starts to mutate into nothing more than a dilettante, an amateur. Richter shows these symptoms in his approach to Islam in his essay that is characteristically titled, “Islamophobia — a symptom of the ‘psychological illness of unrest (lack of peace)’.” In this writing, he poses the rhetorically targeted question:

“Is Islamophobia a symptom of psychopathological restlessness (lack of peace)?”64

Correct diagnosis — but incorrect patient. For Richter exchanges cause with effect. The critic of Islam is not the one that is “psychopathologically without peace,” as Richter would have it, rather the “religion” of Islam. In order to make it clear and without question, one of the most well-known and respected psychotherapists in Germany, one who fights against masculomania and totalitarianism (as Richter says of himself), analyzes the criticism against theofascism and the male-religion Islam as illnesses — ex cathedra, so to say. The killer phrase “Islamophobia” can have no other meaning.

Given such a grave misdiagnosis by an expert, we must be allowed to ask one question. The question is this: If Richter had lived three-quarters of a century earlier, would he have come upon the same diagnosis for critics of national socialism and titled it “Naziphobia”? Or for critics of communist totalitarianism as being “Stalinphobia”? Or perhaps “Maophobia” for critics of Chinese communism? Beside the point? Absolutely not! Many of his colleagues in communist countries have made this very diagnosis and have had critics of communism committed to Middle-Ages-class psychiatric care units only to disappear forever.

And like Grass, Richter may be just as famous. But he writes, like many of his colleagues, about things of which he has no understanding. This may be a form of megalomania, even a sign of self-glory that can be observed of many old 1968ers to this day. In any case, Richter makes so many unqualified comments to an especially successful accomplice of the “psychopathologically peaceless” Islam, and there are still hundreds of thousands of young Peace Movement individuals that believe every word that comes out of his pen.

The Left as Enablers of Islamization

The burden of critical discussion about the theme of Islam that is led by a vast number of persons and parties — that the left-wing opinion makers usually blame on the right-wing camp — can really be blamed on the left-wing-Green-self-righteous crowd. Since the left wing refuses to have open debate about totalitarian, inhumane Islam to this day, they have abandoned the political field of “criticism of Islam” to others by which they doubly refuse through demonizing this criticism as “hostile to foreigners.”

However, this strategy of demonizing the right as employed by the left has developed into an ideological boomerang, because in the long run the steadfast and constant assignment of the term “hostile to foreigners” to “criticism of Islam” makes it nearly impossible in the spectrum of the left, even in the most valid and obvious cases, to become actively critical of Islam. In this case, this accusation of “hostility to foreigners” may fall back on to them with full force, a substantive and argumentative vicious circle for which the left-wing do-gooders will have no escape, and in the end, Islam will be the real winner.

Danish Converts to Islam as Enablers of Islamization

In Denmark, a trend toward conversion to the “religion of peace” can also be seen. As in Germany and other Western countries, a large portion of the almost 4,000 Danish converts to Islam have settled into the leftwing and Green spectrum of politics. This fact is clearly seen in a study at the University of Copenhagen.65According to this study, the subjects being dealt with were converts to Islam and open opponents of the Western model of democracy and who want Islam to be the form of rule in their country. This internal about-face of values of an erstwhile leftwing Islam convert is astonishing:

<I don’t think it’s astonishing at all.  Power – no matter how ill gotten, is more attractive than to be made mince meat.>

  • away from communist-correct atheism and straight to a religion where any doubt about its god and his prophet is punishable by death, and to a religion that desires to force the whole world under Allah’s banner.
  • away from the demand of equality between man and woman — to a religion of gender apartheid, where according to the law and religious manuscripts (Sunna and Quran) the subjugation and position of the woman with almost no rights is sealed for all time
  • away from equality for all people to the equality of all like-minded individuals, the Muslims. In contrast, all other people, according to the Quran, according to Muhammad and according to the agents of the “religion of peace” can be killed with confidence.

<When natural LAW is undermined, through the fema-nazi’s of Code Pink and the like.  The opposite of what is status quo becomes more attractive.  The Jedao – Christian model compliments natural Law.  When it is removed there is a VOID.  And we all know, that nature abhors a void.  When culture is overly feminized, the opposite, comes to the fro.  >

This is only a small piece of cloth from this new religious coat those Western converts have slipped on over their previously leftist scene when they decided expressly to become Muslim. One wonders, if at their conversion into the “religion of peace,” somebody told them that there is no return to their pre-Islamic life, and in the case of turning away from Islam they would be killed according to Muhammad’s personal challenge:

“Kill every one that leaves the religion (of Islam)!”66

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Conclusion: After Failing With Hitler, the Western Appeasement[t]Crowd Does So Again

With its “politically correct” reaction to minority hatred by its Muslim immigrants, Denmark now lies within the general mainstream of the political reactions by practically all Western governments. Apparently, these countries have not learned their lesson from the devastating appeasement policy that the Allies had exercised as a response to Hitler’s expansionist plans. Just as it was then with the National Socialists (Nazis), even so now they feed the Islamic “crocodile” (Churchill) hoping that they will be last ones consumed by it.[u] The “never again war” mentality that Western countries have summarily taken from the Second World War is as wrong as it is absurd.

Appeasement is wrong because societies dedicated to this maxim present themselves as an easy prize, and, as we see in the current case of this massive Islamization of Europe, they will surrender due to lack of defenses.67

Appeasement is absurd because historical experience shows that almost without exception the rogue regimes of this world have had to be overcome by violence. It was this way with Hitler, it was the same way with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and it was so with the cannibalistic regime of Idi Amin in Uganda, who in the end had converted to Islam.

Napalm bombs decimated Dresden, Germany

Allied napalm bombings decimated the city of Dresden, Germany.

Auschwitz, Sobibor, and Treblinka were not liberated by self-righteous peace demonstrations in London, Paris or New York, despite what one might think. They were liberated at the price of hundreds of thousands of civilian and military victims of the tanks of the Allied War Forces and Red Army. Pol Pot was not overthrown by peace vigils of concerned do-gooders in the West. It was by means of massive military insertion by the troops of Vietnam, in this case at the cost of 1,000 dead. Those who have chosen freedom for nothing have already chosen oppression.

No, the only correct conclusion from the Second World War must exclaim:

“Never again toleration of intolerance!”

If this sentence would have been included in the preambles of the constitutions of free countries, then such an intolerant and totalitarian system like Islam would not have been able to nestle itself in among the countries of the free world and be validated because of the guarantee of religious freedom provided by these constitutions, but this has happened without exception. If this sentence had been a part of the constitutional conventions in Western lands, then a religion like Islam would have been quickly recognized as an acute danger to freedom and would have been forbidden by the highest constitutional courts. Instead of the policy of chumming up to Islam by means of clergy, intellectuals, politicians, jurists and artists, and instead of the flood of mosques being built in the West, the Muslims would have been confronted by a value system that is well advanced and — with respect to science, culture and human rights — that is decidedly superior.

But the Western elite to this day cowers away from such forms of confrontation against this theocratic barbarism. Maybe it is because they have forgotten that freedom must be defended and recaptured anew every day. Maybe it is because they have a private or open hatred of their Western system. Perhaps either they do not realize the existential threat emanating from Islam, or, since the rapid and unexpected end of communism, they deep down secretly wish to collaborate with Islam in its ancient endeavor, and with Islam’s help, overthrow the Western system. However, let it be said to all appeasers and all foes of Western freedom: the Islamic crocodile will consume you first!

The Collective Failure of the Western Elite

To be qualified to speak on this and other truths about the unique essence of the “religion of peace” as a journalist, politician or author requires intense activity concerning Islam. It is precisely for this reason, time and content, that most Western journalists and intellectuals have cowered away from this subject. And because of this retreat from the issue they have failed in their main task: the commitment to advocate for freedom and the relentless enlightenment of their readers.

Politicians and jurists are guilty in another area: they have opened their borders, practically without limit, to a historically unmatched mass immigration by Muslims. Every year about one million new Muslims stream into the various countries of the European Union, while at the same time in their original Islamic countries, non-Muslims are mercilessly persecuted, thrown into prisons, tortured, and killed. These politicians, judges and attorneys hold the prime executive responsibility for the establishment of parallel Islamic societies in every European country. These societies are not only unwilling to integrate in Europe, but on the contrary and by every implication, they are working to remove the liberal European constitutional laws and eventually replace them with an Islamo-European Caliphate (“Eurabia”). Where realization and defense are concerned, not only have jurists and politicians miserably failed, but even worse: by their inaction regarding the fatal Islamic threat against their countries they have broken the oath of the office imposed upon them by the constitution that they are to defend their people from harm.

A complete and historically developed value system — that of the Western enlightenment, of human rights, of freedom of thought and of the freedom of the individual — has collapsed in the face of an international scenario because of cartoons that:

1. were legitimate in content
2. were formally legitimate because of the freedom of criticism or debate, even if they might not have been correct in content,
3. were a blot on the face of Islam, especially when considering the humiliation and scorn of Christianity, Jewry, and of the West that are the daily way of life in Islamic countries. Anyone who has at least once seen the hate-filled genocidal cartoons drawn up by the media in the Islamic world knows that the agitation regarding the Muhammad cartoons was lop-sided, reactionary, and hypocritical.

Islam pays such fussy attention to not being criticized — but by the same token, it is limitless in its constant and destructive criticism against the non-Islamic world. Muslims in the whole world believe that they are allowed to burn, shred and spit upon the “holy” symbols of non-Muslims and go unpunished. One seldom sees a Muslim demonstration in which the flags of Western countries are not shredded, set on fire or trampled underfoot. Muslims know no limitation when they seek to agitate the West with their verbal attacks. And they hold no limits when they follow up these verbal attacks with their cowardly and malicious terror attacks in the world — mostly against innocent civilians, men, women as well as children. This call by Islam for the ban of criticism against them is the greatest and potentially the most dangerous single attack against the Western-Enlightened world, and in the face of the daily hate and war rhetoric coming from the “religion of peace” against all non-Islamic countries, the ban of criticism against Islam shows itself to be a farce and ultimate hypocrisy.

The cartoon conflict has demonstrated that there can be no compromise between the following: the demands of Islam for criticism-free recognition and subjugation to all of its values on the one hand, and on the other the tradition of Western Enlightenment, according to which no theme is allowed to escape critical evaluation (religions included).

It’s either the one or the other. There is either only thought control, as in Islam, or there is complete freedom of thought, as dictated by Western Enlightenment.

However, because Islam, since its early existence, explicitly threatens each criticism and each critical inquiry and scrutiny of its matters and persons (Muhammad), there can be no permanent political and societal coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. A look at the history of Islam as well as at the current political situation demonstrates this fact. Islam accepts only one single form of such a coexistence: the absolute predominance of Islam over all other religions — the subjugation of all other religions to its authority to the end that the only choice is to convert to Islam — or be killed.

The belief in a peaceful coexistence as accepted by most Western multicultural adherents, and that governs most intellectuals and politicians, is born out of factual ignorance of the total character of Islam, and in the end it will turn out to be a fatal illusion. As long as Europe stays on this course of ideological and political paralysis, at the end of this “peaceful coexistence” the only winner, as is already established, will be the “religion of peace.” The Muslims themselves know best that Islam means “war” — and by no means “peace”.

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable. If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.”]

“Every one of mine who preaches and declares that Islam does not have the slogan ‘war, war, all the way to victory,’ and that this slogan isn’t in the Quran are right. The Quran demands much more, it demands ‘war, war, all the way to total annihilation of their corruption.’” Ruhollah Khomeini68

The one desiring to stop Eurabia from happening can no longer rely on politics or justice. The one who wishes to stop Eurabia must himself become active (in the following):

1. Cast no more votes for pro-Islamic politicians. Cancel subscriptions to pro-Islamic newspapers and periodicals.
2. Readers need to send letters en masse answering articles and commentaries that categorize critics of Islam as being rightwing extremist and/or articles and commentaries that deny that the Islamization of Europe is really happening.
3. Send E-mail chain letters to radio and TV editors who put on Islamophilic (Islam-friendly or Islam-loving) shows.
4. Mass advertisements are in order for judges and attorneys that bend German/European law who aren’t actively involved in immigration criminal law.
5. Cast no more votes for mayors and parties that have actively engaged themselves in the support of building mosques, and widely publish the names of those who do so.
6. Send protest letters en masse to town halls, mayoral offices, party offices.
7. Organize sit-ins and both small and large demonstrations where possible.
8. Inform friends and acquaintances regarding Islam — for example, the forwarding of articles exposing the true nature of the issue and other information by E-mail
9. Share knowledge about Islam with friends, partners and acquaintances
10. When voting (whether local, state, federal, or European, vote only for those parties that recognize the danger of Islam and stand against it.
11. Encourage those politicians, journalists, intellectuals, artists and other citizens that are bold enough to exercise criticism about Islam and to accept the stigma of “radical right” that the left and Islamic associations will attach to them.

Everything is now laid out on the table. But one truth now stands firm: “Whoever does not fight has already lost the battle.”

— Michael Mannheimer



a. His prior days in the KB is meant here.
b. Trittin: “To this day I have never sung the national anthem, and as Minister I still will not do so!”
c. Original audio: Fischer: “On its own behalf, one should burn this German map once and for all.”
d. Surah 3:118: “O ye who believe, make no friendships except with your equals. Surah 5:51: “Oh believers, take neither Jew nor Christian as Friends.”
e. Öger, in the large Turkish newspaper Hürriyet: “What Sultan Süleyman did at the siege of Vienna in 1683 began is what we, with our strong men and healthy women, will realize against the inhabitants.
f. “One day, millions of people will leave the Southern Hemisphere and push into the north[ern hemisphere]. They will not come as friends, but in order to conquer. And they will conquer in this fashion that they will populate the Northern Hemisphere with their children. The body of our wives will bestow the victory upon us.”
g. The Islamic movement must seize the power of the State as soon as it [the movement] is morally and numerically strong enough to topple the non-Islamic powers and set up an Islamic government.
h. Our goal is to put roots down in the European continent and to live in peace according to the laws [of Islam], so that one day perhaps all of Europe will be Muslim.
i. long-established
j. Islamic designation for countries in their grip that they still consider to be “infidel”
k. The Facts in Numbers: In the last fifty years alone, the number of Christians and Jews in the Near East has fallen more than 95 percent as a result of persecution. And while in these original Christian-Jewish territories, where Christianity and Judaism lived for centuries before the beginning of Islam, these religions have been almost completely been wiped out, Christian Europe is becoming more and more Islamic. The actual count of Christians and Jews who have had to leave the homelands in the Near East could be even higher. SPIEGEL Magazine reports: “There are no reliable numbers for the size of the Christian minorities in the North East, partly because there are no statistics available, and partly because it would be a political firebrand to produce them.”Following is an excerpt from Michael Mannheimer’s Essay “Worldwide Persecution of Christians by Islam.” This article can be found Of a truth, Christians have never been as persecuted in history as they are this present day. Every three minutes a Christian is killed for his faith — overwhelmingly so in Islamic countries. The Catholic Church of Switzerland reports that each year 100,000 Christians are either murdered or tortured to death for their faith. According to data from theInternational Society for Human Rights, every tenth Christian, or more than 200 million worldwide are victims of discrimination and violence. In a television documentary from PHOENIX regarding the theme “Persecuted Christians” it is reported: “Christians live with danger in many Islamic countries. The basic right of religious freedom shows only on paper here.“ According to the World Persecution Index of the human rights organization “Open Doors” from the years 2005 through 2008, Christians worldwide are by far the most persecuted religion. “Millions of Christians suffer discrimination or persecution because of their faith — whether in Islamic countries, totalitarian states, or in regions where violence rules. They are often classified as second-class citizens whose basic humanitarian foundational rights have been refused them.“ The conclusion of this globe-spanning study is both fearful and enlightening: Islam is the ruling authority in 6 of the 10 countries with the harshest persecution of Christians as well as in 37 of 50 documented countries. Another conclusion of the study: The salient form of government in all 50 “Persecutor States” is a distinct state-run or theocratic totalitarianism.”
l. as in Uiguristan, or East Turkmenistan
m. This is covered in further essays of mine.
n. This is meant in a positive connotation and has nothing to do with “do-gooders.”
o. Muhammad could neither read nor write.
p. This brings to mind the insolubility of the Shiite-Sunni conflict within Islam itself.
q. Due to the complex nature of this theme, it will be addressed more precisely in another place.
r. Further information regarding Values-Relativism can be found in “Islam as Victor in Western Values-Relativism: A Critique of Pure Tolerance”.
s. The Quran, in 206 places (!), calls for violence and murder against infidels as well as the violent propagation of the faith. THIS is the fundamental point of difference between Islam and the rest of the world’s religions.
t. pacifist
u. “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”,Winston Churchill. Cited in: Henryk M. Broder: “Against the Politics of Appeasement”, in: Aufklärung und Kritik (Enlightenment and Critique), Sonderheft (Special Edition) 13/2007.


1. Citation according to Gernot Facius, DIE WELT, 6 October 2001
2. Jürgen Trittin, cited in “Die konservative Informationsbasis im Internet (The Conservative Information Base on the Internet)”
4. Miriam Lau: “Risiko Deutschland (Risk Germany)” — Joschka Fischer in Bedrängnis. In: Welt-Online, 7 February 2005
5. Khomeini, cited among others in: Kurt Koch: “Der Islam aus Christlicher Sicht (Islam in a Christian View)”
6. Bassam Tibi, cited in: Siegfried Kohlhammer: “Kulturelle Grundlagen wirtschaftlichen Erfolgs (Cultural Foundations for Economic Success)”, in:Eurozine
7. Cited in: Der Koran, die Hadithe und die Islamiten (The Quran, Hadith and the Muslims)
8. Alfred Ellinger: “Zwischen Dialog und Djihad (Between Dialog and Jihad)”
9. Hakki Akduman: “Der “Kalif von Köln (The Caliph from Cologne)”, Metin Kaplan”, AP
10. The Peninsular, 15 November 2008
11. Adolf Hitler, cited in “Von Allah zum Terror? (From Allah to Terror)” from Hans-Peter Raddatz, Herbig, Munich 2002, 2nd Printing, ISBN 377662289X
12. CANAN TOPÇU: “Wie eine Gebetsmühle (Like a Prayer Mill)”, in: Frankfurter Rundschau on 13 November 2007
13. SPIEGEL 27/2008, page 18
14. Alfred Lang: “Zornige Migranten (Angry Immigrants)”, in: Jungle World, 17 November 1999
15. Sean McCormack, Speaker for the US Ministry of the Exterior, in “USA verurteilen Karikaturen-Abdruck (USA Condemns Cartoon Prints)”, 3 February 2006.
16. Murad Hofmann in: “Wir müssen durch Parteieintritt — in alle wirklich demokratisch gesinnten Parteien — dazu beitragen, dass die Parteiprogramme islamkonformer werden. (We must join the parties — in every democratic oriented party — and take part in their activities so that the party programs will conform more to Islam.)” Website of the Muslim Central Council in Germany, 30 August 2004
17. Aarhuse Stiftsidende 5 July 2008: “Grønlændere fordrevet efter racistiske overfald”
18. Die Kalaalit sind die grönländische Untergruppe der Volksgruppe der Inuit. die Nachfahren der Kalaalit werden heute als Grönländer bezeichnet, ihre Sprache als Kalaallisut (wie Grönländer sprechen) oder auch Grönländisch. Kalaalit (Einzahl: Kalaaleq) bedeutet auf Grönländisch entgegen landläufiger Meinung (und wie in vielen Reiseführen zu lesen ist) nicht Menschen, sondern Grönländer. Daher stammt auch der Name Grönlands, Kalaallit Nunaat (Land der Grönländer). Die native Bevölkerung bezeichnet sich selbst als Inuit (Einzahl: Inuk), Menschen. (zitiert nach Wikipedia) Translation: The Kalaalit are the Greenland group of the larger Inuit people group. The descendents of the Kalaalit are known today as ‘Greenlanders,’ their language is known as ‘Kalaalisut’ (in their native tongue) or ‘Greenlandian.’ The common meaning of ‘Kalaalit‘ (singular: Kalaaleq) in Greenlandian (as can be read in many travel brochures) is not ‘person,’ but rather ‘Greenlander.’ It is from this term that the native name of Greenland, ‘Kalaallit Nunaat (Land of Greenlandians)’ comes. The native people call themselves ‘Inuit‘ (singular:Inuk), ‘people.’ (cited from Wikipedia)
19. Source
20. Aarhus Stiftstidende 5 July 2008: “Grønlændere fordrevet efter racistiske overfald”
21. Süddeutsche Zeitung, “Hetzer unter sich (Agitators among themselves)” 22 September 2008
22. DER SPIEGEL: “Schafe unter Wölfen (Sheep among Wolves), 30 December 2006, page 84
23. Snaphanen — noter om Danmark & Sverige, torsdag, december 01, 2005 Velfærdskomissionen foreslår indvandrerstop
24. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
25. Siegfried Kohlhammer: “Kulturelle Grundlagen wirtschftlichen Erfolgs (Cultural Foundations for Economic Success)”
26. Nicolai Sennels in: “Die Integration von Muslimen in europäischen Gesellschaften ist nicht möglich. (The Integration of Muslims into European Societies is Impossible.)” EuropeNews,1 April 2009, Interview from Felix Struening
27. ibid.
28. Hans-Ulrich Wehler: “Muslime sind nicht integrierbar (Muslims cannot integrate)”, in: taz, 10 September 2002.
29. Einar Koch: Ausländerkriminalität: Das verschweigt uns die Statistik (Criminal Activity of Foreigners: What The Statistics Conceal from Us); from 16 June 2009
30. Jörn Hasselmann: “Jugendliche in Berlin immer brutaler. (Youth in Berlin becoming more brutal)” In: DER TAGESSPIEGEL, 22 February 2007
31. Udo Ulfkotte: “Geheimakte Dänemark: Warum immer mehr Dänen aus den Städten fliehen (Top Secret File Denmark: Why Ever More Danes are Fleeing the Cities)”
32. ibid.
33. ibid.
34. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
35. ibid. As in: Kristeligt Dagblad 30 June 2008
36. Fyens 6 January 2009
37. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
38. %20schmuddelpropaganda.pdf
39. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
40. DR Nyheder/Indland, 24 January 2008
41. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
42. Udo Ulfkotte: “In Dänemark hat die Polizei dem Druck von Randalierern nachgegeben (The Police in Denmark Have Given In to the Pressure from the Rioters)”,
43. Berlingske Tidende 23 July 2007
44. Guardian: “Danish-Muslim leader lampoons far-right over latest prophet cartoon”, 26 October 2007
45. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
46. Ekstra Bladet and Uriasposten, January 2008
47. SourceSIAD 25 October 2007
48. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
49. Daniel Pipes: Is something rotten in Denmark? In: New York Post, 27 August 2002
50. Source: Avisen 2 March 2007
51. Avisen 2 March 2007
52. Cited in “Das Gesicht Mohammeds (The face of Muhammad)”, from Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia
53. In “Der Karikaturenstreit: Eine europäische Presseschau (The Cartoon Clash: A European Press Review)”
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Kurt Tucholsky: Gesamtausgabe. Texte und Briefe. Band 3. Texte 1919
57. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: “Grass kritisiert Kariakaturen als gezielte Provokation (Grass Criticizes Cartoons as an Intentional Provocation)”, 9 February 2006, in
58. Henryk Broder: “Gunter Grass. Der Herr der Binse (Gunter Grass, the Lord of the Cane)”, 14 August 2006, in: SpiegelOnline
59. Horst Eberhard Richter, cited in: DER SPIEGEL: “Bilderstreit (Picture Clash)”, 8 February 2006
60. Ayatollah Khomeini (leader of Iran) allowed the rape of babies: “A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; to use the child for sexual games is possible! If a man does penetrate and the child is injured, then he shall care for her for the rest of her life. However, this girl will not be considered as one of his four permanent wives. It is not allowed the man to marry the girl’s sister. It is better for a girl to marry that point that when her first menstruation occurs, it happens in the house of her husband instead of her parents. Every father that yokes his daughter in such a fashion has a permanent place in Heaven.” Ayatollah Khomeini, from Khomeini’s book, “Tahrirolvasyleh,” fourth volume, Darol Elm, Qom, Iran, 1990
61. Horst-Eberhard Richter, in: Das Ende der Egomanie. Die Krise des westlichen Bewusstseins (The End of Egomania. The Crisis of Western Consciousness). 2002
62. Ibid.
63. Horst-Eberhard Richter, cited in: DER SPIEGEL: “Bilderstreit (Picture Clash)”, 8 February 2006
64. Horst-Eberhard Richter: “Islamophobie — ein Symptom der ‘seelischen Krankheit Friedlosigkeit’ (Islamophobia — a Symptom of the Illness of Psychological Unrest [lack of peace]”, May 2007,
65. 180 Grader
66. Bukhari V4 B52 N260, reported by Ikrima
67. Compare Michael Mannheimer: “Der Islam als Sieger des westlichen Werte-Relativismus. Eine Kritik der reine Toleranz (Islam as Victor in Western Values-Relativism. A Critique of Pure Tolerance).”
68. Khomeini, 2 December 1984. Payame enghelab, cited after Bahman Nirumand: Mit Gott für die Macht (With God for the Power). Page 346

Previous posts by Michael Mannheimer:

2010 Nov 21 Islam as the Victor of Western Value-Relativism
28 The Principle of Abrogation in the Quran
Posted by Baron Bodissey at 12/19/2010 06:37:00 PM

via –

Moscow airport bombings: aftermath of Domodedovo blast

January 24, 2011


Hmm.  They were WARNED?  They didn’t catch it?

This is Russia we are talking about.

I’m not buying this.  They are deliberately trying to make themselves look like “one of us” the victims of attacks.  They have to have something very big.  Looks like this one is close.


I’m not saying that I think that they rigged the bomb.  Russian tactics, however, don’t remove that possibility from being plausible.

Let’s also not forget that PUTIN was KGB.

This is not incompetence, of that I’m sure.

They are in need of a few memorials of their own, if they are going to have any say in the politics of IRAN.


Moscow airport attack: Russian authorities were warned about a terrorist attack

The Russian security services had been tipped off that a terrorist attack was planned at a Moscow airport a week before the suicide bombing.

Members of Federal Security Service work outside Moscow's Domodedovo airport after the explosion Photo: REUTERS


By Duncan Gardham, Securty Correspondent 7:25PM GMT 24 Jan 2011

According to reports, the warning even gave details of precisely where the bomb would be planted and yet the authorities failed to stop the attack at the country’s busiest airport.

“The special services had received information that an act of terror would be carried out at one of the Moscow airports,” a security source told the RIA Novosti news agency.

“Agents were seeking three suspects but they managed to access the territory of the airport, witness the explosion which their accomplice carried out and then leave the airport,” the source said.

Another airport security source said: “A tip-off with a warning that something was being prepared appeared one week before the explosion. Even the place, by the customs, was named,” according to the website, which has close links with FSB, Russia’s security service.



Спецслужбы знали о теракте за неделю

Intelligence agencies knew about the terrorist attack last week 

A few days before the explosion of airport security became aware of the impending explosion.


The Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, admitted that security regulations were not being properly followed even though Domodedovo airport boasts some of the most hi-tech scanning equipment in the world



Vodpod videos no longer available.
Moscow airport bombings: aftermath of Domodedov…, posted with vodpod


“What happened indicates that far from all the laws that need to be working are being used correctly,” he said.

The blast took place in the “meet and greet” area of the international arrivals hall where passengers are met after they pass through customs control.

A spokesman for the airport confirmed it was a “free access zone” that does not require a boarding pass to enter.

However, the airport does have a series of metal detectors on the entrance to the arrivals hall to scan people who are there to meet relatives. These are not always operational.

The blast will damage Russia’s international image as it gears up to hold two major sporting events, the Winter Olympics in 2014 and the 2018 Football World Cup.

Domodedovo Airport is Russia’s largest airport in terms of passenger numbers and serves international airlines including British Airways, Lufthansa and Swiss Air.

In all, 77 airlines offer regular flights to Domodedovo, flying on 241 international and national routes, and there are five flights from Britain each day.

Built in 1964, it is located 26 miles (42 kilometers) southeast of the center of Moscow and is the largest of the three major airports that serve the Russian capital, serving over 22 million people last year.

It is generally regarded as Moscow’s most up-to-date airport, but its security procedures have been called into question.

In 2004, two suicide bombers were able to board planes at Domodedovo by buying tickets illegally from airport personnel.

The female suicide bombers, Chechen separatists, blew themselves up in mid-air, killing all 90 people aboard the two flights.

Philip Baum, editor of Aviation Security International, said airports have been aware that they could be the subject of attacks since the 1970s.

He cited the example of Tel Aviv airport, where 26 people were killed in an attack in 1972 using guns and hand grenades, which has a series of check points starting 3km from the terminal.

“The problem is that metal detectors and x-ray machines are not effective at detecting bombs,” Mr Baum said. “And as you ratchet up the number of checks, you have large numbers of people standing in line and the queues themselves can become targets.”

Mr Baum said that combining airports with shopping centres has made them more crowded and many have limited space so passengers and those meeting them are funneled into relatively small areas.

“It is a major challenge for airports in Europe because very few are constructed on large open sites selected for the purpose,” he added.


Human Rights Watch – Founder says that HRW is LYING regarding ISRAEL and GAZA by using distortion of FACTS like those found in the GOLDSTONE report

November 25, 2010

Human Rights Watch – Founder says that HRW is LYING regarding ISRAEL and GAZA by using distortion of FACTS like those found in the GOLDSTONE report

Journalists and intellectuals are quick to quote Human Rights Watch when it criticizes Israel.

Founder of the HRW, Robert L. Bernstein’s lecture is in the JP.  He refers to a report on ” the Hamas administration’s Interior Minister which reveals that “about 60 percent of those killed in the war were actively engaged and not civilians”.  Recall how VG journalist Samaria Iqbal quoted NORWAC doctor Mads Gilbert when he alleged that 80-90 percent of those killed were civilians. Now let us see if VG journalist Samaria Iqbal will report on Hamas’ own figures.”

We should salute this man for the honesty and fortitude that he has embodied to expose this “transformed” organization.  I’m sure that this is not the type of HUMAN NO – RIGHTS organization that he originally founded.

‘Badly distorting the issues’

11/24/2010 22:05

The founder of Human Rights Watch delivered a lecture lacerating the organization he had established for moral failures in its treatment of Israel.

Human Rights Watch logotype

You may wonder why a man just shy of his 88th birthday would get up at five in the morning to fly to Omaha to give a speech. Frankly, since accepting this kind offer, I’ve wondered myself. Here’s why. Having devoted much of my life to trying to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights come alive in many places in the world, I have become alarmed at how some human rights organizations, including the one I founded, are reporting on human rights in the Middle East.
In reading about the discussions and actions of students on American campuses, I learned, of course, that the Israel-Palestine issues were very polarized, sometimes hostile, and that a lot of the hostility was by students angered over Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians and the endless process of trying to establish a second state.

I know we all believe in free speech.

We believe in equality for women. We believe in tolerance of each other’s religious beliefs and in an open campus.

When I go back to New York, tomorrow night, I will be attending the 150th anniversary of Bard College, a college very involved in the Middle East, as it has a combined degree program with Al-Quds, the Palestinian university.

Here is what Leon Botstein, Bard’s president, says about education: “Education is a safeguard against the disappearance of liberty, but only if it invites rigorous inquiry, scrutiny, and the open discussion of issues.”

Believing in all these values and the others of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, what is taking place on American campuses puzzles me. It seems to me that the State of Israel has all the values we just outlined. It is surrounded by 22 Arab states occupying 99 and a half percent of the land in the Middle East and these states do not share these values. Israel, which occupies less than half of one percent, does share these values.

There is a battle about two things: First, the size of the 23rd state, the new Palestinian state, which at present has many of the same values as the other 22 states. Secondly, the claims of many Arab states, Iran and its proxies Hizbullah and Hamas, about the very legitimacy of the State of Israel.

I don’t think human rights organizations alone can solve this mess but I do wonder about the discussions on many campuses, particularly about Israeli abuses, regardless of what you believe about them, and whether they are constructive.

I don’t see how discussions of Israeli abuses can take such precedence over the kind of state that will be next to Israel. That is, not only internally, although human rights advocates should care about that more than they do, but in its foreign policy toward its neighbor Israel.

WHILE I was in Israel during the first week of October, I met with government officials, NGOs, educators and, of course, the press. One journalist I met with was Khaled Abu Toameh [The Jerusalem Post’s Palestinian affairs reporter], who basically believes the Arab governing structure, including Palestinians, is doing great harm to the Palestinians and that they would be much better off engaging with the Israelis. He constantly points out that most Israeli Arab citizens do not want to be part of a different state. He is in Ramallah in the West Bank almost every day and he also speaks on American campuses frequently – where he actually feels the most hostility.

In thinking about campuses and why they are often so polarized, it occurred to me that one of the principal reasons is the encouragement they are getting from human rights organizations, including the one I founded – Human Rights Watch. I have found myself in strong disagreement with the policies and actions in the Middle East of Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations that have similar policies – like Amnesty International and The Carter Center. These disagreements have actually polarized my own relationships with the organization as it chooses not to engage on the issues but instead to declare that I wish special treatment for Israel.

During my 20 years at Human Rights Watch, I had spent little time on Israel.

It was an open society. It had 80 human rights organizations like B’Tselem, ACRI, Adalah, and Sikkuy. It had more newspaper reporters in Jerusalem than any city in the world except New York and London. Hence, I tried to get the organization to work on getting some of the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly free speech, into closed societies – among them, the 22 Arab states surrounding Israel. The faults of democratic countries were much less of a priority not because there were no faults, obviously, but because they had so many indigenous human rights groups and other organizations openly criticizing them.

Founding of Human Rights Watch

My concentration on free speech came both from my background as a book publisher – I was at Random House for over 34 years, the last 25 as chairman and president – and from my belief that if there was free speech, those free to speak would be sure to bring attention to all the other important human rights issues. I got into human rights because, as a book publisher in the 1970s, I was invited to the Soviet Union to discuss copyright with the Soviets. In 1973, they signed the International Copyright Law. They then asked me to publish Soviet books so they would make some money. In 1976, at a dinner party in Moscow given by The New York Times staff, I met the famous Soviet scientist turned dissident Andrei Sakharov and his remarkable wife, Yelena Bonner Sakharov. After two hours of talking, I said, “I have to publish your autobiography. It will be one of the most important books of our time.” To my surprise and joy, he said, “I want you to do that.” Knowing that his mail would be censored, I asked, “How can I get you a contract?” He said, “We’ll sign one right now.” Andrei then stuck out his hand, we shook, and he said, “Now we have a contract. You work out the details.”

Andrei Sakharov was the most famous scientist in the Soviet Union because he had helped them develop the atomic bomb. He then became a fervent advocate of human rights and while the Soviet government could not jail him because of his prominence, they tried to silence him. They did this by exiling him to Gorky – a city miles east of Moscow – having KGB stationed at his home and following him whenever he went out – for eight years. During this time, Andrei was writing his autobiography.

He carried it everywhere because his apartment was frequently searched.

That didn’t stop the KGB. At a visit to the dentist, he was anesthetized and when he woke up, the first 150 pages of his manuscript were gone. In one of Andrei’s first statements after deciding he had to speak out, he said: “Intellectual freedom is essential to human society – freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices.

Such a trinity of freedom of thought is the only guarantee against an infection of people by mass myths, which, in the hands of treacherous hypocrites and demagogues, can be transformed into bloody dictatorship.”

The Soviet Union, unhappy with my signing Andrei Sakharov, withdrew my visa. I went back to New York and decided Random House would publish Soviet writers as well as other writers behind the Iron Curtain who were being silenced – the most prominent of whom was Vaclav Havel. With some wellknown writers, such as Toni Morrison and E.L. Doctorow, we started the Fund for Free Expression to try and keep the writers’ names prominent. In 1976, a document called the Helsinki Accords was signed by the Soviet Union and the West. It had as one part of it, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

While the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been approved in Paris in 1948, it became prominent after the signing of the Helsinki Accords as it became part of the Cold War battle. The Soviets at the international meetings were blocking discussion of the human rights parts of the agreement. George Bundy, President of Ford Foundation, and Arthur Goldberg who was the American representative to the Helsinki Talks, felt an NGO was necessary to support them. Aware of the Fund for Free Expression, they asked me if I would develop one. With Ford Foundation’s support, I started Helsinki Watch and followed in the next four years to start Americas Watch, Asia Watch, Middle East Watch, and Africa Watch. It was too confusing, so in 1980, we merged them into Human Rights Watch. That is a story for another time.

In 1998, when I reached the age of 75, I told Human Rights Watch it was time to get another Chair and I became Founding Chair Emeritus. While I kept attending many Human Rights Watch meetings, I spent most of my time helping the Chinese form their own human rights organization – an organization called Human Rights in China – which has become quite prominent. At the moment, Human Rights in China is leading the fight to free Liu Xiaobo, the winner of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

They have an office in Hong Kong, but as free speech is not popular, their Beijing office is currently based in New York in the Empire State Building.

HRW and the Middle East

I continued to follow the work of Human Rights Watch and about six years ago became a member of the Middle East North Africa Advisory Committee because I had become concerned about what had appeared to me to be questionable attacks on the State of Israel. These were not violations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but of the laws of war, Geneva Conventions and international humanitarian law. There has been an asymmetrical war. You might call it a war of attrition, in different ways involving Israel – not only with Palestinians but sometimes involving other Arab states, but of course, involving Iran and its non-state proxies Hizbullah and Hamas. In reporting on this conflict, Human Rights Watch – frequently joined by the UN – faulted Israel as the principal offender.

It seemed to me that if you talked about freedom of speech, the rights of women, an open education and freedom of religion – that there was only one state in the Middle East that was concerned with those issues. In changing the public debate to issues of war, Human Rights Watch and others in what they described as being evenhanded, described Israel far from being an advocate of human rights, but instead as one of its principal offenders. Like many others, I knew little about the laws of war, Geneva Conventions and international law, and in my high regard for Human Rights Watch, I was certainly inclined to believe what Human Rights Watch was reporting.

However, as I saw Human Rights Watch’s attacks on almost every issue become more and more hostile, I wondered if their new focus on war was accurate.

In one such small incident, the UN Human Rights Commission, so critical of Israel that any fair-minded person would disqualify them from participating in attempts to settle issues involving Israel, got the idea that they could get prominent Jews known for their anti- Israel views to head their investigations.

Even before Richard Goldstone, they appointed Richard Falk, professor at Princeton, to be the UN rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza. Richard Falk had written an article comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to Hitler’s treatment of the Jews in the Holocaust. Israel, believing this should have disqualified him for the job, would not allow him into the country. Human Rights Watch leapt to his defense, putting out a press release comparing Israel with North Korea and Burma in not cooperating with the UN. I think you might be surprised to learn the release was written by Joe Stork – Deputy Director of Human Rights Watch Middle East Division – whose previous job for many, many years, was as an editor of a pro-Palestinian newsletter.

Following this, Richard Goldstone resigned as a Board member of Human Rights Watch and Chair of its Policy Committee to head the UN Human Rights Council investigation of Gaza.

Human Rights Watch has been, by far, the biggest supporter of the UN Council, urging them to bring war crimes allegations against Israel – based on this report. I don’t believe Human Rights Watch has responded to many responsible analyses challenging the war crimes accusations made by Goldstone and also challenging Human Rights Watch’s own reports – one on the use of phosphorous, one on the use of drones and one on shooting people almost in cold blood. A military expert working for Human Rights Watch, who seemed to wish to contest these reports, was dismissed and I believe is under a gag order. This is antithetical to the transparency that Human Rights Watch asks of others.

After five years of attending the Middle East Advisory Committee meetings, seeing the one board member who shared my views leave the organization, another supporter on the Middle East Advisory Committee who had joined at my request being summarily dismissed, and having great doubts about not only the shift in focus to war issues but also the way they were being reported, I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times questioning these policies. To me, the most important point in my op-ed was the following: “They (Human Rights Watch) know that more and better arms are flowing into Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet, Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.”

A Human Rights Watch Board member told The New Republic that they go after Israel because it is like “low-hanging fruit.” By that, I think he means that they have a lot of information fed to them by Israel’s own human rights organizations and the press, that they have easy access to Israel to hold their press conferences, and that the press is eager to accept their reports.

The organization, most would agree, was founded to go after what I guess you would call “high-hanging fruit” – that is, closed societies, where it is hard to get in. Nations that will not allow you to hold press conferences in their country. Nations where there are no other human rights organizations to give you the information.

It has been over one year since the op-ed appeared. Little has changed. For example, within hours of the flotilla incident, Human Rights Watch was calling for an international investigation pointing out that any information coming from the Israeli Army was unreliable. That was before any of the facts were known.

I spent the first week of October in Israel seeking out as many different views as I could. I was privileged to meet Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. I spent a day at Al-Quds, the Palestinian university in the West Bank, with the university’s President Sari Nusseibeh, his staff, and students.

I also met with NGOs including Jessica Montell of B’Tselem, passed an evening with my dear friends Natan and Avital Sharansky, and spoke with many journalists and government officials. I visited Sderot, the town most shelled by Hamas and other terrorist groups in Gaza. I came back convinced more than ever that Human Rights Watch’s attacks on Israel as the country tried to defend itself were badly distorting the issues – because Human Rights Watch had little expertise about modern asymmetrical war. I was particularly concerned that the wars were stopped but not ended – so they became wars of attrition.

Arab People vs. Arab Governments

In talking about Arabs, I want to be clear. If there’s one thing I’ve learned in 40 years of human rights work, it’s that you must separate the people that you’re talking about from their government. When a totalitarian or authoritarian government are the rulers, the people, whatever they believe, are shut down – shut down hard – and only the views of the government rule, while those with other views are imprisoned, tortured, exiled – anything to silence them.

People, I believe, are the same everywhere and I believe that, given the chance, good things can happen. I’ve learned it over and over again, starting with seeing Germany and Japan change so dramatically after a devastating war – and more recently with South Africa, South Korea and with many countries in South America.

I believe the Arab people, given the chance, would not be opting for committing genocide of Israel – as Iran, supported by Hamas and Hizbullah, does. I believe the Arab people, like any people, would opt for a better life for themselves. The great majority would want it on this earth, not in the hereafter, and I question very much whether they would want to go to war if there were any other possible way of avoiding it. We will never know until their governments allow free speech, or until human rights organizations do a better job of trying to ferret out what the people actually think, as opposed to their government.

The Rockets of Hamas and Hizbullah

It is impossible to talk about human rights in the Middle East without looking at some of the factual background. The UN passed resolution 1701 at the end of the Lebanon War, which said that Hizbullah should be disarmed. The UN sent between 12,000 and 15,000 troops who are in Southern Lebanon, near the Litani River, which is 15 miles from the border of Israel.

Not only has Hizbullah not been disarmed, but it has also reportedly brought in between 40,000 and 60,000 rockets from Iran.

The rockets are of much longer range and power than they had at the start of the last war and it has been reported that some may contain biological and chemical agents. These weapons are buried in homes and public buildings – all along the Israeli border. This, of course, has occurred under the eye of the UN forces.

In addition, despite the blockade, I have read that thousands of tons of arms have poured into Gaza. When President Obama was in Sderot, he said he would not want Sasha or Malia to go to school there. I believe that President Obama is dedicated to the defense of Israel. It’s obvious to him and all of us that if there were 40,000 to 60,000 rockets on the other side of the Potomac River or the Hudson River near New York where I live, or any place where American citizens were threatened, and these rockets were in the hands of an enemy that had demonstrated it had little care about protecting its own citizens, you would not want your children to go to school there either. In fact, I question if we would want the rockets just left there on our border, opposite one of our great cities, with the enemy having the option of whether or not to use them.

The fact that the UN has been unable to stop this build-up of arms, in the two places that Israel has voluntarily left, is a huge international failure. It is difficult to see how anyone can promise Israel security without addressing the situation.

It is hard for human rights organizations to do anything when war starts. Can anything be more threatening to civilian life than the thought of another war in Gaza? Shouldn’t human rights organizations be talking to the Gazans about the wisdom of their government in rearming? Instead, there is a debate about the blockade of Gaza. The debate over the blockade and whether Israel is achieving the right balance in trying to keep Gaza livable while keeping Gaza unprepared for war is too complicated to discuss here. We do know that a ship, coming from Iran and loaded with sophisticated arms, was apprehended by Israel off the coast. Yet, many visit Gaza and call for a complete lifting of the blockade without mentioning arms.

Human Rights Watch believes the blockade is illegal based on their opinion that Israel and not Hamas controls Gaza. If one believes Hamas controls Gaza, a blockade is a legal way of trying to prevent rearmament.

Hamas’s irresponsible use of arms, even to the point of sacrificing its own citizens as a way to build world sympathy, is wellknown.

When you visit the Gaza border, the Israeli Army will give you a long list of everything that is going into Gaza and it is known that as the rocketing seems to have been contained, that Israel is trying to be more liberal. With all this happening, should a human rights organization limit the debate to a discussion of a blockade without discussing the arms build-up? It is containing the arms buildup that is holding back the unfettered economic build-up of Gaza, which the world is so willing to help and which would create jobs. I have read that many of the youth, unable to get any other jobs, go into jihad as the only way to get money. It seems to me that, sadly, the blockade is not very effective in stopping arms. Like on the Lebanon border, their use could lead to war and the time to talk about that is now. In fact, the last war in Gaza occurred when the blockade failed to stop rockets going into Israel.

When I was in Israel, I went to the Gaza border and I learned that since the beginning of 2010, more than 11,000 patients with their escorts exited the Gaza Strip for medical treatment in Israel. Surprisingly and sadly, this policy has risks. I was told the Israelis make the Palestinians change cars at the border because cars had been rigged to explode. A woman on crutches was changing cars. She fell down. Three Israeli soldiers ran to help her get up. She blew herself up, killing the four of them. The Hamas government is preaching genocide of Israel, yet Israel is treating Gaza’s sick.

It struck me as bizarre that in an asymmetric war of attrition, which we’re still learning about how to fight, a nation cares for the sick of a neighbor that is preaching genocide to its people, and the only human rights comment has been that they are not doing it well enough.

No Position on War

Human Rights Watch’s mandate states that they do not take a position on war, and they are very proud of this. They continually point out that they are not an anti-war group. Iran and its proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas are preaching genocide, not only of Israel but of all Jews everywhere. Genocide is one of the greatest human rights violations, and the Genocide Convention states it must be acted upon when it is first threatened.

I believe that Human Rights Watch’s position is that their mandate to not take sides in a war takes precedence over the Genocide Convention at this time. It is fair to ask, “Why?” The reason they give for not taking sides on a war is that it is their responsibility to protect civilians on both sides during a war. Not before the war, and not after the war, but during the war. How can they protect Israeli civilians during a war when the opposition’s aim is genocide and when Hamas states that there are no civilians since all Israeli Jews serve in the military? How can they protect Palestinians when their armies are not uniformed, hide their arms among the civilian population and in public buildings, and shoot from heavily populated areas? Can you ignore what might happen to the civilians after the war, depending on who wins? The whole world is talking about how to prevent Iran from getting an atomic bomb. Human Rights Watch’s policy is to criticize actions, not words. One must ask, is the creation of a bomb an action, or only its firing? There is no doubt they would criticize the launch of a nuclear weapon – but of course it would be too late.

Human Rights Watch’s method to save civilians during a war is to investigate after the war and determine whether civilian deaths were avoidable or not. They do this primarily by interviews with Gaza citizens who are frequently accompanied by Hamas minders. They then believe, by talking to those who lived through the war, that they can determine whether civilian deaths were justified or not. It is this issue of civilian deaths which is perhaps the most focused-on discussion of all human rights discussions concerning Palestine and Israel.

Human Rights Watch believes that they can sort out where civilian deaths should not have occurred and then, by severely attacking those who committed those deaths, can shame them into being more careful next time. The argument over the 1,200 to 1,300 deaths in Gaza has been intense.

Let me make perfectly clear that nobody, certainly those who have spent our lives in human rights, want any civilian death (or for that matter, soldier’s death) to occur. Certainly not avoidable ones. However, if by chance, Human Rights Watch is wrong in their analyses of the deaths in the Gaza war and blaming Israel for deaths that are really the collateral damage of war, think of the damage that’s been done to Israel. On Thursday, November 4, a report came out that Fathi Hamad, the Hamas administration’s Interior Minister, revealed that as many as 700 Hamas military- security operatives were killed during Operation Cast Lead. The number, consistent with Israel’s examination, is significantly higher than the numbers given by Hamas and used by the Goldstone Report. It would indicate that about 60 percent of those killed in the war were actively engaged and not civilians – despite Hamas’s tactic of embedding itself in the civilian population of Gaza. If this report holds up, it will be interesting to see if the Goldstone Report and Human Rights Watch reports are reevaluated by them – all of which took the Palestinians’ figures as fact.

The facts that are known about civilian death in war make the Gaza reporting even more questionable. In Daniel Goldhagen’s book, Worse Than War, he shows that 9 out of 10 people killed in war on terror today are civilians. Yoram Peri, in his book, Generals in the Cabinet Room, says that over 90 percent of the people killed in war starting after World War II – which is when non-uniformed armies started to appear – have been civilians and that there have been over 28 million people killed. Only with democratic armies – like the U.S., NATO, and Israel – are the facts very clearly different. In Gaza, if the new report about Hamas is verified, at most there was one civilian killed for every two Hamas fighters.

In Human Rights Watch’s three major reports, they cite 51 cases that they consider war crimes, but with a methodology that is now being questioned by many.

Think about all the media coverage and outrage this has generated. In contrast to this number, I picked up the Security Council report for October entitled Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict and found these figures: In Somalia, “3.25 million civilians were estimated to be in need of emergency aid and 1.1 million civilians displaced” by the war there.

Reports from military experts like Colonel Richard Kemp, who led British forces in Afghanistan, and Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, claim that the Israeli Army performed admirably in Gaza and added that they have done nothing different than the U.S. and NATO forces facing the same problems in trying to avoid civilian death.

It is interesting that our daily newspapers often state how many civilians and how many enemy troops were killed.

They only seem to do this with democratic armies.

Again, no one is in favor of unnecessary civilian deaths.

However, it seems to be that somehow, putting the two figures together with no comment implies that civilian death could have been avoided.

The sad fact, as we have seen, is that, except with democratic armies, most deaths are civilian. Actually, in view of the one-sided statistics on civilian death that are emerging, the press might consider praising democratic armies for their successful attempts to minimize civilian casualties.

Human Rights Groups and Civilian Deaths

This has led me to believe that while there should certainly be oversight over democratic forces in battle, I question whether human rights organizations, unless they change their methodology and in my view, their attitudes, and are more accountable in terms of accuracy, are the right parties to do this. If they wish to continue as judges of democratic armies whose lives are at risk, they must be accountable. It would be interesting to review their past accusations of war crimes by the Israeli Army in view of the statistics that are emerging.

War is a miserable business and should be avoided wherever possible, but the judgments being made by human rights organizations separating collateral damage in war from war crimes, I believe, are frequently unrealistic in asymmetric wars, and there should be some input by military authorities on what is possible.

The efforts of the Israeli Defense Forces, NATO and the U.S. to avoid civilian death are consistently criticized by human rights groups as being insufficient or even non-existent.

Military judgments of their own actions, particularly by Israel, are consistently accused of prejudice or lies.

Yet the statistics show that civilian death by democratic uniformed armies are much, much, much lower than the 9 out of 10 civilian deaths in general conflicts. I’m sure this is going to be discussed by others. I leave that to journalists, military experts and human rights groups to make a judgment of what is occurring.

The question of civilian death in war is not simple, especially when sometimes avoiding civilian death could mean increased risk for your own troops.

One of the principle causes of genocide is hate speech. It is common knowledge that hate speech is what is used to build-up to genocide. Human Rights Watch and others, to the best of my knowledge, will not take a position on hate speech because they believe that it interferes with free speech and is a risk that must be taken. Many free speech advocates, including myself, agree that there should be great latitude in tolerating hate speech in an open society where others can attack it. In the Arab world and Iran, there is no free speech, and the hate speech is government sponsored.

Here is a typical quote – one of thousands – from Gaza. In a sermon, Ahmand Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, said, “Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters.

Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters.

Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one.” Even on the West Bank, where Salam Fayyad is improving the economic condition and security, little has been done to stop hate speech and “martyr killers” are celebrated as heroes. Saudi Arabia’s publishing industry is spewing out textbooks for young children calling Jews “apes and pigs.”

When Human Rights Watch went to Saudi Arabia to raise funds, it is doubtful that this was discussed, but they can tell us if it was. I believe this is a major issue, as the hate speech is going out into the Arab world uncontested. To those who say there is hate speech in Israel as well, it is true, but it is contested and the number of people it can affect is infinitesimal compared to the 350 million of the Arab population.


I am going to bring up the right of return only briefly because it is so complicated. The right of return is endorsed by Human Rights Watch and other human rights organizations – unless I have missed something.

They realize that there is not going to be a return of people, but that there will be compensation and that the right must be recognized. To me, it is the same philosophy that leads them to not taking sides in a war – the theory that one mandate decision is suitable for all occasions. I believe that the Arab decision to keep refugees in labor camps for 60 years along with the UN decision to have a different definition of refugee of Palestinians has made a mockery of what was intended.

The right of return for all refugees is defined as being only for the people who actually left their country. However, the definition of a Palestinian refugee is different. It is for those who left Israel, their children born in exile, and for all of their heirs.

Thus, while in every other case in the world, the refugee numbers go down over time, the number of Palestinian refugees has gone up. The original 600,000 is now up to 4 million worldwide, all claiming the right of return. While human rights organizations feel that the principle should be recognized, why do they not question the special status recognized for Palestinian descendants which makes solving the problem difficult, if not impossible? In the last few weeks, Jordan, with more Palestinians than the West Bank, withdrew rights they had previously given Palestinians which would have allowed them to remain in Jordan. If there is a Palestinian state, there will be 4 million – most in refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, many of whom have not been given any citizenship.

Since it is clear that they will not return to Israel but may receive compensation, will the Arabs be asking that 4 million people be returned to the West Bank and Gaza? Might human rights organizations be looking into this now? Another factor that has not been dealt with is that the 800,000 Jews who left Arab countries and went to Israel immediately received citizenship and while they do not want a right of return, it is reported that they left over twice the amount of worldly goods in the Arab countries than the Arabs leaving Israel. What, if any, adjustments should be made to recognize this? All such movements of population are both sad and difficult when they are made necessary by intolerance and hate. But, actually, the world has tried desperately to do its part by paying the substantial costs of the refugee camps for over 60 years – reportedly over $13 billion with perhaps a quarter of it paid by the U.S. and little paid by the Arab countries.

If human rights organizations wish to be involved in this issue, it should not merely simplify it by saying that they accept the right of return – including the special refugee designation – of Palestinians as a principle.

The last point that human rights organizations, it seems to me, have avoided, and where they could be very helpful, whether it is in their mandate or not, is to start talking about what kind of second state is going to be next to Israel. And do the Palestinians have any responsibilities in talking about that? When Yelena Bonner Sakharov went to Oslo two years ago to represent her deceased husband at what was to be a celebration of Nobel Peace Prize winners, she asked, “What kind of a state is going to be next to Israel? Judenfrei, free of Jews, just as Hitler would have wished?” No Jews, of course, is only one of the human rights abuses that would exist in the state next to Israel, where open borders should be a desirable outcome.

Human rights issues must be considered in the settlement in the Middle East. Human Rights Watch and others have taken positions on the Wall, the borders, and the occupation, so it is hard to separate human rights issues from political issues. I have tried to show that they are doing damage in their focus on “war” issues, particularly on the issue of “civilian death” where they have questionable expertise.

At the same time, in their attempts to do what they think is evenhanded, they fail to recognize the virtues of nations that have had considerable success in making the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal.

Certainly those who disagree with me may think I am too harsh on Human Rights Watch’s Middle East policies and point out that they are doing good work elsewhere. They are! But the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become such a crucial issue. I believe that unless human rights organizations correct some of the things discussed tonight, their authority in the rest of the world will be questioned.

The polarization takes place when one party dismisses another by simply saying that a view is “pro-Palestinian” or “pro-Israel.”

The discussion – to be worthwhile – must be issue by issue.

Moral Clarity

At the beginning, I told you how Natan Sharansky came to my hotel and gave me an autographed copy of his latest book Defending Identity. In it, he has some very harsh words concerning human rights organizations.

Having spent nine years in Soviet prisons, he has a very clear picture of the difference between free and totalitarian nations.

Here are a few sentences from his book: “The hypocrisy and double standards of the international human rights organizations reflect the disappearance of clear moral criteria that alone can guard human rights. A refusal to see the difference between free and totalitarian societies, between a state at peace and a state at war against terrorist regimes, undermines the universal values on which a claim to human rights is based.”

He adds: “A commitment to human rights is above all a commitment to democracy and freedom and to the right to defend them. To equate all cultures, to refuse to distinguish between those that are democratic and those that are not, is the profoundest betrayal of human rights. . . It is acceptable to hold democracies up to a higher standard as long as you recognize that democracies, by definition, are already maintaining higher standards.”

And he also says: “In its refusal to distinguish democratic from nondemocratic regimes, the human rights movement undercuts its own commitment to democratic freedoms and itself becomes a tool of undemocratic powers.”

Last week, I read that the first 5-star hotel for businessmen opened in the West Bank. I read of other businesses starting up there. It is a small start but the economy is looking up. Recently, a book called Start Up Nation told the story of Israel’s business success. It has registered 7,600 patents in its 60-year history.

The 22 Arab states have registered 700, about 30 per state.

The West Bank before Arafat’s intifada had an open border with Israel and at some point, Mr. Abbas and Mr. Fayyad, if they are to succeed, will have to address the issue of hate.

As for Gaza, it is certainly appropriate in Nebraska to quote Warren Buffet. In fact, getting to the end of a speech without mentioning him I consider extraordinary. One of his clear, direct, concise statements could apply to Gaza: “You can’t make a good deal with bad people.” However, if the West Bank starts to compete with Israel in building rather than destroying, they will have better lives for themselves, and to their surprise, they will have the free world, including Israel, helping them. The campuses of America should be thinking harder about what human rights organizations are doing. Are they helping the peace process? In closing, let me make a statement to whichever students choose to listen: When I was in Israel, I talked to 18 year-olds, both boys and girls, who were not going to college but instead were going into the army for three years and then for one month a year until 45 or 50 years old. They’ve been doing this for 60 years. And most of them have faced some kind of danger during that period. They are not involved in the peace process. They are involved in the defense of their country and have to hope that their government will avoid war.

I also think of the Palestinian 18 year-olds – particularly those in Gaza who can’t get jobs because their economy is not thriving. I believe it is not thriving specifically because their government is bringing in arms and Israel is trying to stop them. And their government is preaching genocide. Many of these students can’t afford college and that leaves jihad as their only opportunity. If college students can help bring the human rights movement back to trying to make the Universal Declaration of Human Rights truly universal in the Middle East, they will be making a valuable contribution.

Edited from the the Shirley and Leonard Goldstein Lecture on Human Rights, delivered November 10 at the University of Nebraska at Omaha.

via –

Ground Zero – 9-11 – Mosque – The building of which ushers in a NEW AGE – This will signal the tipping point to Muslims

November 20, 2010

I only just posted this video a little earlier and it would be fitting to put it here, due to the fact that it’s something to keep in mind while reading the Big Peace Post:

Muslim Demographics – MUSLIM’s WILL DOMINATE

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Muslim Demographics, posted with vodpod

France will be and Islamic republic in 39 years

In 15 years 1/2 of the Netherlands will be Muslim

Russia is 40% Muslim

Belgium has 50% of the Newborn population IS CURRENTLY Muslim.

“Libyan leaderGaddafi: “We don’tneed terrorists, wedon’t need homicidebombers. The 50+million Muslims willturn [Europe] into aMuslim continentwithin a few decades.”

The Ground Zero Mosque Holds the Key to the Attack on America:

Posted by Stella Paul Nov 20th 2010 at 4:18 am

Sept. 13: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, addresses the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (AP).

Sept. 13: Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, addresses the Council on Foreign Relations in New York (AP).

Why did terrorists attack America on September 11, 2001? We’re a nation of 310 million freedom-loving Americans, protected by the greatest military the world has ever seen. Did Osama bin Laden really think he could conquer the U.S.A. with nineteen jihadists, wielding boxcutters?

Yes. And he may very well be right. America is under siege from an enemy who doesn’t need the blitzkrieg tactics of tanks, infantry, artillery and air power. These enemy combatants use bursts of violence to terrify us; then, they smile and overwhelm us with floods of radical asylum seekers, hate preachers and Ph.D. students. When the time is right, they unleash bare-knuckled threats and intimidation, demands for special privileges, decimation of our free speech, cooption of our ruling class, and relentless legal warfare, in which they turn our own laws against us. Right now, they’re winning.

We’ve ceded so much ground so fast, it’s almost impossible to understand how small the terrain has become on which we can stand for freedom. At least two American citizens now live underground in fear of their lives: Dr. Wafa Sultan, a California psychiatrist who publicly taunted the loathsome Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi and then vanished after a fatwa was put on her head, and Molly Norris, a Seattle cartoonist who’s “gone ghost” after whimsically dreaming up “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day.”

A Fatwa/Death Sentence for U.S. Cartoonist Molly Norris by Man Who Orchestrated the Fort Hood

A Fatwa/Death Sentence for U.S. Cartoonist Molly Norris by Man Who Orchestrated the Fort Hood

These women’s stories are teeming with drama, repugnant to everything our Constitution stands for, and unprecedented in American history. Yet, their names are almost unknown to the public. Why? Because we’ve got a pantywaist media too squeamish to tell the truth and draw attention to Wafa’s and Molly’s politically incorrect plight. Special kudos for cravenness go to the American Society of News Editors, last seen cowering under a chair, instead of saying a word on behalf of the cartoonist formerly known as Molly.


Mohamed Elibiary

Meanwhile, Janet Napolitano, director of Homeland Security, took time from her busy schedule of subjecting three-year-old travelers to full body searches, to swear in Mohamed Elibiary to her Advisory Council. Elibiary, who bills himself as a “de-radicalization expert,” played a starring role at a 2004 event honoring Ayatollah Khomeini. I suspect Elibiary’s de-radicalizing could use some fine-tuning. After Elibiary’s extremist affiliations were exposed by a Dallas Morning News reporter, Elibiary sent the reporter this charming threatexpect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.” Hey, keep on strip-searching those grannies, nuns, and toddlers, Big Sis Janet! That’ll keep us safe.

Some days, it feels like the whole country is writhing under the thumb of these bull goose loonies. In Irvine, Muslim students at the University of California have harassed and attacked Jewish students for years with impunity; anindependent task force advised Jewish students to enroll elsewhere, since the UC administration was content to let the Muslim students keep running amuck, defacing Holocaust memorials and assaulting Jews.

In Minneapolis, blind people are left to stand around the airport, helpless and adrift, because Muslims cabdrivers won’t pick them up. Naturally, it’s the blind people’s fault, since they insist on traveling with seeing eyes dogs that the poor put-upon cabbies consider “unclean.”

In Boston, a group of concerned citizens sounded the alarm about the radical leadership of the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), including its Al Qaeda-lovin’ founder, now serving 23 years for terrorist pranks. The reward these plucky citizens got was a lawsuit for defamation, efficiently designed to shut them up while the ISB built a $22-million, Saudi-funded mega-mosque – excuse me, “Cultural Center” – in Roxbury, whose opening ceremony was jam-packed with groveling politicians.

In San Jose, screeching Muslim students showed off their democratic values by forcing the Israeli Consul to abandon his speech and be escorted off stage by a phalanx of security officers. In New Haven, Yale University Press published a book about the Danish cartoon riots, conspicuously missing just one thing – images of the cartoons, which might provoke riots uncomfortably close to the quad.


In Fort Hood, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army doctor and self-proclaimed jihadist, gunned to death twelve soldiers and one civilian and wounded thirty others. The Department of Defense politely avoided all mention of the word “Islam” in its official report, demurely describing his rampage as “workplace violence.”

And then there’s New York – the ultimate assault. Americans reacted viscerally, painfully, and loudly to the attempted desecration of the sacred national site at Ground Zero. They intuitively understood what the politicians did not: If a foreign-funded mega-mosque is erected in the 9/11 killing zone, we’ve passed the symbolic point of no return.

At least the Ground Zero Victory Mosque debacle had the advantage of clarifying the terrain. It was instructive to watch a star-studded cast of politicians fling themselves at the feet of the two grifters who run the Victory Mosque con job, and compete for who could pander to them more. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi threatened to investigate the mosque’s critics, saying, “I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded. How is this being ginned up?” Mayor Bloomberg publicly wept for the Victory Mosque, calling its opponents “un-American,” and refusing to meet the families of the fallen to hear their anguished views. President Obama, former President Clinton and retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens all trumpeted their support, lecturing the great unwashed who oppose the mosque – 68% of Americans – from their respective Mt. Olympuses.

File:State Department Images WTC 9-11 The Twin Towers (Right).jpg

The objects of their tender concern are the mosque’s “spiritual leader,” Imam Rauf, a notorious slumlord whose neglected properties just went into receivership, and its developer, Sharif el-Gamal, a former waiter who sports a mile-long rap sheet that includes punching his brother’s tenant so hard he broke his nose. These hapless gentlemen couldn’t find the time to pay $224,270.77 in back taxes on the mosque’s site. Admittedly, Rauf was otherwise engaged, helping to organize the Gaza flotilla attacks against Israel, and writing his book, What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America, which was released in Malaysia under the more candid title, A Call to Prayer from the World Trade Center Rubble: Islamic Dawa (i.e. Proselytizing) in the Heart of America Post-9/11.

With each new headline, each new shrieking insult to the mosque’s opponents, Americans found it tougher to shake the distinctly unsettling feeling our ruling class favors Islam. Perhaps our noble leaders are being intimidated or paid off or flattered or, in some other unknown way, appeased. Perhaps they just want to show off their moral superiority to us redneck dweebs. But whatever their motives, the path is being plowed silky smooth for the Ground Zero Victory Mosque, against the will of the people. But for what? What is the prize?

The prize is Shariah – the brutal, all-encompassing system of Islamic law every Muslim must obey. Shariah is the Hotel California of religious law – you can check in, but you can never check out. Allah has mandated every jot and tittle of Shariah into one big take-it-or-leave-it package – only there’s no leaving. If you’re Muslim, you follow it till you drop; if you’re an infidel living under Muslim rule, Shariah shoves you into official second-class status as a dhimmi, in which your nightmarish role is to kowtow to your masters and fork over your money to support them.

Indonesian demonstrators threaten jihad if the Koran is burnt in the US

Shariah should come with a warning label: it’s poisonous for women, children and other living things. It encourages female genital mutilation, polygamy, wife-beating, forced marriages for girls, and “honor killings” of recalcitrant females. It orders all Muslims to wage jihad, either through stealth or violence, and recognizes no man-made laws, customs, or national borders.  To Shariah adherents, our Constitution is a human construct, not Allah-given, and, therefore, not worth the parchment it’s penned on. All that matters is the ceaseless struggle to bring the world under Allah’s rule.

So let’s all rejoice at the news that the Ground Zero Victory Mosque will house the Shariah Index Project. A cherished dream of the great Imam Rauf, the Shariah Index Project will calibrate the state of Shariah compliance around the world, and diligently labor to spread and enforce it. It’s kind of like Santa’s list of who’s been naughty and who’s been nice; only Shariah’s view of nice means public hanging of 14-year-old gays.

And someday soon, if President Obama has his way, dawn will break with the amplified call to prayer booming across the Ground Zero killing fields from the top of the 15-floor Victory Mosque. Imam Rauf will rub his sleepy eyes, roll up his sleeves, touch his IPad and get to work.

Hmmmm…Switzerland still has too many women showing strands of hair. Poland is in desperate need of more 9-year-old brides. Norway allowed an editorial that was disrespectful of the Prophet. France is threatening to withdraw welfare payments to the children of the fourth wife. Germany refuses to ban pork. Brazil is stalling on adding public washbasins for feet. Israel still exists. So many threats to make, fatwas to issue, misinformation to spread. Will his work never end?

Then Imam Rauf will study the facts and figures of Shariah in America, and break into a contented, sly smile. Ah yes. Things are going well, very well indeed. Couldn’t be better, in fact. Why, these infidels are falling into line ahead of schedule! It just goes to show; never underestimate the gullibility of the infidel, especially the ones with a Harvard degree.

Ground Zero Mosque – update – ACT! – Last chance to sign the petition for the 9-11 WTC Towers attack, to be delivered NOV 18th – Sign it!
Obama the Muslim – Opposing Mosques Could be a Federal Crime
Ground Zero was not carried out by Muslims say the UBER liberal – Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar Walk Off ‘View’ Set While Talking to Bill O’Reilly
Shariah VS the Constitution – Rauf’s argument that the American legal concepts essentially agree with shariah is taqiyyah
Hallowed Ground is not decided by Feisal Abdul Rauf and no Muslim has the right to say anything about it.
9-11 POTUS OBAMA PENTAGON SPEECH – “But as Americans we are not — and never will be — at war with Islam.It was not a religion that attacked us that September day — it was al-Qaeda, a sorry band of men which perverts religion,”
Centuries of Conquest and Jewish pogroms at the hands of MODERATE Muslims
Ahmadinejad – Iranian president and Head of OPEC for 2011 says that 9-11 is a Conspiracy while addressing a gathering in Beirut
Obama’s UN address is not weak. It sends a clear message to the MUSLIM middle east – “THE DOOR IS OPEN”

Hispanic immigrants – Weary of illegal aliens and the stigma that they create for lawful Hispanics.

October 28, 2010

Most Hispanics are in the closet on this.  But some who don’t live afraid come right out and say that they are angry at their former countrymen, because they make it much worse for them to be seen as legitimate citizens, especially when people here the accents.  The question is in the back of peoples minds.

An illegal, is a thief.  I don’t care how they got here.  They jumped the line ahead of someone trying to do things the “right” way – The legal way.  They are thieves that practice grand larceny, because they get special schooling (pre k – a whole year before ANYONE else starts school, the hispanics start school for free.  Anyone else has to PAY, because pre- K is not for the PUBLIC) , they get free healthcare (flood our ER’s, and those who are legal, but may be destitute can’t get treated, but the Hispanic is afforded a TRANSLATOR.  There is a nurse shortage, but the translator is there by policy,)  they get free housing and in some states, they can apply for State Aid (Welfare,) and now they may even get to VOTE.

The privilege of being an American is no longer a privilege.  It’s a demand.  America has become the whore of the world and it’s because she has not behaved with modesty and discretion.  She is being HELD to the esteem of a used piece to toilet tissue.

This country that welcomes all and doesn’t ask for many requirements has been treated with the worst of respect over the world, because she doesn’t DEMAND it.  The PEOPLE have been demoralized by the Globalist propaganda tactics.  The people need to STAND up.  Demand to be treated in a matter befitting a SUPPER POWER and not a Fourth class seat in the back of a hay wagon.

Article Tab : president-calderon-barack

Illegal aliens are breaking the law.  The politicians helping them are committing seditious acts, and the policies being created by the legislators are acts of TREASON.  Sovereignty is not CHEEP and to give it away through trickery is VILE.  America is being TRICKED by the Communists and Globalists.  They have teemed up with the Muslims and are using them to obtain total global control.  Once that is done, they believe that they will be able to control the Muslim. They are mistaken.  Islam is not what they think it is.  Islam will never be appeased, nor subdued.  The Globalist are narcissists.  They can’t see anything but their own beauty.  The WAR will being in truth when America is no longer a country.  Then, the end game will begin.


Hispanics in U.S. more divided over illegal immigrants:


Hispanics are growing more divided about how they view illegal immigration, and native-born Hispanics aren’t as convinced of the contributions of illegal immigrants as they used to be, according to a study released today.

Hispanics are split when asked to assess the effect of illegal immigration on Hispanics living in the United States: 29% say they’ve had a positive impact, 31% negative and 30% believe it made no difference, according to the study from the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center. That is a sharp decline from a 2007 survey, when 50% of Hispanics said illegal immigrants were having a positive impact.



The study also finds a split between Hispanics who were born in the United States and those who came from another country. When asked if immigrants are a strength, 69% of native-born Hispanics agreed, compared with 85% of new arrivals.

Bob Dane, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, said he is disturbed by what he calls a contradiction in the findings.

While more Hispanics are viewing illegal immigration as a burden on Americans, he said, there is still a collective opposition to limit immigration. The study found that 53% of Hispanics believe illegal immigrants should pay a small fine but not be deported, and 28% say illegal immigrants should not face any punishment. Only 13% of Hispanics believe illegal immigrants should be deported.

The entitlement attitude that the illegals have produces the type of “ART” as the below film.  Hispanics that are here legally should be ashamed for their racist (la raza) organizations that have trampled on their sovereign soil.  As immigrants (legal), this country embraced them and has made them it’s own.  They proclaimed their allegiance and she took them in and made them her own.  This land is their land too, so it’s a dark day when these legal immigrants don’t defend the idea of sovereignty of THEIR chosen way of life.  They are willing to cede it to an invading army.  Illegal immigrants are coming in droves.  HISPANICS are not going to be the majority illegal in the next 10 years.  So, I hope that they understand that their superior numbers are not going to be superior for long and that the flood of Muslim illegals are increasing faster than they can imagine.  The policies that are created for the Hispanics, would also apply to the Muslims.  I’m not sure that the Hispanics see that tidal wave, yet, but they will.  Very shortly.
Texas – Austin – Machete – The film and now the “MUSICAL?” – This violent film about the rising up of Hispanics to overthrow the US government is now a —–Musical.



A large majority of Hispanics, 79%, oppose Arizona’s immigration law, which would require police officers to determine the immigration status of suspects stopped for another offense if there was “reasonable suspicion” they were in the country illegally. The law is on hold because of a legal challenge.

Dane said that attitude stems from Hispanic organizations trying to “blur the line” between legal and illegal immigration and painting efforts to curtail illegal immigration as “discriminatory and draconian.”

“Over time, I think we will see a narrowing of that gap between their recognition of the problem and their opposition to the solution,” Dane said.

Mark Lopez, associate director of the center and co-author of the report, says the apparent disconnect between Hispanics who view illegal immigration as having a negative impact while still opposing some anti-immigration efforts simply mirrors the complicated opinions that all Americans have over immigration.

He says polls have shown that a majority of Americans support Arizona’s immigration law, but also favor providing illegal immigrants with some way to become legal. The same goes for Hispanics, who he said largely oppose worksite immigration raids and building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, but support placing more U.S. customs officers on the border.

“On different policy questions, Latinos have different points of view,” Lopez says. “But you see that nationwide.”

The findings are from a national survey of 1,375 Hispanic adults conducted in English and Spanish Aug. 17 to Sept. 19. The margin of error is +/— 3.3 percentage points.


Silence – Raw Video: Taps Close Out 9/11 Remembrance

September 11, 2010

Vodpod videos no longer available.

HW Celebrates 9/11 (video), posted with vodpod

%d bloggers like this: