Doctors shocked at hostages's torture

Al-Qaeda's Mohammed Asks to Be `Martyred'

From Bloomberg: Just click on the link to read the story.

``This is what I wish,'' Mohammed, speaking in English, told a judge who warned that he might be executed if convicted. ``I am looking to be martyred for a long time.''

My suggestion for the judge's answer: I grant your wish to be martyred and sentence you to be drowned in pig fat."

More Of Those Muslim Pranksters Trying To Kill Thousands

From the Daily Mail a really good article describing how:

British Muslims 'planned to kill thousands by bombing SEVEN transatlantic airliners in one go'

By CHARLOTTE GILL and SAM GREENHILL - More by this author » Last updated at 00:55am on 4th April 2008 A gang of British Muslims planned to blow up seven planes within hours in the biggest terrorist atrocity since 9/11, a court heard yesterday.

Two thousand passengers would have died in the plot by eight fanatics working "in the name of Islam", the jury was told.

I propose that from now on whenever we break up one of the many, many, Muslim terrorist plots we just lob a 500 lb bomb into some large city in Saudi Arabia. Maybe that would make the point that we are getting annoyed. Also the next time some multi-culti tells you the terrorism threat is exaggerated just pop him in the nose. Then tell them your religious beliefs require you do that when someone spews bullshit and point out that the discomfort they feel is exaggerated.
Hat tip to The Instapundit.

Jeff Jamaleldine

Please read this story:

The Good German

I welcome this brave young man as a citizen and will remember his words:

"But someone has to achieve that peace."

Pat Condell on Islamic Demands

Those lovable Muslims are at it again.

Those lovable peace loving Muslims are at it again as Gateway Pundit points out:

Iranian Father & Buddy Stone 14 Year-Old Daughter To Death

An Iranian man and his buddy stoned the man's 14 year-old daughter to death after suspecting that she was having a relationship.

Suspecting!! Some of you will say " oh, that is only a couple of muslims not all of them". Well true enough but where is the outrage from the other Muslims? All I hear is silent acquiesence. Of course drqw a pen and ink cartoon 2 years ago and you get this:

8th Night of Rioting in Denmark-- 20 Towns Hit By Fires

More Reasons toThrow The Bums Out

One can always count on Congressmen from both parties for reasons to Throw the Bums Out, but the democrats have been making a special effort recently. Robert Novak writes in the Washington Post

Why Torts Trumped Terrorism

about Nancy Pelosi allowing antiterrorism laws to expire in order to protect political contributions from trial lawyers.

The true reason for blocking the bill was Senate-passed retroactive immunity to protect from lawsuits private telecommunications firms asked to eavesdrop by the government. The nation's torts bar, vigorously pursuing such suits, has spent months lobbying hard against immunity.

The recess by House Democrats amounts to a judgment that losing the generous support of trial lawyers, the Democratic Party's most important financial base, would be more dangerous than losing the anti-terrorist issue to Republicans. Dozens of lawsuits have been filed against the phone companies for giving individuals' personal information to intelligence agencies without a warrant. Mike McConnell, the nonpartisan director of national intelligence, says delay in congressional action deters cooperation in detecting terrorism.

Big money is involved. Amanda Carpenter, a Townhall.com columnist, has prepared a spreadsheet showing that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in the telecommunications suits have contributed $1.5 million to Democratic senators and causes. Of the 29 Democratic senators who voted against the FISA bill last Tuesday, 24 took money from the trial lawyers (as did two absent senators, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama). Eric A. Isaacson of San Diego, one of the telecommunications plaintiffs' lawyers, contributed to the recent unsuccessful presidential campaign of Sen. Chris Dodd, who led the Senate fight against the bill containing immunity.

Just one more reason to vote against all incumbents of both parties. Voters have a duty to find men and women of integrity who are not part of the slimy corruption that is present day Washington DC. Vote against the incumbents and if you do not trust the opponent either, then write in your own name.
hat tip: Instapundit

update to more links:

Worst. Congress. Ever.

There's a Reason They're the Worst Congress Ever

Democrats Should Read Kipling

I reiterate: Throw them all out. No vote for any incumbent politician.

Chesler:Bhutto's Assasination As A Political Honor Killing

Dr. Phyllis Chesler posts on PajamasMedia :

In a sense, the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is a political and cultural version of an honor killing. Bhutto was the first woman Prime Minister of a Muslim nation and she symbolized an unacceptably Western form of female ambition and achievement. She had attended Harvard/Radcliffe and Oxford. She spoke English—perhaps more fluently than she spoke her native Sindi or Urdu. She once dressed as Western women do. Indeed, many Muslim women from wealthy families, including educators and feminists, have done so for a long time. They cannot do so now.

and:

Bhutto was one of the “moderate” Muslims for whom the West yearns. Muslim fanatics murdered her in cold blood and they did so in an exquisitely planned and choreographed way. Their willingness to die in order to kill, terrorize, and impose their ideology upon others is precisely what keeps other “moderate” Muslims silent.

How far are the representatives of freedom, modernity, and human rights willing to go to end such terrorism? If we are not ready to do whatever it takes for as long as it takes to free humanity from the plague of fundamentalist Islam, then we must be prepared to convert, veil, submit—or die.

Dr. Chesler's last sentence, quoted above, is the central issue of our time. People willing to die in order to kill are not open to polite negotiation or reasoned discussion. They have abandoned reason for blind faith in a cult of death and nihilism. We must oppose them such ferocious resolve that the hopelessness of their cause forces them to rethink ( or more acccurately think for the first time) their position. Trying to appease Islamic radicals is just whistling past the graveyard.
One more thing. Why aren't the women's groups and feminist leaders out front in the fight against this movement that is antithetical to everything about equality for women?

Update: Ellen R. Sheely was kind enough to comment on this post and I looked her up. Turns out Ms. Sheeley is an expert on honor killings and the author of Reclaiming Honor in Jordan: A National Public Opinion Survey on "Honor" Killings

I have not read this book but a quick read of the editorial review and reader reviews at Amazon has me interested to read it. The story of the author is remarkable as well. From Amazon:

In early 2003, Ellen R. Sheeley began to educate herself about "honor" killings, particularly those that take place in Jordan. That summer she journeyed from her home in San Francisco, California, USA to Amman, Jordan, where she learned of the needs for empirical, objective, baseline data pertaining to the Jordanian public's attitudes, opinions, and beliefs about "honor" killings and for a sustained marketing campaign to change hearts and minds. As a seasoned marketing professional, she was confident she had the ability and the qualifications to fulfill these needs. Unable to secure funding or sponsorship from the obvious and even the not-so-obvious sources and, yet, unwilling for mere lack of financial support to give up on the needs of the at-risk individuals and the victims, she quit her job, moved from her home, placed her personal effects in storage, bade adieu to her loved ones, and returned to Amman in October 2005 to perform the work pro bono, funded by her private savings. "Reclaiming Honor in Jordan" is a result of this effort and reveals a number of surprising findings about public opinion on this subject. Profits from this book will contribute to "honor" killings work.

About the Author
Ellen R. Sheeley is the Founder and CEO of Nob Hill Consulting, a San Francisco, California, USA based management and marketing consulting firm specializing in the international financial services and the technology sectors. She possesses an M.B.A. degree with a marketing concentration, a B.A. degree in psychology, and over 25 years' professional experience. Ellen has served on the boards of a number of nonprofit and technology corporations and on the faculties of four American universities. She has lived and/or worked in the United States, the CIS, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and the Pacific Rim and traveled to over 80 countries throughout the world. The research about which this book was written is a labor of love for Ellen and was wholly funded from her personal savings. In addition, all time and labor devoted to it were provided pro bono. Information on how to make a most welcome contribution to this effort may be received by sending an e-mail inquiry to forallwomen@gmail.com.

Never Forget and Keep Your Eyes Peeled

I watched a dull situation comedy show tonight whose partial theme was derision of homeland security and the program encouraging citizens to report suspicious behavior. Typical Hollywood leftist denial of the plain and demonstrable fact that there are people out there who wish to do us harm.
So I wanted to point out this article as a reminder we are at war with terrorists.

Criticisms of post-9/11 efforts to protect the United States from attack range from claims that America is more vulnerable than ever to the contention that the transnational terrorist danger is vastly over-hyped.[1] A review of publicly available information on at least 19 terrorist conspiracies thwarted by U.S. law enforce­ment suggests that the truth lies somewhere in between these two arguments.

U.S. agencies are actively combating individuals and groups that are intent on killing Americans and plot­ting mayhem to foster violent extremist political and religious agendas. A review of the data suggests several important conclusions:

• Combating terrorism is essential for keeping Amer­ica safe, free, and prosperous.
  
  
• Counterterrorism operations have uncovered threats that in some cases, although less sophisticated than the 9/11 attacks and at most loosely affiliated with "al-Qaeda" central, could have resulted in signifi­cant loss of life and property if they had been con­ducted successfully.
  
  
• The best means to prevent terrorist attacks is effective intelligence collection, information sharing, and coordinated, determined counterterrorism opera­tions that can stop attacks before they are mounted.
  
  
• Effective operations often require federal, state, local, and international cooperation.

Few of the planned attacks were potentially as dev­astating in scope as the September 11, 2001, attacks on Washington and New York. In addition, the suc­cessful interdiction of these efforts offers no guaran­tee that future attacks will also be prevented.

What the frenchocrats Really Want

Defeat at Any Price
Why Petraeus's testimony was a nightmare for the Democrats.
by David Gelernter

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left.


But if we only remember the dead and not the cause for which they died, we dishonor and make nonsense of the noblest of all sacrifices. And we mock a president who asked that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." That is the issue when Americans die in combat. Do we finish the mission and invest their deaths with meaning? Or do we shrug them off, inscribe their names on some sepulchral black wall in a ditch, and walk away?

From Powerline: Connect the Dots

Powerline points out that the methods used to catch the would be bombers in Germany are under attack by democratic incumbents.

Note, too, how German authorities found out about the planned attack. They eavesdropped on a phone call from Pakistan to Germany. This is the exact equivalent of the NSA program that is ritually, but inaccurately, described in the press as "domestic spying." Most Democrats denounce the program as unconstitutional.

I want wiretapping controlled strictly but I also do not want to handicap anti terrorists efforts. Listening in on on calls from outside the US involving suspected terrorists is not a threat to my personal privacy. The politicians need to push for oversight and controls but stop demonizing the program.

Oh and guess what? they are Islamic.

Germany Foils `Massive' Bomb Attack, Prosecutor Says (Update2)

By Brian Parkin and Claudia Rach

Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) -- German police arrested three people suspected of planning ``massive'' terrorist attacks on U.S. and other targets in the country, preventing the deaths of ``many, many people,'' the Chief Federal Prosecutor Monika Harms said.

The suspects, two Germans and a Turkish national, were arrested yesterday at a house in Oberschledorn, a village in the western state of North-Rhine Westphalia, officials said. Bomb- making materials and military detonators were also seized. The trio are alleged members of a local cell of the Islamist terrorist organization Jihad Union, which has links to al-Qaeda

The religion of peace (or is it pieces?) Strikes again.

Gateway Pundit;

Islamic Militants Booby-Trap Decapitated Heads to Bombs

Those piece loving muslims have murdered two elderly monks in Thailand and booby-trapped their heads to bombs. Has anyone noticed the hue and cry from peace loving co-religionists condemning these acts?

Mark Steyn points out another Spineless industry.

Mark Steyn tells the tale of another member of the media and publishing industry demonstrating a lock of backbone or principle. The book "Alms for Jihad" is being suppressed by threat of lawsuits from welathy Saudis. The book is about Saudi funding of terrorism and Islamic jihad through the cover of charity organizations. Read Steyn's take.
Thanks to the Instapundit for pointing this out.

Good News? From the New York Times?

Today in the op-ed at NY Times Michael O,Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack write:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Read the whole thing. i have to say it is a pleasure to see times reporters actually go to Iraq to find out what is happening rather than just using talking points from the frenchocrats.

Watch this before it is taken off the web

forwarded to me by my sister who said:

One impressive woman
Here is a powerful and amazing statement on Al Jazeera television.

The woman is Wafa Sultan, an Arab-American psychologist from Los Angeles . I
would suggest watching it ASAP because I don't know how long the link will
be active. This film clip should be shown around the world repeatedly!

I agree this is compelling and can only hope viewers of Al Jazeera listened just a little.

One incumbent I would vote for!

I am posting a copy of a speech by Joe Lieberman demonstrating principle before political convenience.

Time for Choosing

Here is a speech by one of the few statesmen in Congress -Joe Lieberman. It is worth reading.

Editors note: This is the text of a speech Senator Joe Lieberman (I., Conn. ) delivered to a meeting of the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Thank you so much for that kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be here among so many friends. Now, I know there are some who are probably wondering - what is a nice Independent Democrat from Connecticut doing at a Republican event like this?

Well, a funny thing happened on the way to reelection last year and as Rabbi Hillel said, the rest is commentary.

In all seriousness, many of you in this room stood with me last year through the long journey up a winding road that was my 2006 reelection campaign. You came to my side without regard for party affiliation, and you stayed there even after I ran as an Independent but said I would caucus with the Democrats. Your non-partisanship in my race is a model for what our politics should be. I thank you personally and deeply for it. I could not have won without it. And I pledge to you that I will do everything I can to vindicate your confidence. We gather at a critical time for the future of our country.

The war in Iraq has now become the defining issue for this Congress and for this presidency - although the decisions we will make in the weeks and months ahead about Iraq will have consequences that reach far beyond the terms of anyone now in office.

Part of the disagreement we face over Iraq comes down to a genuine difference of opinion.

On the one hand, there are those who believe, as I do, that the struggle against Islamist extremism really is the central challenge of our time, and that, as General David Petraeus - our commander in Iraq - recently said, Iraq is now the central front of the war against Islamist extremism.

On the other hand, there are those who reject this view – who genuinely believe that the threat of Islamist extremism is overstated, or that Iraq is a distraction from the "real" war on terror, or that the war there is lost, or not worth fighting to win.

It is my deeply held conviction that these people are not only wrong, they are disastrously wrong - and that the withdrawal they demand would be a moral and security catastrophe for the United States, for Iraq, and for the entire Middle East, including Israel and our moderate Arab allies.

Let there be no doubt - an American defeat in Iraq would be a victory for Al Qaeda and Iran the two most threatening enemies we face in the world today. It would vindicate the hope of our enemies that America is weak and that we can be driven to retreat by terrorism, and it would confirm the fear of our friends - not only in Iraq, but throughout the world - that we are unreliable allies who will abandon them in the face of danger.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot claim to be tough on terrorism while demanding that our military withdraw from Iraq , because it is the terrorists - particular Al Qaeda - that our military is fighting in Iraq .

You cannot claim to be committed to defeating Al Qaeda, while demanding that we abandon the heart of the Middle East to Al Qaeda.

And you cannot claim to be tough on Iran , while demanding the very thing that the mullahs want most of all - the retreat of the American military from the Middle East in defeat, leaving a vacuum that Iran will rush to fill.

I recognize that this war has been controversial, and there are those who oppose it on principle. I respect that. But too much of the debate we are having today about withdrawal from Iraq has little or nothing to do with principle, or with reality in Iraq .

It is about politics and partisanship here in Washington .

For many Democrats, if President Bush is for it, they must be against it. If the war is going badly, it is bad for Republicans and it is good for Democrats. It is as simple as that, and it is as wrong as that. For many Republicans, the unpopularity of this war and this President has begun to shake their will. They say that they have no choice but to abandon General Petraeus and his strategy because the American people tell the pollsters they want out. If previous generations of American leaders had allowed their conduct of war to be shaped by partisanship or public opinion polls, we would not be the strong and free nation we are blessed to be today.

Republicans in Congress delude themselves if they think they will be helping either themselves, their party, or their country if they now attempt to wash their hands of Iraq, out of a sudden sense of political anxiety.

Democrats in Congress delude themselves if they think they will not be held accountable for the bloody consequences of the retreat from Iraq they seek.

The fact is, a loss to Al Qaeda and Iran in Iraq would be devastating to our security. These are fateful days and critical decisions we are making about Iraq . We must make them with our eye on the safety of Americas next generation, not the outcome of Americas next election. It is to the everlasting credit of President Bush that in the war against Islamist extremism he has shown the courage and \steadfastness to stand against the political passions of the moment. I have never hesitated to express disagreement with the President on any issue when I felt he was wrong - and I have criticized his administration many times for the serious mistakes I believe it made in prosecuting the war in Iraq .

But let me tell you this: I believe that each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not believe that decisions about war should be driven by poll numbers. And each of us should be grateful that we have a commander-in-chief who does not confuse what is popular with what is right for our security as a nation. The public opinion polls may not reflect this today, but I believe history will tomorrow.

My friends, as Ronald Reagan once said, now is the time for choosing. If we stand united through the months ahead, if we stand firm against the terrorists who want to drive us to retreat, the war in Iraq can be won and the lives of millions of people can be saved. But if we surrender to the barbarism of suicide bombers and abandon the heart of the Middle East to fanatics and killers, to Al Qaeda and Iran, then all that our men and women in uniform have fought, and died for, will be lost, and we will be left a much less secure and free nation. That is the choice we in Washington will make this summer and this fall. It is a choice not just about our foreign policy and our national security and our interests in the Middle East . It is about what our political leaders in both parties are prepared to stand for. It is about our very soul as a nation. It is about who we are, and who we want to be.

Will this be the moment in history when America gives up - when Al Qaeda breaks our will, when our enemies surge forward, when we turn our backs on our friends and begin a long retreat from our principles and promise as a nation?

Or will this be the moment when America steps forward, when we pull together, when we hold fast to the courage of our convictions, when with a new strategy, and a new commander on the ground - we begin to turn the tide toward victory in this long and difficult war?

I know that we can rise above the anger and smallness of our politics. I know we can rise to the greatness that this moment demands of us.

The question is - will we choose to do so?

I would like to close today by sharing with you a story from my last visit to Iraq a few months ago. It was in Anbar province in western Iraq - the center of the insurgency - a part of the country that conventional wisdom last year dismissed as hopeless.

In fact, on September 11, 2006, the Washington Post ran a front-page story reporting that even the chief of Marine Corps intelligence in Iraq had concluded that Anbar was "lost," and our position there was "beyond repair."

I was in Anbar last December, on a forward operating base just outside Ramadi, the capital of the province. As one of the briefings with our military commanders ended, a colonel who had been sitting in the back of the room came up to me. He said something that I carry with me to this day - something that I hope you will carry with you as well. He said: "Sir, I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here, we want to finish this fight. And we know we can win it."

Today, five months later, Anbar has been dramatically transformed. Thanks to the bravery, ingenuity, and commitment of our men and women in uniform, shops and schools have reopened, Al Qaeda is on the run, thousands of Iraqis have joined the local police, and - yes - no less than the New York Tim es reports that we have turned the corner there.

My friends, now is not the time for despair. Now is the time for resolve. Now is not the time for reflexive partisanship and pandering to public opinion. Now is the time for the kind of patriotism and principle Americas voters have always honored. I ask you to plead with every member of Congress you can in the days and weeks ahead - Do not surrender to hopelessness. Do not succumb to defeat.Do not give in to fear.

Rise above the political pressures of the moment to do what is right for America .

Believe, like that colonel, in why we are fighting in Iraq , and know, as he and his soldiers know, that we can and must win there."

Thank you very much!

It is no coincidence Lieberman was forced out of his political party. Neither party can tolerate statesmanship ahead of partisanship.

ps. the Instapundit points out related thoughts from Bill Hobbs

All the news that's fit to slant.

Joel Mowbray catches the NYTimes evading the truth again as they tip toe through political correctness at the expense of accuracy or even actual information. Joel headlines his article: "See No Muslims: The NY Times Ignores the Obvious"

In what must have come as a shock to its readers, the New York Times reported that the July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks in London brought “home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population.”

Imagine the surprise of many to learn that Britain is now under attack from “disenfranchised South Asian” people, not those who murder in the name of their Islamic faith.

The non naming of muslims as terrorists is more of the same waffling cowardice the media exhibited during the Danish cartoon uproar. All of the perpetrators of the Glasgow bombing attack were muslim, identifying them as such is not profiling.
If a 7-11 is robbed and police begin pulling over primarily cars driven by blacks that would be racial profiling. But if the 7-11 clerk says "I was robbed by a black man who drove away from the scene", then cops pulling over black drivers in the area are not profiling they are using actual descriptions to narrow the field of search.
What kind of news organization is afraid to give the news? Of course Pinch has decided to make the Times the propaganda arm of the celebrity thought police.