Friday, April 08, 2016

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher's Council Results

http://primitivehebrews.org/_Media/pasted-file_med-2_med.jpeg


The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

"A world that did not lift a finger when Hitler was wiping out six million Jewish men, women, and children is now saying that the Jewish state of Israel will not survive if it does not come to terms with the Arabs. My feeling is that no one in this universe has the right and the competence to tell Israel what it has to do in order to survive. On the contrary, it is Israel that can tell us what to do. It can tell us that we shall not survive if we do not cultivate and celebrate courage, if we coddle traitors and deserters, bargain with terrorists, court enemies, and scorn friends. " - Eric Hoffer

“Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.” - President Barack Hussein Obama, 2009



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nEAkWOufFU/T366WMxCdrI/AAAAAAAABOg/easpV-8FMnM/s1600/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg



This week's winning essay is Joshuapundit's So, Why Not Dump Israel ? After all, even a significant number of American Jews (including a presidential candidate) don't back Israel any more. Wouldn't it be better for America if we just ended all ties with the Jewish State? I took an honest look at the question, and present a few little known facts that might shed some light on whether the America-Israel alliance is a benefit or a burden...and also a look at how many Israelis see the Two State Solution. Here's a slice:

Why all this fuss about Israel? Aren't they nothing but trouble for America?

To hear a lot of what's going around these days, Israel is at the heart of the problems we have with the Muslim world, and things would be just fine if we became more 'balanced'...or translated, became more pro-Arab and curtailed our support for those pushy, stubborn Jews. Besides, aren't they an ungrateful ally? Certainly President Obama, John Kerry and a lot of others in Washington say things like that all the time. Although they dress it up a little, that is essentially what they believe. Israel is a problem, not an asset.

ISIS, terrorism against the west, Iran's belligerent behavior, the problems in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and especially with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are all mostly Israel's fault. And murdering Jews is just a natural reaction to 'occupation', although no one's country is being occupied in any usual sense of the way the word is used. Gaza is an example of how bizarre and distorted the idea of Israel's 'occupation has become.

Israel pulled every Jew living in the area out, with effusive guarantees from the EU ,UN and the Bush Administration that it would never be allowed to become a security problem for Israel. Yet the Jewish State is still regularly referred to as 'the occupying power' by the UN and the so-called International Community.And that 'occupation is based on Israel's blockade of Hamas that even the UN called fully legal, a blockade that was only necessary because of the failure by these other entities to honor those those same security guarantees made to Israel to get them to pull out of Gaza in the first place! You literally can't make this stuff up.

Just as an aside, one reason many Israelis aren't the least bit interested in giving up any more land no matter what the UN or anyone else says is precisely because of what happened with Gaza. Why make themselves even more vulnerable for guarantees that won't be kept and demonization as 'occupiers' even after they've left?

Another homily heard often is that Israel can't survive unless it retreats to what people call the 'pre-1967' borders.' That seems fair, doesn't it?

What isn't said much is that those were never borders at all, but simply cease fire lines from 1948 between countries still then in a state of war. Going back to those ceasefire lines would push Israel into an indefensible enclave,turn half a million its citizens into refugees, divide its capitol and make the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and Hebron off limits forever to Jews. And it would also give up high ground within easy missile and artillery range of its airports and the country's most populated areas to people who make no mistake about being genocidal when it comes to Israel's Jews.

 

That, after all is what President Obama, the UN and the EU are saying with their insistence on a two state solution based on those 1948 ceasefire lines, and it actually appears that the Obama Administration is willing to sign on to or at least abstain from vetoing a new UN resolution sponsored by France to insist on exactly that.

But hey, isn't that Israel's problem, not ours? So what?

Let's take an objective look. What difference does what happens to Israel make to us here in America? Why should we care? Why is what happens to Israel important to the US? If Israel somehow ceased to exist, would it matter to America? I mean, we give them all that aid money. Why not spend it at home? And who knows, maybe if we weren't giving all that aid to Israel, we might not have all those problems with the Muslim world!

There's a very well organized, well funded effort going on now to convince people of exactly that. Could they be right? Let's find out.

And to do that, let's put aside any of those slooshy considerations of fairness, justice, religion or humanitarian principles and go for the cold, hard, self-serving realpolitik mindset to find out if what happens to Israel is important to the US.

Questions, answers and much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Daniel Greenfield in the Canada Free Press with Daniel Greenfield/Canada Free Press-Castro's American Victimssubmitted by Bookworm Room . With President Barack Hussein Obama doing everything he possibly can to appease the Castro Brothers, Greenfield reminds us of a few things this president and his sycophants would prefer were forgotten and swept under the rug.


Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

 It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
Posted by at No comments: Links to this post
Labels:

Wednesday, April 06, 2016

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - 'The Difference' Edition



Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.


So, let's see what we have for you this week....

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions


Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!And don't forget to tune in Friday for the results!
Posted by at No comments: Links to this post

Tuesday, April 05, 2016

So, Why Not Dump Israel ?



Why all this fuss about Israel? Aren't they nothing but trouble for America?

To hear a lot of what's going around these days, Israel is at the heart of the problems we have with the Muslim world, and things would be just fine if we became more 'balanced'...or translated, became more pro-Arab and curtailed our support for those pushy, stubborn Jews. Besides, aren't they an ungrateful ally? Certainly President Obama, John Kerry and a lot of others in Washington say things like that all the time. Although they dress it up a little, that is essentially what they believe. Israel is a problem, not an asset.

ISIS, terrorism against the west, Iran's belligerent behavior, the problems in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and especially with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are all mostly Israel's fault. And murdering Jews is just a natural reaction to 'occupation', although no one's country is being occupied in any usual sense of the way the word is used. Gaza is an example of how bizarre and distorted the idea of Israel's 'occupation has become.

Israel pulled every Jew living in the area out, with effusive guarantees from the EU ,UN and the Bush Administration that it would never be allowed to become a security problem for Israel. Yet the Jewish State is still regularly referred to as 'the occupying power' by the UN and the so-called International Community.And that 'occupation is based on Israel's blockade of Hamas that even the UN called fully legal, a blockade that was only necessary because of the failure by these other entities to honor those those same security guarantees made to Israel to get them to pull out of Gaza in the first place! You literally can't make this stuff up.

Just as an aside, one reason many Israelis aren't the least bit interested in giving up any more land no matter what the UN or anyone else says is precisely because of what happened with Gaza. Why make themselves even more vulnerable for guarantees that won't be kept and demonization as 'occupiers' even after they've left?

Another homily heard often is that Israel can't survive unless it retreats to what people call the 'pre-1967' borders.' That seems fair, doesn't it?

What isn't said much is that those were never borders at all, but simply cease fire lines from 1948 between countries still then in a state of war. Going back to those ceasefire lines would push Israel into an indefensible enclave,turn half a million its citizens into refugees, divide its capitol and make the Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem and Hebron off limits forever to Jews. And it would also give up high ground within easy missile and artillery range of its airports and the country's most populated areas to people who make no mistake about being genocidal when it comes to Israel's Jews.

 

That, after all is what President Obama, the UN and the EU are saying with their insistence on a two state solution based on those 1948 ceasefire lines, and it actually appears that the Obama Administration is willing to sign on to or at least abstain from vetoing a new UN resolution sponsored by France to insist on exactly that.

But hey, isn't that Israel's problem, not ours? So what?

Let's take an objective look. What difference does what happens to Israel make to us here in America? Why should we care? Why is what happens to Israel important to the US? If Israel somehow ceased to exist, would it matter to America? I mean, we give them all that aid money. Why not spend it at home? And who knows, maybe if we weren't giving all that aid to Israel, we might not have all those problems with the Muslim world!

There's a very well organized, well funded effort going on now to convince people of exactly that. Could they be right? Let's find out.

And to do that, let's put aside any of those slooshy considerations of fairness, justice, religion or humanitarian principles and go for the cold, hard, self-serving realpolitik mindset to find out if what happens to Israel is important to the US:

Wouldn't America be more secure if we weren't supporting Israel?

Like it or not, Israel occupies some very strategic real estate in the Levant. It is in a position to safeguard NATO's soft underbelly, especially significant since most of the NATO countries lack any significant military component...and also would have a significant political problem convincing their electorates to support any kind of military action anyway, given whom their electorates increasingly are composed of these days.

As tired of the Middle East as many Americans are, this is an increasingly strategic part of the world where whatever allies we might have had or thought we had among the Sunni Arab states are either alienated, ultimately untrustworthy or weak. Israel is none of these things, and unless you're like John Kerry or our president and are convinced that Iran is now going just a peace loving pussycat and ISIS isn't really a problem, the value of having a strong ally in the region with a powerful military and superior HUMINT on the ground is obvious. Here's a few examples of how that's worked in the past and how it continues to work now:

  • Israel pushed the Soviets out of the Middle East during the Cold War  and provided America a first hand look at the latest Soviet weapons and technology...all without the cost of a single American soldier. When the then new Soviet Mig 21 was knocking our pilots out of the air in Vietnam, it was Israel who bribed an Iraqi pilot to bring one to Israel, which they turned over to the United States so we could figure out its weak points and stop the carnage.
  • Israel saved literally thousands of American lives by taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak. Yes, they did it for their own reasons, but if not for that, the casualty lists from the first Gulf War ten years later would have been very different if it could have even been fought at all. And just imagine what would be going on now in Syria if Israel hadn't knocked out the nuclear facility Basher Assad got from North Korea back in 2007 over the Bush Administration's objections... and ISIS or some other bad actor got it's hands on it?
  • Israel has a first class intelligence service in the Mossad and its native Arabic and Farsi speakers contribute immeasurably to US intel by adding to its access in the region and by adding the dimension of `HUMINT'-human intelligence - on the ground. General George Keagan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, once stated in Congress that "Israel is worth five CIAs," based on the value of intelligence passed to America. Essentially, Israel is a security bulwark and a vital window on America's enemies in the region...unless, of course you agree with President Obama that everything's just wonderful when it comes to countries like Iran and we can rely on Iran's self inspections when it comes to their nuclear weapons program.
  • Israel is one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world. It has been and continues to be a major partner of the US in weapons technology in numerous joint projects and the US has access to the fruits of some of the most sophisticated technological installations in the world at Tel-Aviv University and the Technion, Israel's MIT. A lot of those projects have saved US lives and enhanced our own military. Numerous Israeli innovations are now commonly used by our troops on the ground. For example, there's the lightweight helmet Israel developed that's more bullet resistant than the one we had. Our troops use it. There's advanced anti anti tank systems, the Green Pine radar, the AGM-142 Have Nap (AKA the Popeye Missile), the Marine Corps Laser Range Finder made by Israel's Elbeit Systems, the SIMON breach rifle grenade...again, it's a pretty long list.
  • Israel also hosts America's Strategic Arms Depot free of charge on its territory, so that American troops can deploy in the region quickly and have their armor, supplies, arms and equipment ready and waiting for them when they get there if we have to deploy our troops there in a hurry. The US arranged that after the First Gulf War, when we had to hire merchant ships to get the stuff over there because we lacked merchant marine capacity. It amounts to a base on foreign territory that America gets for free, and without having to deploy any US troops. Going price for that? Based on what other bases cost us, around $4-5 billion per year....a lot more if you include the cost of stationing personnel there. And that's assuming we could find another reliable country in the region we could trust to let us do it. For instance, we have bases in Bahrain, KSA and Turkey, but those countries have all imposed restrictions on our deploying US forces there or using them for military operations at one time or another.

    And Israel's one of the few allies we have who routinely makes its facilities available to US forces when needed, its ports, airfields and air space. That also comes in quite handy.


So all things considered, I'd have to say it looks like American security is actually enhanced because of our relationship with Israel, not the other way around.


But what about all that money we give Israel?

'Give' Israel? By law, almost all of that $3.5 billion Israel receives has to be spent here in America, a restriction not many US aid recipients, Pakistan ($5-7 billion) and Egypt ($1.5 billion) for example are subject to. Israel means jobs and prosperity for America's defense industry.

Again, you also have to consider the value of the Strategic Arms depot, free use of Israel's facilities,and HUMINT and the value of all those joint weapons projects. That all adds up to a lot more money than Israel gets in aid from the US.

And here's another aspect to be considered. This partnership allows the US to pressure Israel's defense companies to withdraw from lucrative contracts around the world. One recent example is the $13 billion Polish missile defense contract. The Poles really liked David's Sling, developed by Israel's Rafael and they also had their own issues with Obama, so they were ready to accept Rafael's bid and buy. The US pressured Rafael to withdraw its bid so Raytheon could get the contract. That's by no means the only time this has happened.

All this adds up to Israel being one of America's few foreign policy bargains. The aid is less than one tenth of one percent of the Federal budget and the US receives far more in return than it shells out.

OK, so Israel's a bargain. But maybe we should just get out of the Middle East altogether. We'd have much better relations with the Muslim world if we did that and didn't support Israel, wouldn't we? And wouldn't that stop terrorism against the U.S.?

Is that really how it would work? President Obama and two successive Secretaries of States, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have operated on that principle for the last 7 years. President Obama famously said he wanted to create 'distance' between America and Israel, and no objective observer can doubt that he's succeeded to a large degree. The EU has followed the same policy to an even greater extent for some time. How has that worked out? Is the EU experiencing peace, tolerance and kumbaya from their own Muslim populations let alone groups like ISIS? Are we?

If Israel were to magically disappear tomorrow, would ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, Boko Haram, Jaish Islami, al-Nusra and all the rest go out of business?

Even after getting $150 billion in cash, the sanctions watered down and eventually ended and getting literally everything they wanted at the negotiating table on their illegal nuclear program, is Iran less aggressive or more aggressive towards the U.S.? Did President Obama's decision to create that distance between America and Israel, ignore the Green Revolution and the Iranian government's hideous crackdown on dissidents seeking democracy lead to a less belligerent Iran? Have the Iranians even stopped the massive public chants of 'death to America' or referring to America as the Great Satan?

The answers are obvious. Iran is far more aggressive, hostile and belligerent towards America than they've ever been, even to the point of refusing to cooperate with America against a common enemy in ISIS. There's no reason at all to think this behavior on Iran's part would change one iota if America completely cut off all ties with Israel. Actually, with Israel weakened or even removed as a check to Iran's ambitions, Iran's hostility and warlike behavior would probably even increase. In any event, if things got that hot the Israelis might very well resort to some drastic means to win out...and we might not like the results.

Another thing about cutting all ties with Israel has to do with how it would affect the geo-political balance. Most Israelis understand that the chief benefit of their relationship with the U.S. is not financial but American back up strategically and in international forums like the UN. If that ends, as President Obama and Secretary Kerry have hinted, how would that affect America?

Israel has very good strategic and trade ties with China, and fairly decent strategic relations with Russia. Wouldn't  America cutting strategic ties be an incentive to Israel to form new ones? How would that affect the U.S.? And how would the spectacle of America dumping a long time ally affect how other U.S. allies looked at their own relationships with America?

Another allegation that's fairly common these days in DC is that al-Qaeda and ISIS use Israel as a recruiting tool. To a certain extent that's true to a degree now, but it's also true that neither group used 'Palestine' as a marketing tool until after it became a common talking point in certain circles emanating out of the White House and in media outlets like the NY Times. Osama bin-laden and al-Qaeda didn't even mention 'Palestine' until years after 9/11 and ISIS was far more interested in Basher Assad and the corrupt, oppressive Shi'ite dictatorship we put in power in Iraq. For that matter, ISIS wasn't even particularly hostile to the US until President Obama started bombing them.

Any casual examination of history shows the fallacy of abandoning a loyal, powerful ally to appease an enemy, especially during wartime. Nor would it meaningfully improve relations between the US and the Arab world. The proof of that is to examine the US relationship with the Arab World before we became one of Israel's main allies in 1970, after the `67 Six-Day War. President Dwight Eisenhower and John Foster Dulles pursued a pro-Arab, cool to Israel policy as part of their Cold War strategy to keep the Soviets out of the Arab world. As even Eisenhower admitted, it failed utterly.

Getting rid of what the Muslim world refers to as the Little Satan would just weaken the Big Satan, America and deprive us of one of our strongest and most valuable allies. And a victory over the hated Jews would only embolden America's enemies.

Take Israel out of the equation and America would manage. So undoubtedly would Israel without America as an ally. But nothing would change except we would have weakened ourselves to the delight of our enemies.

-Selah-



Posted by at No comments: Links to this post
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, April 04, 2016

Forum: What Do You See As The Pros And Cons of Digital Technology?



Every week on Monday, the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: What Do You See As The Pros And Cons of Digital Technology?

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason : The advent of digital technology has changed all of our lives. Whether it has changed our lives for better or worse rests on each one of us alone and how we choose to use it. It is a two edged sword. At a time when the information we seek is at our fingertips, it is of utmost importance to be able to cull through pages and pages of data and critically determine what is true and what is not. Researching a subject can draw us into a rabbit hole of such dimensions we can spend hours in our quest for truth. For the autodidact the use of digital technology helps expand our understanding of specific topics of one’s own choosing in addition to history, the world, and world events. The scope of information is truly staggering and I personally love it.

Digital technology is a wonderful teaching tool but I fear there is too much dependence on it too early. I find so many utilize computers doing every task imaginable but they do not really understand the reasoning and methodology behind what they are doing. If we were ever to find ourselves in a situation where we had no access to it the world would suffer; not from the loss, but from the lack of core understanding and knowledge of what should be basic life skills. A simple example would be counting change back in a sales transaction. Today all one has to do is enter in the amount a customer gives to the cashier and the machine tells them how much change to give back to the customer. Without the computer many would not know how much change to give back. As a child of twelve I was taught how to count back change and then put to work in the family drug store. Today I see adults who have not learned to do this in their heads, so completely are they dependent on the technology. Our schools should be teaching these basic skills without use of computers so our children understand how to reason and think critically.

One can use this same technology to self-stimulate by watching movies, listening to music, playing games or communicate with others through social media such as Facebook and Twitter, filling up ones time while never actually doing, learning, or accomplishing anything. It seems many have no desire to actually get beyond this technology and explore or learn what is really happening in the world and engage in a meaningful and purposeful way.

Music has always played an integral part of my life and I find I do not enjoy the whole aspect of using mp3 players or downloading music. Listening through earphones or headphones seems so solitary and isolating. I love music that surrounds me and love sharing my favorite music with my grandchildren. My grandson actually commented he wishes music today was more like what I play for them.

While digital technology has improved our lives in so many ways, it rests on each of us not to be so completely dependent on it that we miss out on the little things in life, or the most important things either. Those are found in faith, family, and love… not on a computer.

 JoshuaPundit: Any major technological change exacts a price for what benefits it provides.

Digital technology puts myriads of information at our fingertips, allows instant communication and the sharing of information across the globe, aids scientific research significantly,  among it's other many benefits.

Here's what we've given up as a consequence.  Yes, thousands of jobs and even whole industries have been devastated, but that always happens when a major change like digital tech comes along.  A lot of the cost has been much more subtle.

While a huge amount of data and information has become available, a significant amount of it is simply bogus and therefore worthless. Mark Twain's old dictum about a lie being able to travel around the world before the truth can even put its pants on was true when he said it, but it is far more true today than it was then. Essentially, the digital revolution has put deconstructionism, where people manufacture their own facts to fit a political agenda on steroids. Combined with the substitution of education for indoctrination this has been devastating for society in ways we're just starting to comprehend now.

Another negative change is that society has become incredibly dependent on those little chips. When I was going through the public schools, the New Math was in fashion and I was frequently marked down on tests even though I got the correct answers for 'not showing your work' because my dad taught me how to do sums and other math calculations in my head. Nowadays, those kind of skills are extinct.

In society today, our power grid, manufacturing, food and water distribution, security, communications, medical facilities, heating, air conditioning, fuel distribution, access to money,  even vehicle travel are all dependent on digital electronics.  Eliminating them suddenly through an EMP attack would cause thousands of deaths and a major breakdown in society. I doubt that we have ever been this dependent before on any single aspect of technology.

To a certain extent, the human element in society has been retarded. Many young men and women no longer mix in society to find mates but hit Tinder or some other application and 'swipe.'  People frequently text rather than calling or even sending an e-mail, forget about letters. Seeking employment in many cases is reduced to sending an e-mail with a resume' as an attachment and today's HR software can be programmed to eliminate any of those  which contain certain buzz words or 'triggers' before a potential employer even sees them. Even sex itself is gradually being affected as more and more sophisticated and realistic  robots become available at lower and lower prices.

With the advances in AI, will robots eventually become a new 'grievance group' demanding legal rights? I wouldn't be a bit surprised!

  Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

 It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Posted by at No comments: Links to this post
Labels:

Friday, April 01, 2016

The Council Has Spoken! Our Watcher's Council Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/C.sf.,_castelli,_carmine_gentile,_ovale_con_allegoria_dell%27accademia_degli_illuminati,_1730-1750.JPG

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week's Watcher's Council match up.

“Good courage in a bad affair is half of the evil overcome.”
- Titus Maccius Plautus

"He who does not punish evil commands it to be done." - Leonardo Da Vinci

"Shall I tell you what the real evil is? To cringe to the things that are called evils, to surrender to them our freedom, in defiance of which we ought to face any suffering." - Seneca

"The trouble with Islam is deeply rooted in its teachings. Islam is not only a religion. Islam (is) also a political ideology that preaches violence and applies its agenda by force." - Dr. Wafa Sultan



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_nEAkWOufFU/T366WMxCdrI/AAAAAAAABOg/easpV-8FMnM/s1600/Joshua_Dali_Sun.jpg


This week's winning essay,Joshuapundit's's How Pakistan Celebrated Easter ...And The Message it Sends Us Is my reaction to certain events that occurred in Pakistan on Easter Sunday...and their wider meaning for the rest of us. Here's a slice:

Today was Easter Sunday, and many people took their families for an outing. In Lahore, Pakistan, many Christians took their children to Gulshan-e-Iqbal park for a special outing in an area set aside for them.

A Taliban faction called Jamaat-ul-Ahrar set off a huge bomb in the parking area, right near the swings, the picnic area and the children's rides, with the exploding vehicles in the parking area adding to the carnage. One source, ARY News estimated that as much as five to six kg of explosives may have been used. The blast was heard all over the city. Javed Ali, a 35-year-old who lives opposite the park near the center of the city, said the force of the blast shattered the windows of his home. “After 10 minutes I went outside. There was human flesh on the walls of our house."

According to Senior police official Haider Ashraf, ball bearings were found all over the crowded park. That's a common tactic, one frequently used by the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians against Israelis. The blast force turns the ball bearings into high velocity anti-personnel weapons, rather like shrapnel.

As Jamaat-ul-Ahrar spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told the Associated Press in a phone call, "The target was Christians."

It was indeed. It was their way of saying 'Happy Easter, infidels.'

At least 72 people have been pronounced dead so far, many of them children. The injured are still being treated and number is over 300 so far, many of them in critical condition. The death toll will undoubtedly go higher.



The Pakistani authorities, of course, have officially condemned the attack and the chief minister of Punjab province, Shahbaz Sharif, has announced three days mourning and pledged to ensure that those involved in the attack are brought to trial.

But this is Pakistan, where Christian churches are routinely bombed and burned, where Christian girls are abducted, raped and forcibly converted to Islam and where Pakistan's ISI, the equivalent of MI5 or the CIA collaborated in the horrific attacks on Mumbai in 2008. Any action taken will likely be marginal and based on eliminating a few convenient jihadis rather than actually eliminating the cause...the hatred many of Pakistan's Muslims have for anyone who isn't one.

As I reread what I wrote after Mumbai, I sadly see I was exactly right when predicted that the open attacks on soft targets in large cities  was a successful tactic and that we would see it in the near future in places like Paris, Boston and Brussels.

And I also wrote that the West was wasting its time expecting Islam to moderate itself. Individuals can and do, but the faith as a whole never will. And it is more than just a few 'fanatics perverting a great religion' as President Obama is fond of saying in between golf games and tango sessions. It is a mainstream and accurate reading of the Qu'ran, Sunna and Hadiths, the Muslims scriptures. And a significant number of the Muslim world follows and agrees with that reading whether they actually participate in the killing, finance it, or simply cheer it on.

And for those Muslims whom don't, whom disobey Qu'ran 5:51 too openly*, they have a lesson to teach them and any others with the same idea. So even many of those Muslims disgusted by jihad and worried about the effects on their peaceful life in the West generally keep their mouths shut. It's not like the western governments, America included are listening to them anyway. Many others, who see the great strides triumphalist Islam is making in the appeasement minded West are listening to what's being preached in their mosques and on social media and moving in that direction, something called 'radicalization' by the usual suspects.

Is there a solution?

President Obama thinks he has one. As he mentioned today in an Easter message that barely mention Easter, his idea of a solution is to bring even more of these people to America expose them to our freedom and they will change like magic.  And to make it even harder to vet them, he's had his people openly tip off these 'refugees' to scrub their Facebook and other social media accounts.

Our president's solution is also to protect and empower Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and their jihad friendly mosques. Or to quote him,America and the world will never solve this 'problem' without the assistance of friendly, helpful Muslims And we had better be careful to avoid offending them in any way. Federal Agents are actually prohibited now from considering religion, immigration status or national origin in their investigations.

In Europe, it's even worse, where people actually get arrested for defending themselves against 'refugees' or merely speaking up about what's going on.



The thing is, we've been trying it Obama's way since the Clinton Administration. How has this approach worked? Have jihadist attacks in America and around the world increased or decreased?

I think the answer is obvious.

Our president's attitude, echoed by EU leaders like Angela Merkel is why Paris and Brussels happened, why the Tsarnaev brothers were able to enter America so easily and pull off a jihad attack in the heart of the Boston Marathon, why Nidal Hassan was able to kill American military at Fort Hood and why a jihadist Muslim couple were able to massacre people in San Bernardino. And why there's a lot more of the same coming, if our present path continues.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was the one and only Mark Steyn with his right on target piece, he One-Stop Shop for All Your Terror-Sentimentalizing Needs submitted by Joshuapundit. Steyn approaches what has become the sickening rituals that follow every jihadist attack on the West with his customary wit and it's definitely a must read.

Here are this week’s full results. Only Fausta was unable to vote this week, but was not affected by the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners


See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks' nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

 It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher's Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?
Posted by at No comments: Links to this post

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Our Watcher's Council Nominations - 'Legacy' Edition

http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/RAMclr-032416-legacy-IBD-COLOR-FINAL.jpg

There are a lot more bodies I could add to the pile...the dead in Libya, Mali, Nigeria, Algeria, Israel, Egypt,and Americans murdered by the illegal migrants he's allowed in, as well as veterans whom have died in the morass of our own dysfunctional VA system. If a president like Barack Hussein Obama can tango through a record like that and not get impeached, it says a great deal about how low the bar for our leaders has become and what the American people are apparently willing to put up with. And that's our legacy, as well as his. Think about it.

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

So, let's see what we have for you this week....

Council Submissions

Non-Council Submissions


Enjoy! And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us Twitter..'cause we're cool like that!And don't forget to tune in Friday for the results!
Posted by at No comments: Links to this post

Trump On Foreign Policy - An In Depth Interview

 http://www.bbhsfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Donald-Trump-1.jpg

Donald Trump recently sat down for a long interview on Foreign Policy with a couple of New York Times reporters in which he weighed in on a number of interesting topics. Some of his answers may surprise you.  Here's a slice:

Over two telephone conversations on Friday, Donald J. Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, discussed his views on foreign policy with Maggie Haberman and David E. Sanger of The New York Times. Here is an edited transcript of their interview:


HABERMAN: I wanted to ask you about some things that you said in Washington on Monday, more recently. But you’ve talked about them a bunch. So, you have said on several occasions that you want Japan and South Korea to pay more for their own defense. You’ve been saying versions of that about Japan for 30 years. Would you object if they got their own nuclear arsenal, given the threat that they face from North Korea and China?
TRUMP: Well, you know, at some point, there is going to be a point at which we just can’t do this anymore. And, I know the upsides and the downsides. But right now we’re protecting, we’re basically protecting Japan, and we are, every time North Korea raises its head, you know, we get calls from Japan and we get calls from everybody else, and “Do something.” And there’ll be a point at which we’re just not going to be able to do it anymore. Now, does that mean nuclear? It could mean nuclear. It’s a very scary nuclear world. Biggest problem, to me, in the world, is nuclear, and proliferation. At the same time, you know, we’re a country that doesn’t have money. You know, when we did these deals, we were a rich country. We’re not a rich country. We were a rich country with a very strong military and tremendous capability in so many ways. We’re not anymore. We have a military that’s severely depleted. We have nuclear arsenals which are in very terrible shape. They don’t even know if they work. We’re not the same country, Maggie and David, I mean, I think you would both agree.
SANGER: So, just to follow Maggie’s thought there, though, the Japanese view has always been, if the United States, at any point, felt as if it was uncomfortable defending them, there has always been a segment of Japanese society, and of Korean society that said, “Well, maybe we should have our own nuclear deterrent, because if the U.S. isn’t certain, we need to make sure the North Koreans know that.” Is that a reasonable position. Do you think at some point they should have their own arsenal?
TRUMP: Well, it’s a position that we have to talk about, and it’s a position that at some point is something that we have to talk about, and if the United States keeps on its path, its current path of weakness, they’re going to want to have that anyway with or without me discussing it, because I don’t think they feel very secure in what’s going on with our country, David. You know, if you look at how we backed our enemies, it hasn’t – how we backed our allies – it hasn’t exactly been strong. When you look at various places throughout the world, it hasn’t been very strong. And I just don’t think we’re viewed the same way that we were 20 or 25 years ago, or 30 years ago. And, you know, I think it’s a problem. You know, something like that, unless we get very strong, very powerful and very rich, quickly, I’m sure those things are being discussed over there anyway without our discussion.
HABERMAN: Will you –
SANGER: And would you have an objection to it?
TRUMP: Um, at some point, we cannot be the policeman of the world. And unfortunately, we have a nuclear world now. And you have, Pakistan has them. You have, probably, North Korea has them. I mean, they don’t have delivery yet, but you know, probably, I mean to me, that’s a big problem. And, would I rather have North Korea have them with Japan sitting there having them also? You may very well be better off if that’s the case. In other words, where Japan is defending itself against North Korea, which is a real problem. You very well may have a better case right there. We certainly haven’t been able to do much with him and with North Korea. But you may very well have a better case. You know, one of the things with the, with our Japanese relationship, and I’m a big fan of Japan, by the way. I have many, many friends there. I do business with Japan. But, that, if we are attacked, they don’t have to do anything. If they’re attacked, we have to go out with full force. You understand. That’s a pretty one-sided agreement, right there. In other words, if we’re attacked, they do not have to come to our defense, if they’re attacked, we have to come totally to their defense. And that is a, that’s a real problem.

Nuclear Weapons, Cyberwarfare and Spying on Allies

HABERMAN: Would you, you were just talking about the nuclear world we live in, and you’ve said many times, and I’ve heard you say it throughout the campaign, that you want the U.S. to be more unpredictable. Would you be willing to have the U.S. be the first to use nuclear weapons in a confrontation with adversaries?
TRUMP: An absolute last step. I think it’s the biggest, I personally think it’s the biggest problem the world has, nuclear capability. I think it’s the single biggest problem. When people talk global warming, I say the global warming that we have to be careful of is the nuclear global warming. Single biggest problem that the world has. Power of weaponry today is beyond anything ever thought of, or even, you know, it’s unthinkable, the power. You look at Hiroshima and you can multiply that times many, many times, is what you have today. And to me, it’s the single biggest, it’s the single biggest problem.
SANGER: You know, we have an alternative these days in a growing cyberarsenal. You’ve seen the growing cybercommand and so forth. Could you give us a vision of whether or not you think that the United States should regularly be using cyberweapons, perhaps, as an alternative to nuclear? And if so, how would you either threaten or employ those?
TRUMP: I don’t see it as an alternative to nuclear in terms of, in terms of ultimate power. Look, in the perfect world everybody would agree that nuclear would, you know, be so destructive, and this was always the theory, or was certainly the theory of many. That the power is so enormous that nobody would ever use them. But, as you know, we’re dealing with people in the world today that would use them, O.K.? Possibly numerous people that use them, and use them without hesitation if they had them. And there’s nothing, there’s nothing as, there’s nothing as meaningful or as powerful as that, and you know the problem is, and it used to be, and you would hear this, David, and I would hear it, and everybody would hear it, and — I’m not sure I believed it, ever. I talk sometimes about my uncle from M.I.T., and he would tell me many years ago when he was up at M.I.T. as a, he was a professor, he was a great guy in many respects, but a very brilliant guy, and he would tell me many years ago about the power of weapons someday, that the destructive force of these weapons would be so massive, that it’s going to be a scary world. And, you know, we have been under the impression that, well we’ve been, I think it’s misguided somewhat, I’ve always felt this but that nobody would ever use them because of the power. And the first one to use them, I think that would be a very bad thing. And I will tell you, I would very much not want to be the first one to use them, that I can say.
HABERMAN: O.K.
SANGER: The question was about cyber, how would you envision using cyberweapons? Cyberweapons in an attack to take out a power grid in a city, so forth.
TRUMP: First off, we’re so obsolete in cyber. We’re the ones that sort of were very much involved with the creation, but we’re so obsolete, we just seem to be toyed with by so many different countries, already. And we don’t know who’s doing what. We don’t know who’s got the power, who’s got that capability, some people say it’s China, some people say it’s Russia. But certainly cyber has to be a, you know, certainly cyber has to be in our thought process, very strongly in our thought process. Inconceivable that, inconceivable the power of cyber. But as you say, you can take out, you can take out, you can make countries non-functioning with a strong use of cyber. I don’t think we’re there. I don’t think we’re as advanced as other countries are, and I think you probably would agree with that. I don’t think we’re advanced, I think we’re going backwards in so many different ways. I think we’re going backwards with our military. I certainly don’t think we are, we move forward with cyber, but other countries are moving forward at a much more rapid pace. We are frankly not being led very well in terms of the protection of this country.

****************************************************

A lot  more interesting stuff at the link.
Posted by at 1 comment: Links to this post
Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

How Pakistan Celebrated Easter ...And The Message it Sends Us

Pakistani emergency workers and police officers gather at the blast site, where 300 people were injured

Today was Easter Sunday, and many people took their families for an outing. In Lahore, Pakistan, many Christians took their children to Gulshan-e-Iqbal park for a special outing in an area set aside for them.

A Taliban faction called Jamaat-ul-Ahrar set off a huge bomb in the parking area, right near the swings, the picnic area and the children's rides, with the exploding vehicles in the parking area adding to the carnage. One source, ARY News estimated that as much as five to six kg of explosives may have been used. The blast was heard all over the city. Javed Ali, a 35-year-old who lives opposite the park near the center of the city, said the force of the blast shattered the windows of his home. “After 10 minutes I went outside. There was human flesh on the walls of our house."

According to Senior police official Haider Ashraf, ball bearings were found all over the crowded park. That's a common tactic, one frequently used by the Arabs whom call themselves Palestinians against Israelis. The blast force turns the ball bearings into high velocity anti-personnel weapons, rather like shrapnel.

As Jamaat-ul-Ahrar spokesman Ahsanullah Ahsan told the Associated Press in a phone call, "The target was Christians."

It was indeed. It was their way of saying 'Happy Easter, infidels.'

At least 72 people have been pronounced dead so far, many of them children. The injured are still being treated and number is over 300 so far, many of them in critical condition. The death toll will undoubtedly go higher.



The Pakistani authorities, of course, have officially condemned the attack and the chief minister of Punjab province, Shahbaz Sharif, has announced three days mourning and pledged to ensure that those involved in the attack are brought to trial.

But this is Pakistan, where Christian churches are routinely bombed and burned, where Christian girls are abducted, raped and forcibly converted to Islam and where Pakistan's ISI, the equivalent of MI5 or the CIA collaborated in the horrific attacks on Mumbai in 2008. Any action taken will likely be marginal and based on eliminating a few convenient jihadis rather than actually eliminating the cause...the hatred many of Pakistan's Muslims have for anyone who isn't one.

As I reread what I wrote after Mumbai, I sadly see I was exactly right when predicted that the open attacks on soft targets in large cities  was a successful tactic and that we would see it in the near future in places like Paris, Boston and Brussels.

And I also wrote that the West was wasting its time expecting Islam to moderate itself. Individuals can and do, but the faith as a whole never will. And it is more than just a few 'fanatics perverting a great religion' as President Obama is fond of saying in between golf games and tango sessions. It is a mainstream and accurate reading of the Qu'ran, Sunna and Hadiths, the Muslims scriptures. And a significant number of the Muslim world follows and agrees with that reading whether they actually participate in the killing, finance it, or simply cheer it on.

And for those Muslims whom don't, whom disobey Qu'ran 5:51 too openly*, they have a lesson to teach them and any others with the same idea. So even many of those Muslims disgusted by jihad and worried about the effects on their peaceful life in the West generally keep their mouths shut. It's not like the western governments, America included are listening to them anyway. Many others, who see the great strides triumphalist Islam is making in the appeasement minded West are listening to what's being preached in their mosques and on social media and moving in that direction, something called 'radicalization' by the usual suspects.

Is there a solution?

President Obama thinks he has one. As he mentioned today in an Easter message that barely mention Easter, his idea of a solution is to bring even more of these people to America expose them to our freedom and they will change like magic.  And to make it even harder to vet them, he's had his people openly tip off these 'refugees' to scrub their Facebook and other social media accounts.

Our president's solution is also to protect and empower Islamists, especially the Muslim Brotherhood and their jihad friendly mosques. Or to quote him,America and the world will never solve this 'problem' without the assistance of friendly, helpful Muslims And we had better be careful to avoid offending them in any way. Federal Agents are actually prohibited now from considering religion, immigration status or national origin in their investigations.

In Europe, it's even worse, where people actually get arrested for defending themselves against 'refugees' or merely speaking up about what's going on.



The thing is, we've been trying it Obama's way since the Clinton Administration. How has this approach worked? Have jihadist attacks in America and around the world increased or decreased?

I think the answer is obvious.

Our president's attitude, echoed by EU leaders like Angela Merkel is why Paris and Brussels happened, why the Tsarnaev brothers were able to enter America so easily and pull off a jihad attack in the heart of the Boston Marathon, why Nidal Hassan was able to kill American military at Fort Hood and why a jihadist Muslim couple were able to massacre people in San Bernardino. And why there's a lot more of the same coming, if our present path continues.

 And of course, as President Obama and his minions always say, none of this has anything to do with Islam. Except it obviously does unless we want to continue lying to ourselves, or continue believing the comforting lies of others.

"The frog in the pot felt like the water was a little warmer than he would have liked, but always figured it would cool down a bit as he got used to it. Oddly enough, it only got warmer."

 http://hardcorecloser.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Boiling_Frogs_Pic_-_resized.jpeg
That's exactly where we are right now. and as the water keeps getting hotter and hotter, people like Barack Obama, Angela Merkel and numerous others keep saying, 'turn up the heat....there's no problem here.'

We have normalized being attacked in this manner. We are committing suicide by inches, and it sickens me. Especially when it comes to our now routine responses.

Incidents like Brussels or Lahore are of no more import nowadays than a car accident, a train accidentally derailing or a celebrity suicide. They're all just 'tragedies.' What a shame. Anything good on TV tonight? 'Tragedy' just happens like that some times. Few of us, especially many of our self benighted elites want to call this what it is. Instead, they concentrate on idiocy like hashtags, cartoons, candlelight vigils and asinine, turgid platitudes. And too many people play follow the leader instead of screaming bloody murder and demanding forceful action. So of course, the carnage increases.

And why not? Warring against dar harb, the part of the world not controlled by Islam is exactly what Mohammed told his followers to do, to fight the infidels until they either killed them, converted them to Islam or until the infidels 'feel themselves subdued and pay the jizya  (tribute in money or slaves) willingly.**

For jihadis you see, it a win-win. Murder the kuffars, the non-believers  and you receive the  virgins and other sensual delights and are a heroic martyr even if you die in the attempt. If you survive, you're a hero and are rewarded with money, booty or sex slaves, depending on the locale and the circumstances.

Salam Al-Marayati is the head of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Muslim Brotherhood front group' He has a long history as both an apologist for Islamism and as President Obama's choice for an envoy to international forums and organizations.

Right after 9/11, he was a guest on a radio talk show in Los Angeles and as usual was attempting to blame the jihad attack on Muslim grievance in Israel and elsewhere ad nauseum. In response to a question from an outraged caller who complained that there was no legitimate excuse for the 9/11 attack, Al-Marayati simply replied, " What do you want? A holy war with a billion Muslims"?

Whether we like it or not, we are in that Holy War, perhaps not with all Muslims but with a substantial segment of Islam. And they realize it, even if we're in denial.

Are there Muslims whom are horrified at this? Yes. But no one in power is listening to them.And still many other Muslims  simply go along with the flow because it's safer and easier. Or because it's their tacit way of helping jihad along. Saleh Abdeslam, the chief suspect in the Paris attacks lived openly in his old neighborhood in  Molenbeek for months, protected and sheltered by the local Muslim community while he planned the Brussels bombings not far from where he was hiding out. He was only caught by chance.

Interesting place, Molenbeek. It shows what Europe once was and what much of it is becoming. Like Sweden, now the rape capitol of the world:



President Obama and those whom think like him would have us continue along that same path.

What's needed if we want to avoid that is not just a strategy but an entire change in attitude. The free peoples of the world, especially America  must utterly reject  any leadership that preaches appeasement of Islamic fascism.

Not only must we protect our borders, but we have to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood front groups here in America and utterly break them, intern them securely or deport them. We should actually follow the lead of Saudi Arabia of all countries and declare the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group.  At the very least, a new version of the Smith Act is called for, requiring these groups to reveal their memberships, assets and sources of funding. Mosques must be monitored and shut down if their imams preach sermons designed to  promote Islamic fascism, jihad  or  Islamism in any way.

And instead of cuddling up to Islamists, we need to approach American Muslims and invite them  to make a choice to either be part of our American family or leave. As former Australian Prime Minister John Howard once famously told Muslims in his country, "Live here, be Australian."

Many Muslims in America would be ecstatic to be listened to for a change and given the opportunity to make that choice openly. The ones that can't or won't we can do without, frankly.

We need to take a clear look at many of the almost one million Muslims President Obama has allowed into America during his term. Many of the ones let in as refugees have had little or no vetting, and a number of them have committed crimes, have been on public assistance for years or have certain undesirable associations. They need to be vetted properly.  In Sweden after a huge public outcry, over 80,000 Muslim refugees have had their visas cancelled and are  finally being deported, a fraction of what is needed demographically but at least a start. There's no reason America can't do the same. And no reason we can't have a temporary ban on migration from countries like Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, the Palestinian Authority and other countries with similar problematic ideologies.

If what I'm suggesting sounds vaguely familiar, it's pretty close to what President Franklin Roosevelt did after Pearl Harbor to secure the American homeland. He arrested and deported anyone whom looked, talked or smelled like a security risk, he completely broke up  groups like the Nazi funded  German-American Bund and some of their copycats, he strengthened controls on the border, and he gave the FBI carte blanche to monitor phone calls, mail, and cable traffic to root out spies and saboteurs. He didn't even shrink from interning Japanese citizens until the perceived danger to our Pacific Coast was no longer a problem.

Even more importantly, he got Americans involved in the war effort on the home front as well as Hollywood and  the media. They understood that temporary measures were necessary to save the country.And it worked fairly well, even if FDR was fairly blind to the Soviet spies and sympathizers in his own administration.  

What's even more interesting is that the majority of the American people actually seem to favor steps like this today. They're far smarter than their ruling class.

In terms of our military strategy, once our base is secure we need to be fairly hard line with countries that finance and import jihad or Islamism. It can no longer be business as usual with Qatar, the Saudis, The Emirates or Turkey.  Erdoğan is no ally of ours. Since our need for their oil is a thing of the past, we have a fair amount of leverage and persuasion  we can use.


We need to get rid of the PC brainwashing of our military, lose the ridiculous Rules of Engagement that actually endanger both our military and their mission and bring back superb combat generals like McCrystal,  Mattis and Carter Ham who were forced out of the service during the Obama Regime, and address the severe morale problem in our military as well replenishing its equipment and numbers.

We need to re-engage with Russia's Putin in areas of mutual interest, and revive our relations with the Israelis, the Kurds and our other friends in the Middle East like Egypt's President al-Sissi who recently begged for our help in taking out jihadis in Sinai and has not yet gotten an answer.  

And if we're going to  concentrate on defeating ISIS, we need to avoid George W. Bush's mistake of taking out the Sunni counterbalance to Shi'ite Iran as we did with Saddam Hussein. If we are really to win this war, we need a realistic plan not just to deal with ISIS but with Iran's threat as well. In terms of our national security, recognizing that both are equally dangerous is vital.

Do we have the stomach for this? Perhaps not. The rot  indeed goes deep. But delay in confronting an existential threat is like taking out a high interest loan on your future. You always play heavy interest, and if you delay too long, sometimes the price is even higher than you can pay and still survive.

 If our freedom means anything to us as a people, as a nation  we have no choice. Or rather we do, but that choice involves numerous atrocities committed on our soil, a horrendous body count  and the loss of everything  our Founders bequeathed to us.

The reality is that stark.


* "Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number..." Quran 5: 51

** "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."- Qu'ran, 9:29

(Pickthal translation. There are numerous similar statements recorded in the Qu'ran and Hadiths, the life, times and pronouncements of Mohammed as recorded by his closest followers.)

Posted by at 1 comment: Links to this post
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)