SlantRight 2.0

Thursday, February 11, 2016

F.B.I. AND OREGON POLICE KILLED A INNOCENT POLITICAL DISSIDENT

I have been following the Oregon incident with the Bundy ranchers holed up on a nature reserve to protest Bureau of Land Management (BLM) abuse of land despotically managed and usurped by the Federal government. The standoff led to mass arrests mostly of people that were protesting the BLM legally and one person who was a reporter probably because his reporting placed the government in a bad light and favorable toward ranchers. The standoff culminated in what I believe to be the unjustifiable murder of LaVoy Finicum by State and Federal police. The last post was a submission by Justin Smith which I felt was a decent summary up to the date.

I have been a bit surprised by those who usually demonstrate a lack of trust of information disseminated by government sources who support the storyline that Finicum was justifiably killed by authorities because he reached for a gun inside his vest when cornered by multiple armed police. On a personal level I don’t buy that explanation at least not with more information being released for public viewing. I expect a coverup.

Below is a post from Timothy Baldwin which I believe is closer to the truth.

JRH 2/11/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

F.B.I. AND OREGON POLICE KILLED A INNOCENT POLITICAL DISSIDENT

By Timothy N. Baldwin, JD.

February 11, 2016

NewsWithViews.com

As an introduction to my thoughts on Lavoy Finnicum's killing in Burns, Oregon, consider my article published in the Flathead Beacon's Two For Thought weekly Opinion section:

The FBI and Oregon police killed a rancher, Lavoy Finicum, last week. Savoy joined Ammon Bundy, among others, for three weeks in occupying a refuge on public lands in Burns. Like many Americans, the occupiers believed BLM had been long abusing power. Police released one video of the incident (but not other pertinent surveillance). Was this killing lawful?

Under the Fourth Amendment, police who use deadly force have a burden to prove their actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them based on the totality of the circumstances.

Regardless of one’s view of the occupation, the video raises issues regarding police’ actions: (1) Why block the highway in nowhere-ville? (2) Why use snipers and a dozen-plus officers? (3) Why not use spike strips to stop him? (4) When exactly was Lavoy likely to harm police?—when shot, Lavoy was facing no police, could barely walk in deep snow and held no gun. (5) Lavoy had not just committed a dangerous felony and fleeing therefrom. (6) Police had prior opportunities to serve an arrest warrant in a safe manner. (7) Why immediately rush Lavoy and spark conflict rather than contain the area and determine his actions?

The occupiers did not convince the greater part of society to aid them, given their seeming “state of war” approach. Still, if our laws can condemn Lavoy, they can also condemn police.

In fairness, there are some who are not normally forgiving to government abuse but believe police were justified in killing Lavoy: one such notable viewpoint on this incident is my dad, Chuck Baldwin. I, on the other hand, believe the video suggests that police were not justified in killing Lavoy when they did--even assuming he had a pistol inside his jacket and was reaching for it.

After Lavoy's death, his family was able to view his body. They released a press statement that they observed nine (9) bullet inserts in Lavoy's body. Police have yet to release autopsy records or comment on that statement; however, reports record police admitting that Lavoy was shot several times.

For now, assuming Lavoy was shot multiple times, those shots had to occur before the last shot--the kill shot to Lavoy's head, which dropped Lavoy to the snow-covered ground.

Since police did not release any audio or other videos--all of which they possess and could release--of the incident, the public does not know exactly when and how many times police shot Lavoy, with the exception of what appears to be the last shot to Lavoy's head.

Regardless of whether Lavoy was shot 9 (as Lavoy's family states) or a few times (as police state), the video shows that the last shot was the fatal head shot. Thus, the other shots were to his body before Lavoy was shot in the head. Of course, all of these shots had to happen within seconds after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up.

If Lavoy was shot more than once in his body before the last shot to his head, this supports the argument that quickly after Lavoy exited his vehicle with his hands up (signaling his surrender) police shot him in his body. This would have caused Lavoy to drop his hands where he was shot.

Since Lavoy dropped his hands to his body and statements from both Lavoy's family and police state that Lavoy was shot several times in his body, one must assume that Lavoy dropped his hands and placed them on his body where he was shot. Ironically, Lavoy's dropping his hands in this manner was the alleged justification for killing Lavoy.

Did police create the "justification" of killing Lavoy by shooting him in his body, which caused him to drop his hands?

Still, assuming police did not shoot Lavoy in his body before they shot him in his head (which means they shot him while he was dead on the ground--why would they do that?) and assuming Lavoy was reaching for a pistol inside his jacket or pocket (which is it?), the video reveals that the police who rushed out of the woods and charged Lavoy killed him prematurely.

The video shows two police charging Lavoy (one from the bottom and one from the top of the video) immediately after Lavoy exited his truck. This rush approach was not only unnecessary, but also needlessly provocative under these circumstances.

In a real sense, police created the exigency needed to kill Lavoy for "officer safety", similar to police creating the exigency of completely blocking the road in what appears to be a location that gave Lavoy very little time to slow down or stop his truck. (One would need to study Oregon's and federal laws of when and how road blocks are to be conducted: there are limits by law. See e.g. State v. Boyanovsky, 304 Ore. 131, 134, 743 P.2d 711, 712 (Or. 1987) (ruling road block was unconstitutional); see also Nelson v. Lane County, 304 Ore. 97, 125, 743 P.2d 692, 70 (Or. 1987) (discussion of constitutionality of road blocks).

This is clear from the video: police did not give Lavoy a reasonable opportunity to surrender and enough time to assess the danger level. Instead of the heavy force of police maintaining their positions behind cover until such time as Lavoy clearly demonstrated his intent, police--who appeared little concerned about containing the safety of everyone and use as little force as necessary--immediately charged Lavoy and quickly shot him.

But here are the factors that essentially demonstrate that police killed Lavoy unjustifiably.

During the short and quick period of time that the two aforementioned police rushed him, Lavoy (1) could hardly keep his footing in the deep snow, (2) had no gun in his hand, (3) had no meaningful opportunity to draw a pistol inside his clothing quickly enough to take accurate aim and shoot any nearby police, and (4) was not even facing the two nearest police (who charged him) when he was shot in the head and killed. The totality of these circumstances supports the conclusion that he was killed prematurely, or at a minimum, calls into question the police' claim of justification.

Assuming Lavoy would have pulled a gun at any time and posed a legitimate threat to a police officer, there were dozens of police ready and able to kill or disable Lavoy. This reality is what makes the actions of the two police who charged Lavoy appear so unnecessary, excessive and provocative. One must wonder how much training and experience the police had (especially who shot Lavoy) for these situations; what kind of briefing took place before the incident; and whether the rush tactic at a road block was preplanned or orchestrated.

Admittedly, more facts are needed to form a solid opinion here.

The government has a heavy burden of proof of justifying their killing of Lavoy. The released video and summary statement by police that since Lavoy was "going for a gun" police were justified in killing him do not meet that heavy burden: the totality of the circumstances simply does not appear to justify their killing Lavoy.

Police should release (as they should in time with demands from the Finnicum family attorneys) all of the evidence relative to the question, including:

• use of force reports

• incident reports

• police training manuals and certifications

• applicable warrants or court orders and affidavits in support

• written and recorded witness statements

• photos of entire scene and Lavoy's body

• in-car video surveillance of all vehicles and drones

• police body-cameras of all officers

• police policy and procedures (state and federal) for use of deadly force

• briefing memorandums

• dispatch records

• road block planning memorandums

• officer duty and task assignments

• autopsy report

• ballistic reports

One interested in justice would hope that the government does not withhold, destroy, lose or fabricate the evidence. Whether you agree with Lavoy and the Oregon occupiers or not, the government must follow the law. Accepting any other standard places all political dissidents and protestors in the government's absolute wrath and arbitrary use of deadly force. Liberty cannot survive in that environment.

Lastly, there are federal laws in effect to detain and prosecute "enemy combatants" and "domestic terrorists" who place themselves in a state of war with the United States. Notably, the federal and state governments did not treat Lavoy and the occupiers under such laws. Rather, they treated them as normal citizens of the United States who were simply breaking the law, such as criminal trespass, intimidation, and impeding an officer's investigation/duty. Therefore, Lavoy and the occupiers deserved the same treatment and respect of the law as you and I.

______________________

Timothy Baldwin, born in 1979, is an attorney licensed to practice law in Montana (and formerly Florida) and handles a variety of cases, including constitutional, criminal, and civil. Baldwin graduated from the University of West Florida in 2001 with a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree in English and Political Science. In 2004, Baldwin graduated from Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, AL with a Juris Doctorate (JD) degree. From there, Baldwin became an Assistant State Attorney in Florida. For 2 1/2 years, Baldwin prosecuted criminal actions and tried nearly 60 jury trials. In 2006, Baldwin started his private law practice and has maintained it since.

Baldwin is a published author, public speaker and student of political philosophy. Baldwin is the author of Freedom For A Change, Romans 13-The True Meaning of Submission, and To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns–all of which are available for purchase throughlibertydefenseleague.com. Baldwin has also authored hundreds of political articles relative to liberty in the United States of America. Baldwin has been the guest of scores of radio shows and public events and continues to exposit principles which the people in America will need to determine its direction for the future.

Web site: libertydefenseleague.com

Contact Tim Baldwin

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

World Interfaith Harmony Week – Feb 06, 2016

Shamim Masih

Roughly the first week of February annually is an interfaith harmony conference which roughly is entitled World Interfaith Harmony Week. A submission by Shamim Masih highlights the Pakistan version of which Shamim was a significant participant. Shamim is a major force to speak for the oppressed Christians languishing in Pakistan.

One of the disagreements I have with such events is that it is not possible for any religious faith to actually harmonize with Islam since that theopolitical religion’s primary directive is to turn the entire world into Islamic adherents. First by invitation. Then by oppression. And then if the non-Muslim refuses to to submit to Islamic suzerainty, by elimination.

Muslim apologists and the so-called Moderate Muslims will tell you that is not the real Islam; however Islamic revered writings contradict the “Islam is peace” paradigm when the real paradigm of Islam is submission - or else.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Murdering an American Patriot

There are a significant amount of pro-gun enthusiasts and Conservatives that have spreading speculation about the murder of LaVoy Finicum in an armed police shooting gallery. These people who may have been on the side of the Rancher standoff believe Finicum was reaching for his vest gun and that was when the police emptied a volley of bullets into Finicum.

Primarily due to the lack of sound in the aerial video taken of Finicum being shot, I am not convinced he was reaching for a gun in his vest. Many witnesses have established the vest reach was to Finicum's torso point of a bullet impact. Then after Finicum was down, witnesses cowering in fear of the designs of the Oregon State Police and the FBI assert Finicum's downed body continued to be shot. Was he already dead or were the police making sure he was dead? Witnesses claim Finicum exited his truck so the police would shoot him rather than the ladies with him in the truck. Until proven by documentation rather than the word of the police involved in shooting Finicum, I believe the witnesses rather than the police or the significant amount of pro-gun enthusiasts willing to throw Finicum under the bus. Yes, I AM STILL OUTRAGED! (A version of this paragraph was written hastily an update the post, “I AM OUTRAGED BY THE SHOOTING OF LaVoy Finicum.”)

Justin Smith shares some of his thoughts in his submission below.

JRH 2/8/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Murdering an American Patriot

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: February 7, 2016 6:59 PM

"You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war ... Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is a sin." -- The Book of James

On a lonely stretch of U.S. Highway 395, Robert LaVoy Finicum, spokesman for the Bundy group occupying the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, a grandfather, rancher and an American patriot, was murdered by federal authorities and Oregon State Troopers on January 26th, after repeated FBI assurances that he and his fellow protesters would be given safe passage to leave at any time. The murder of LaVoy, who was peacefully protesting the incarceration of Dwight and Steven Hammonds and in defense of the U.S. Constitution and our sacred rights, ever mindful of the fact he was armed as was his right, spilled the kindred blood that flows in the veins of all American patriots.

Their cause is just, true and righteous, and they accurately note that the federal government was limited by the Founders, under Article I, Section 8 and Clause 17 in regards to buying large parcels of State land and awing the State into an undue obedience to the federal government. The Founders never intended for the federal government to own 50% of the land west of Kansas, 65% of Utah, 56% of Oregon, or, as in this case, 76% of the 10,000 square miles that comprises Harney County and the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

These men are not "domestic terrorists" as alleged by the government. They are small business owners, military veterans and authors simply standing against the incredible over-regulation enacted by an unconstitutionally empowered Bureau of Land Management, which is acting on its own arbitrary agenda and strangling the efforts of private citizens to make use of their own private land to the best advantage for their lives and convenience -- to subdue and hold dominion over their land as commanded by our Creator.

In a Pacific Patriots Network interview, Susy Pearce, a rancher who drove 6.5 hours from Plumas County, California to join the protest on January 2nd, said: "We feel the same way they do about the overreach of the federal government. If you're a rancher, you get taxed, fined and ... overregulated to death." And then she teared up as she spoke of Finicum, who she knew and respected, calling him an "amazing man ... smart and honest" and naming his death an "outrageous, uncalled-for murder."

Dwight Hammonds and his son Steven were charged with nine separate federal charges in connection with the 2001 and 2006 planned burns on their own property to eradicate invasive juniper trees. Although the fires burned about 140 acres of BLM land, the damage was primarily to open range land; and, the over-zealous prosecution of the Hammonds on arson charges and their subsequent 5-year sentence was unfounded and malicious, especially in light of all the facts.

Incredibly, the Hammonds lost their appeal before District Chief Judge Ann Aiken last October and they were ordered to finish their five year sentences. How could the Ninth Circuit Court ignore the fact that the Hammonds and the BLM had simultaneous fires ongoing with numerous smaller fires caused by lightning strikes? How could Judge Aiken find them guilty of arson, when they had received permission from the BLM to light the fires, as sworn by Dwight's wife Susan?

Many range conservationists, technicians and watershed specialists, such as Erin Maupin and Rusty Inglis, testified that the Hammond fires were beneficial and improved rangeland conditions. It is also important to note that the 2006 "arson", the Krumbo Butte Fire in the Malheur Refuge, started with lightning strikes, and Steven Hammonds only started a back fire in an attempt to save his ranch's winter feed.

Deeper investigation reveals that the Hammonds were the last hold-outs standing in the way of the Oregon Natural Desert Association's and the BLM's plan for a 100,000 "cow-free wilderness", by which many ranchers traded their BLM permits and private property in the Steens Mountain area for land on the valley floor. They felt this was the only way to prevent a pending monument designation after the fashion of the 2000 Clinton/ Babbitt designation.

Rusty Inglis, with 34 years in the U.S. Forest Service in Oregon, stated: "The Hammonds are not arsonists. They are number one ... They know their land management. It's become more obvious over the years that the BLM and the wildlife refuge want that ranch."

This is the very sort of federal abuse of power foreseen by many respected American leaders in the early 1800s and written about by Justice Joseph Story in 1833 in his 'Commentaries'. They believed too much land in the hands of the federal government would enable the growth of tyranny from these lands, and "a system of laws (BLM regulations) incompatible with the nature and principles of a representative democracy, though not likely to be introduced at once, may be matured by degrees, and diffuse its influence through the states, and finally lay the foundation of the most important changes in the nature of the federal government."

By all accounts, LaVoy Finicum was headed to a meeting in order to secure a peaceful resolution to this standoff, when he and Ryan and Ammon Bundy and two female passengers and Ryan Payne encountered the roadblock ambush, in which the FBI fired the first shots after Payne looked out the passenger window. Without returning fire, LaVoy announced his intentions to confer with the Sheriff, according to eyewitness and passenger Victoria Sharp, and as he drove away a hail of FBI bullets followed; it was at this point LaVoy veered off the road and exited the vehicle with his hands up.

Moments later, as seen in an FBI video, LaVoy drops his hands and makes several side-to-side movements. Without any accompanying sound, it is not readily discernible if LaVoy's actions were a result of him being shot first or if he was in fact reaching for his pistol: This case has an eerily similar dark cloud accompanying it, as the events that surrounded federal criminal wrongs in relation to the Randy Weaver case and the murders of his family members.

"It was an assassination", said Harney County resident Monte Seigner. "He had his hands up. He didn't have a gun in his hands, and he wasn't threatening no one."

Susy Pearce said, "I don't think they (the Feds) intended for any of them to survive", as she referred to the occupants of Finicum's vehicle, including 18-year-old Victoria Sharp. "I think he sacrificed himself to save them." [Bold emphasis by Blog Editor]

Arianna Finicum Brown, 26, one of Finicum's 11 children, said: "My dad was such a good man, through and through. He would never want to hurt somebody, but he does believe in defending freedom and he knew the risks involved."

A few days before he and the Bundy brothers were ambushed by federal agents using excessive, unprovoked and unjustified force, Robert LaVoy Finicum stated in an interview "some things are more important than life, and defending liberty is one of them."

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

© Justin O. Smith

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk

I belong to a Yahoo Group that calls itself the Conservative Christian Counselors. The group has created an acronym for their group which is "ccpga." I am ashamed to say that I am at a loss to how the group derived the acronym "ccpga" from Conservative Christian Counselors. I'm guilty of being an off and on again participator over a number of years and I have never paid much attention to anything but the posted messages which are quite good most of the time.

This Yahoo group is listed as "restricted" so there is a good chance you will not be able to read any of those posts without becoming an approved member. The link I provided above is to the about page.

So, what the heck with the minor group history?

A prominent posting member that goes by the Pseudonym Beowulf found a David Bukay who is a professor at a university in Israel. The original post, "Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk," was posted at Modern Diplomacy on January 27. This is the version I am cross posting here. Beowulf cross posted the ccpga version on February 7.

JRH 2/7/16

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

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

Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk

By David Bukay

January 27, 2016

Modern Diplomacy in New Social Compact

Hatred to the other is one of the main sources as much as commandments in Islam. It is this old inherent religiously commanded hatred that is behind the terrorism of Jihad against the infidels and the criminality of the Muslims in so many places and regions around the world.

Hatred cannot be detached from Islam because it is in fact indoctrinated and motivated by Islam. The Nazi era has taught us that hatred is one of the most important policies that lead to apartheid and genocide. The Qur'an teaches hatred and commands to hate the infidels. The Islamic Caliphate State (ICS) is proving it time and again, even by destroying the archeological sites, the wonders of thIe old Middle East.

Consider the elements that define hate speech: drawing a moral comparison based on distinction between one's own identity group and those outside of it; dehumanization of other groups and insistence of personal superiority against these groups; and a call to all kind of atrocities perpetuated against other groups.

The Islamic Shari'ah qualifies as hate religion on each and every count by which we define hate speech. There is no other religion that draws such sharp distinction between its community of believers and others outside Islam.

a) Its message inspires loathing for others and the Qur'an mandates the superiority of Islam by all means. According to Muslim exegetes, there are seven major features of the superiority of Arab-Muslims over others, based on the Qur'an, among them, they are the best Ummah ever brought forth to men, bidding good (Ma'rûf) and forbidding evil (Munkar); they hold the pillar of superiority over all other world communities; and they will wage war on the people of error and the Anti-Christ.

b) It draws a deep distinction between Muslims and the others, called Kuffār, and it incites to violence and hatred. Islam is ethnocentric religion and political culture. It differentiates the world between Dār al-Islām against Dār al-Harb; between the good and righteous society and the bad and unclean society. It is Halāl against Haram; it is the right against wrong; it is the pious against the evil-doers; it is Paradise or Hell. There is nothing positive in the Qur'an and the Sharī'ah for non-Muslims who are all infidels.

c) It perpetuate legitimizes atrocities and butchering of non-Muslims whenever they are. There are 527 verses that are intolerant to the infidels, and 109 verses calling on Muslims to make war on the infidels. As Muslims see it, Islam is for everyone in the human race and should be expanded as a winning religion, by force or persuasion, until all human beings proclaim that "there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger." Jihad is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam, and its merits are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works.

In ancient as much as in contemporary world, Islamic dominance is characterized by the oppression and discrimination of non-Muslims, all defined as infidels (Kuffār, Kāfirun). There are no "unbelievers" or "disbelievers" in the Qur'an and the Sharī'ah at large but only infidels or apostates. This is not only a subjective issue, but deep categorical. 'Unbeliever' can get neutral in conception, 'infidel' is totally different. The pattern of aggressive violence and disregard for human suffering is persistent in Islam and reflects the message of the Qur'an, which is one of superiority, loath and hatred. 64 percent of the Qur'an and 61 percent of the overall Sharī'ah is related to the infidels, and there is not even one positive stand in favor for them. They are all an integral part of the abode of Hellfire.

The Kuffār are the vilest animals and beasts; the worst of creatures and demons, perverted transgressors and partners of Satan (al-'Imrān, 3:82, 110; al-Nisā', 4:76; al-A'arāf, 7:176; al-Anfāl, 8:55). The Kuffār are to be beheaded. Muslims must strike off their heads and their fingertips (al-Anfāl, 8:12; Muhammad, 47:4). The Kuffār are to be terrorized. Muslims are to cast terror into the hearts of the infidels, their abode is the Hell-fire (al-'Imrān, 3:151; al-Anfāl, 8:12, 8:60; al-Ahzāb, 33:26; al-Hashr, 59:2). The Kuffār are to be annihilated until the religion of Allah is the only one. They are to be killed wherever they are found, since persecution is severer than slaughter. Muslims are obliged to slay them until there is no persecution, and religion is only Allah's. This commandment includes not only the infidels and the idolaters, but also the hypocrites and the polytheists, as their abode is Hell-fire (al-Baqarah, 2:191; 193; al-Nisā', 4:89, 91; al-Anfāl, 8:39; al-Taubah, 9:36, 73, 111, 123; al-Tahrīm, 66:9). The Kuffār are to be crucified (al-Mā'idah, 5:33). They are the constant fuel of the fire burn in Hell (al-'Imrān, 3:10; al-Taubah, 9:17; Ibrāhīm, 14:30; al-Nahl, 16:29; al-Anbīyā', 21:98; al-Hajj, 22:19; al-Ahzāb, 33:64; al-Saff, 61:11; al-Mû'min, 48:13). "Hostility and hate" exist between the Kuffār and the Muslim believers forever until they "believe in Allah alone" (al-Taubah, 9:28, 32, 69).

The Egyptian intellectual Sami al-Rabbā' has elaborated:

If you say that Islam is a violent faith, you are accused of being anti-Islam and "Islamophobe". Yet, the main of the Qur'an are passages full of incitement and hatred, Jihad-killing and war-mongering.

The educational system is the main source of indoctrination and socialization to hatred and it works almost as a production line. The Muslims start the politics of hatred and Jihad ideology from infancy. The children learn to hate before everything, even without knowing why: at home, in the mosques and in schools, Madāris. They hate the infidels, because they are what they are, and not because they know anything about them. The hatred is in their drink and foods, and this fuel directs and motivates the massacres and lynches that are so pervasive around the world.

The contemporary radicalization of the Muslim youth, the "third generation" Muslims living in the Western world is enormous and alarming. A report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization in London claims that "European jihadists in Syria are more numerous than official statistics indicate. Indeed, they point to the existence of entire French-speaking and German-speaking brigades in the Aleppo region." Many of them are radicalizing through the Internet extremist websites and YouTube videos; others are led by imams at mosques; and others, converted to Islam, men and women, volunteer for sex Jihad.

Sa'id al-Hamad, a liberal thinker from Bahrain

The 'culture of backwardness' dominates the Arab world, and it includes 'culture of terrorism,' which adopts beheading and lynching people; and the 'culture of hatred,' which propagates in the minds and consciousness of the youth deep hatred to the world.

Islam's conceptions and behavior

Muslim groups and organizations are violent politically and fanatic religiously. Muslims cover their activities by using religious argumentations as an excuse and motivation to their behavior towards the other. Whether they butcher and cut-off heads of infidels of the West; or terrorize their own Muslim believers, Sunnis and Shiites; or massacre minorities of all kinds, mainly Christians; or when they establish Islamic institutions and mosques in Western states; or when they commit acts of horrible homicide bombings and terrorism; or when they conquer, Islamize and Arabize vast territories; or when they commit ethnic cleansing, apartheid and mass holocausts -- for example, the Hindus and the Armenians in the past, and Christians today; or when they coerce and intimidate, Muslims always claim they do it in defense.

Another astonishing issue is that Muslim exegetes, preachers and propagators speak only in complete and absolute terms about their religion's values, without the slightest self-criticism and doubts: 'Islam is absolutely a religion of peace and harmony;' 'Islam is totally devoted to promote peace around the world;' 'Jihad is absolutely and totally defined in terms of defense;' 'aggression is used only rarely, when the Muslims have no other choice to defend their religion and their self;' 'there is nothing in Islam that is against tolerance, democracy and peaceful relations;' and 'Islam tolerates all other religions, acts peacefully and preaches for human cooperation and collaboration.'

One finds these slogans abound in books, article, and media resources. It is so pervasive and so totalistic that it becomes almost impossible to argue and to debate with them. Their cultural conceptions; their totalistic approach as being always and under all circumstances the righteous side; and their ethnocentric conceptions make it impossible to argue with them in rational and according to the 'golden rule' values.

However, when one elaborates the many verses of the Qur'an and the commandments of the Shrī'ah, he immediately attacked and mocked off as an ignorant of Islam and dismissed as being biased evil Muslim: "you don't understand the real true meaning of the scriptures;" "you don't know Arabic;" "you hate Islam and prove Islamophobia exists;" "you prove by your words the white man discrimination of imperialism and colonialism;" "you are racist and oppressive;" and other accusations according to Arab-Islamic imagination and aggression.

What Arab-Islamic history and contemporary tell us?

This is the political language of the Muslim scholars, spokesmen and propagators. Yet, one has to recall the following: the origin of the Arabs and Islam is in Arabian Peninsula. All the vast areas that have been conquered from year 632 on are the result of one of the deepest colonialist and imperialist occupation characterized by process of Arabization and Islamization of the occupied territories. The Middle East was mainly Pharaonic; Phoenician; Babilonian; Ugarit; Chaldean; Jewish, and Berber in North-Africa. Iran was Sassanid; Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan were Buddhist. Indeed, Islamic occupations of the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Europe and Asia were all imperialist-colonialist of the worst kind, as they have constantly become Arabized and Islamized.

The invasion out of Arabia was conducted under political ideological ambitions clocked in a religious banner and as an intrinsic part of Islamic doctrine. This process of occupation ended by ethnic cleansing and deportations of the indigenous population; massacres and genocide of peoples; huge slavery by hundreds of millions; and racist policies of Apartheid.

The Palestinian sociologist, Ali 'Issa Othman, states his conviction that

The spread of Islam was military. There is a tendency to apologize for this, and we should not. It is one of the injunctions of the Qur'an that you must fight for the spreading of Islam.

Indeed, Islam has never been a tolerant, peaceful religion. It is not intolerant as a response to other's intolerance, but it is inherently intolerant, racist and war-mongering by itself, according to its religious doctrine. Islamic hostility that practices a policy of systematic Jihad against the other are not a modern phenomenon, but deeply rooted in the Qur'an. It has been operated systematically from the 7th century on until today.

Moreover, against the religious command to love their own fellow believers, Muslims massacre by millions other Muslims. Today, it is represented by the emergence of groups and organizations that follow the Islamic ancestors' tradition, Salafiyah, with the following division: traditional (Salafīyah Taqlīdīyah), represented by the Muslim Brotherhood parties; Jihadi (Salafīyah Jihadīyah), represented by al-Qaeda and its regional organizations (like AQAP, AQIM, al-Shabab in Somalia, Boko Haram in Nigeria, Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria); and Takfīri (Salafiyah Takfīrīyah), represented the Islamic Caliphate State.

The objectives of Islamic hatred

The Qur'an makes it clear that Islam is not about universal brotherhood and cooperation, but the brotherhood of the community of believers. The Qur'an says that all other religions as such are cursed by Allah. Whoever does not believe in Muhammad and totally follow him; whoever contends with Muhammad and Islamic tenets it means heresy that deserves death. It is the nature of Islam to dominate and not to be dominated; to rule and not to be ruled; to be superior on all the infidels. The Muslim vision is clear: there is one universe, and it must be under the banner of Islam. All humanity must submit to Islam as the supreme religion.

The Islamic excuses of the past are no more relevant. The claims they revenge only at acts that are committed against them; acts that humiliate their honor and their souls; or for defense of their nation and soil; and all other sorts of fairy-tales for the consumption of Western media to publish and public opinion to impress - these excuses are no more relevant. The fact is that Muslim groups and organizations murder and butcher and operate all kinds of horrible atrocious acts of violence are exactly for political reasons under the cloak of religious issues and as a result of cultural reasoning. They wish to conquer the world, to impose their religion and culture, and they do not feel any shame or guilt remorse. From their vantage point, they are entitled to possess everything, as it is promised in the Qur'an. They have never given up the prophetic message that Islam must dominate the entire world, and they have all the patience (Sabr) in time to bring these ambitions come true.

The Saudi legal expert, Basem 'Alem states it clearly:

As a member of the only true religion, I have a greater right to invade others in order to impose the Shari'ah, which history has proven to be the best and most just of all civilizations. This is the true meaning of Jihad. When we wage Jihad, it is not in order to convert people to Islam, but in order to liberate them from the dark slavery in which they live.

This is apparent in an interview with Ayat Allah Kamil, a Palestinian woman who had tried to carry out a suicide bombing. When asked by the Guardian journalist: "Do you have any dreams for the future?" She responded

My deep belief and wishes that the whole world becoming Islamic, a world in which we will all live in peace, joy, and harmony, all of us, human beings, animals, flowers, plants, and stones. Islam will even bring peace to vegetables and animals, the grass and the stones... And you will be able to remain Jewish, whatever you want; it doesn't matter, but only in an Islamic world.

…and its consequences and repercussions

The Western world reaction to this reality if fear and intimidation. One of the fresh examples is the case of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a victim of genital mutilation in infancy and a victim of Islamic persecution today. Now she has been subjected to yet another example of Western cowardice and hypocrisy. Brandeis University has decided not to award her an honorary degree. As Arnold Ahlert observes, Brandeis honored Desmond Tutu who was an overt anti-Semite, and asserted that the Holocaust's gas chambers made for "a neater death" than did Apartheid. He regularly accuses the Jewish State of ethnic cleansing, and insists that Zionism has "very many parallels with racism." Brandeis also honored the playwright Tony Kushner, despite his overt anti-Semitism for Israel. He also accused the Jewish State of ethnic cleansing, and insisted its creation "was a mistake."

Nevertheless they have been given the honorary degree. A similar case was also the University of Haifa decision not to grant an honorary doctorate to Nobel Prize laureate Yisrael Aumann, "because of his political views," but has awarded the extreme leftist anti-Zionist Shulamit Aloni the honorary degree without hesitation.

The question is why the academia, the media, and governments in the West, founded on liberalism and secularism, would not only refuse to counter Islamic Jihad and Da'wah onslaught against other civilizations but even deny that Islam is not compatible with the basic values of freedoms and civil rights? The answer is surprisingly simple: because they are frightened, because they are intimidated and terrorized. They are frightened of being accused of Islamophobia and racism; they are intimidated by brutal savage forces that threaten and actually attack them; they are terrorized by anarchic and chaotic groups of ruffians; and they are paralyzed by Islam's real intent to bring us all to its 7th century traditions and way of life. Part of them, mainly the academia and the cultural hedonists, act along these lines because they hate the west and its values and they perceive Islam as a cure to what they call 'Western malaise;' as they embrace sick and twisted ideologies based on neo-Bolshevism and neo-Fascism.

The best to exhibit the mired reality of this Western world's situation is the example of the British newspaper, the Guardian's cartoonist and head of the British Cartoonist Association, Tim Benson. Anti-Semite in profession, he often sketches horrible graphic cartoons against Israel, but never against Islam and the Palestinians. When asked about this, his answer was pure and simple: I am afraid. It means, he can draw anything against Israel, the Jews, Christianity and Buddhism, and nothing happens, but he would not dare to do that when Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians are concerned. He does not want to be persecuted like Salman Rushdie, or be butchered like Theo Van Goch [sic], to mention the few.

The academia and the media worldwide are sick, and Israeli academia and media represent a pure tragic example of this sickness, because Israel is in the forefront of the war of civilizations, the last fortified dam before the deluge. Unless these two important organs of Western society's body that hold crucial influence on the governmental apparatus decision making stop their submission and capitulation to the forces of evil, the Western world is doomed.

Those in power are still terrified of offending Islam. Honor killing is still overwhelmingly an Islamic tradition; gender equality simply does not exist within Muslim culture and jurisprudence; women still have very few rights and are treated like beasts in Muslim states; women rape victims are punished even to death in large parts of the Middle East; and women are still forced to cover their entire bodies in dark tent. Islamic immigration wrack and havoc Western societies; and the Muslim's third generation proves to be the most extremist and fanatic, and still Western governments appease Islam and actually even unintentionally promote its victory.

The Muslim women's clothing is the symbol to Western world's sick era. If "Sunlight is the best disinfectant," then Western civilization is marching courageously to a dark era in which Islam determines the values of the future. This is a darkness era that clouds the minds of those in power in the West, as much as in the academia and the media, not to see the bright sights of Islam's brutal onslaught of Jihad; not to hear the clear voices of Islam's targets operated by Da'wah; and not to smell the scent of Islamic blood-hunt that wishes to smash our freedoms and civil rights and to re-mold Western civilization according to their traditions.

This almost constitutes a perpeteum [sic?] mobile, which leads to a simple mathematics: if the number of the Islamic fanatics produced by hatred is higher than those the Free World can neutralize, it means that it is losing the war of civilizations. Indeed, the Western world's mired situation is so intimidating that it refuses to tell even to itself that Islam is engaging in a Third World War against us, and we even do not fight back, but appease and pay protection money. What we are really dealing with is not Islamophobia, but the acute danger of Islamophilia and Islamization of the Free World's civilization.

____________________

About MD

February 16, 2015

The Modern Diplomacy is a leading European opinion maker - not a pure news-switchboard. Today's world does not need yet another avalanche of (disheartened and decontextualized) information, it needs shared experience and honestly told opinion.

Determined to voice and empower, to argue but not to impose, the MD does not rigidly guard its narrative.

Contrary to the majority of media-houses and news platforms, the MD is open to everyone coming with the firm and fair, constructive and foresighted argumentation.

Balanced geographic, political and generational participation is essential to us. You will hardly find a North Korean and an American from Pentagon sitting in the same Advisory Board as we do have in the MD.

If you ask yourself what connects an Artic polar environmentalist and a tropical country traditionalist, a young businesswoman entrepreneur from north of Europe or South Africa and the former Secretary General of the eldest European institution – Council of Europe, or what puts together a musician from New York, with a President of Constitutional Court in Europe or with a scientist from Japan, a poet and a cabinet minister – it is a honesty and authenticity that we offer – and therefore, all of them are proudly in our Board.

DONATE

Thursday, February 11, 2016

F.B.I. AND OREGON POLICE KILLED A INNOCENT POLITICAL DISSIDENT

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

World Interfaith Harmony Week – Feb 06, 2016

Monday, February 8, 2016

Murdering an American Patriot

Sunday, February 7, 2016

Islam and Hatred: Why the Free World Civilization is at Risk

Get new posts by email:

STORE: HEALTHY COFFEE