All posts by Infidels

Only in the Islamic world could a zombie movie be classified as porn

WordPress allied with CAIR in the war against free speech?

How can you deny what you claim to stand for WordPress? WordPress took down Bare Naked Islam Blog today after threats from CAIR.

CAIR has been declared a terrorist-affiliated group and the FBI is banned from dealing with them. Must still be in bed with Obama though.

CAIR is dedicated to spreading the falsehood of Islamophobia, a term coined by the Muslim Brotherhood to try and stop freedom and democratic principles around the world. It is a proven fact Muslims commit the majority of terrorist activities in the world, and are less likely to suffer bias or hate crimes as any other minority in the US and the free world.

We dont hate you for you, we hate your religion based on a documented pedophile warlord who dreamed he saw God during a epileptic seizure. Radical Islam must be stopped. Just thinking of these monsters is not going to eradicate the suspicion that many Americans have of Muslims. This is because Americans are concerned about Islam not because of the work of greasy Islamophobes, but because of Naser Abdo, the would-be second Fort Hood jihad mass murderer; and Khalid Aldawsari, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Lubbock, Texas; and Muhammad Hussain, the would-be jihad bomber in Baltimore; and Mohamed Mohamud, the would-be jihad bomber in Portland; and Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square jihad mass-murderer; and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, the Arkansas military recruiting station jihad murderer; and Naveed Haq, the jihad mass murderer at the Jewish Community Center in Seattle; and Mohammed Reza Taheri-Azar, the would-be jihad mass murderer in Chapel Hill, North Carolina; Ahmed Ferhani and Mohamed Mamdouh, who hatched a jihad plot to blow up a Manhattan synagogue; and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the would-be Christmas airplane jihad bomber; and many others like them who have plotted and/or committed mass murder in the name of Islam and motivated by its texts and teachings — all in the U.S. in the last couple of years.There have been as of this posting 18,207 terror attacks since 9/11. Is this not war?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) announced today that an anti-Muslim Internet hate site that contained a number of threats of violence targeting mosques, including the comment “I want [Muslim] blood on my hands,” has been taken down by its hosting company.

CAIR said visitors to “Bare Naked Islam,” hosted by, now see the message: “ is no longer available. This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.”

[NOTE: “Bare Naked Islam” was one of the major promoters of the campaign to pressure Lowe’s to drops its ads from TLC’s “All-American Muslim.”]

Last month, CAIR called on the FBI to investigate the threats of violence targeting mosques posted on the blog and urged to remove it for violating the hosting company’s terms of service (TOS), which prohibit blogs that “contain threats or incite violence towards individuals or entities.” Articles and comments posted on “Bare Naked Islam” urged attacks on and desecration of American and European mosques.

Has WordPress not seen any of the absolute hate blogs BY Muslims spouting antisemitism and openly preach genocide against Israel and the Jews that overflow the blogsphere?

Guess they need reminded…

“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ”


An Unavoidable Challenge – Now is the time to make the case for military action against Iran

Our political calendar and one of our nation’s greatest threats have synchronized. In the upcoming year, the American people will render their judgment on Barack Obama’s presidency. Meanwhile, if the International Atomic Energy Agency‘s November report is accurate, Iran will soon join the ranks of the world’s nuclear powers. Because of the Obama administration’s reluctance to confront this looming threat, others — such as the Republican presidential candidates — must begin preparing the case for a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

Republican frontrunners have seized upon the threat. In last month’s South Carolina debate, Mitt Romney promised that Iran “will not have a nuclear weapon” under his presidency. Economic sanctions and aid to internal opposition come first, said the former Massachusetts governor, but “if all else fails . . . [and] there’s nothing else we can do besides take military action, then of course you take military action.”

Newt Gingrich, the frontrunner in several early states, heartily agrees. In the South Carolina debate, Gingrich proposed covert operations, including “taking out their scientists” and “breaking up their systems,” and a Cold War-style strategy “of breaking the regime and bringing it down.” But the former House speaker “agree[s] entirely” with Romney that, should pressure fail, “you have to take whatever steps are necessary” to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

In this game of diplomatic poker, the Republicans would go all in where the last administration and the present one have checked. Though he declares that “we don’t take any options off the table,” President Obama avoids explicit military threats. Instead he seeks to “isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime.” He naïvely hoped to negotiate a settlement with Tehran (and Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea!), but he has ended up in the same place as his predecessor. George W. Bush declined to attack Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. He also passed on striking a suspected Syrian nuclear facility (the Israelis destroyed it in 2007). Like Obama, he pursued economic sanctions and applied political pressure to foster Iranian regime change.

President Obama has done more than merely delay the inevitable day of reckoning with Iran. He has left the public uninformed about the nature and possible consequences of military action, which must be serious and sustained enough to destroy complex, protected, and dispersed facilities — pinpoint bombing of a single facility will not end Iran’s nuclear program. Iran might respond by attacking Israel, Arab allies such as Saudi Arabia, and oil shipments in the Persian Gulf. President Obama has also failed to explain the heavy costs of containment, which would involve a constant, significant conventional and nuclear military presence on Iran’s perimeter.

Obama has compounded this political negligence by failing to build the legal case for attacking Iran. Instead, the administration has tethered American national security to the dictates of the United Nations. In Libya, Obama delayed launching the air war until the Security Council approved the intervention, allowing a popular revolution to metastasize into a prolonged, destructive civil war. The same craving for international approval may lead the administration to put off military action against Iran until it is too late.

The U.N. Charter guarantees the “territorial integrity” and “political independence” of each member nation, and prohibits the use of force except in self-defense, which many scholars and international officials interpret to mean that force is prohibited except when an invader has attacked across a border or is about to do so. It does provide an exception for war to prevent threats to international peace and security, but only if approved by the Security Council (where the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, and China all have a veto). Not surprisingly, U.N. authorizations to use force are rare. China and Russia, both Security Council members, generally oppose intervention in what they consider “internal” affairs, including policies that repress political and economic freedoms. They can usually be counted on to protect other oppressive regimes by blocking U.N. approval for war, as they did in Iraq in 2003.

Just as national governments claim a monopoly on the use of force within their borders and in exchange offer police protection, the U.N. asks nations to give up their right to go to war and in exchange offers to police the world. But the U.N. has no armed forces of its own, has a crippled decision-making system, and lacks political legitimacy. It is contrary to both American national interests and global welfare because it subjects any intervention, no matter how justified or beneficial, to the approval of authoritarian nations.

Thankfully, the U.S. has not often waited for the Security Council’s permission to protect its interests. But if the president seeks U.N. authorization for a military action against Iran, his administration will have to make a case much like the one that the Bush administration made regarding Iraq. It can argue that destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons is a combination of self-defense and protecting international security. Nuclear weapons in the hands of an obvious enemy would constitute a grave threat to American interests. Even without them, Iran has fomented conflict in the region, supported groups hostile to Israel through its client state Syria, supported terrorists who target American allies such as Saudi Arabia, and attacked American troops in Iraq. It has also supported attacks on our embassies and military bases in places such as Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, planned to kill ambassadors on American soil, and of course taken our diplomatic officials hostage. Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to escalate hostilities with little fear of any large-scale American military response. If Saddam Hussein had succeeded in his drive to build nuclear weapons, would the United States have gone to war in 1991 to protect a small, oil-rich sheikdom?

A president need not wait until an attack is imminent before taking action. Iranian nuclear capabilities would cause a radical reversal of the balance of power, and that fact justifies action in itself. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Pres. John F. Kennedy imposed a blockade, which is an act of war, though his legal advisers claimed it was a “quarantine” instead. Soviet nuclear missiles were not fueling on the launch pads, but President Kennedy used force because the Russian deployment upset the superpower equilibrium in the Western Hemisphere.

Even realists who criticize a pro-democracy agenda should support the prevention of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. Iran seeks to export its fundamentalist revolution, with its brutal suppression of individual rights and free markets, throughout the region. It stokes the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Its president hopes to wipe Israel from the map. It undermines reconstruction and reconciliation in Iraq. It supports terrorists throughout the world. It threatens to close off the Straits of Hormuz, through which travels 17 percent of the oil traded worldwide. It has attacked shipping in the Persian Gulf. A nuclear Iran could expand its asymmetric warfare against its neighbors, or even escalate into conventional warfare, with little fear of direct retaliation.

Military action need not go so far as an invasion or even a no-fly zone. Our forces would have to destroy Iranian air-defense sites, but otherwise, thanks to precision-guided missiles and drones, they could concentrate on a few links in the Iranian nuclear chain: the centrifuge facilities where uranium is enriched, the assembly points for weapons, and perhaps missile and air-delivery systems.

The surgical nature of such strikes would make them proportional to the military objective, which would be not the overthrow of the Iranian regime but the destruction of its nuclear capability. Nuclear-weapons infrastructure is a legitimate military target, even if some strikes may kill civilians. If casualties result because facilities are located beneath cities, the fault rests with the Iranians for deliberately using civilians to shield its military — a move long forbidden by the laws of war. Unlike Iranian-supported terrorist groups, the United States will assuredly do everything possible to keep civilian loss of life to a minimum.

The United States has assumed the role, once held by Great Britain, of guaranteeing free trade and economic development, spreading liberal values, and maintaining international security. An attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, though it would impose costs in human lives and political turmoil, would serve these interests and forestall the spread of conflict and terror. The Republican presidential candidates should begin preparing the case now for this difficult but unavoidable challenge.

Mr. Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He served in the Bush Justice Department from 2001 to 2003 and is the co-editor of Confronting Terror.

December 19, 2011


It’s Time for Al-Assad to Go

In Syria men, women, and children pray, protest and cry out for a better future, for themselves, and for their country. And then they are brutally murdered for it.

English: International Criminal Court (ICC) logo

Since January 2011 more than 5,000 people have been killed, over 50,000 declared missing, another 59,000 incarcerated and upwards of 16,000 have been dispossessed by the Assad regime. Shabeeha, a notorious Alawite paramilitary, backed by the Syrian army have deployed tanks, artillery, helicopters and snipers as means to quell the uprising. Utilities have been cut, and security forces have resorted to confiscating flour and food.  The Syrian Army has besieged the cities of Daraa, Duma, Baniyas, Hama, Homs, Aleppo, Talkalakh, Rastan, Jisr ash-Shughur, Deir ez-Zor, and Latakia, among other towns. If that wasn’t enough Iran’s revolutionary guard and their servants Hezbollah have helped out with the sectarian murder.

That brings us to today, and the indisputable proof the Arab League cannot handle the mission.

Lt Gen Mohammed Ahmed Mustapha al-Dabi, head of the mission, described the city of Homs, where it is thought more than 1,000 people have been killed, as being “nothing frightening”, although he conceded “Some places looked a bit of a mess but there was nothing frightening,” he added. “Yesterday was quiet and there were no clashes. We did not see tanks but we did see some armored vehicles. But remember this was only the first day and it will need investigation.”

The objections to al-Dabi’s presence appeared in a statement from the Doctors Local Committee in Damascus. The remarks showed up in a post on the website of the Local Coordinating Committees of Syria, a major opposition activist network.

“The appointment of al-Dabi taints the Arab League’s efforts and characterizes it as nothing more than a political farce, causing little help but much harm to the situation in Syria. We call for a fair, independent observer mission to be allowed full and unrestricted access to all areas of Syria. It would be more appropriate, in our view, in the circumstances of the current conflict, for the United Nations to be mandated to conduct the monitoring mission,” the statement said.

. Rebels in Darfur have fought government forces and allied militiamen, such as the Janjaweed, since 2003. The United Nations reported as many as 300,000 people were killed and there has been widespread displacement over the years in Darfur, located in western Sudan.

The International Criminal Court, investigating genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, issued arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, then-government minister Ahmed Harun, Janjaweed leader Ali Kushayb, and Defense Minister Abdelrahim Mohamed Hussein. It issued summonses to appear for Abdallah Banda and Saleh Jerbo, two rebel leaders accused of spearheading an attack that killed 12 African Union peace-keepers.

An Arab League source told CNN that the claims against al-Dabi “come with no evidence. “

But the Syrian opposition statement said al-Dabi was a director of Sudan’s military intelligence “during the early years” of al-Bashir’s “salvation regime.”

“He was later appointed as head of Foreign Intelligence before he returned in 1996 to the military as the Deputy Chief of General Staff. It was during this time that Al-Dabi is accused of allowing or at the very least, turning a blind eye, to mass atrocities being committed in Darfur,” the statement said.

“Although not the subject of an investigation by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, his role as the deputy head of Foreign Intelligence, raises questions as to his knowledge of mass atrocities in Darfur and consequently his role as the head of an investigative commission tasked with identifying whether the al-Assad regime is responsible for committing crimes against humanity.”

The opposition movement says there is widespread “incredulity” and “condemnation” over the appointment because of his roles in Sudan.

“Al-Dabi is now tasked with probing war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed against Syria victims. It is enough that the Syrian victims have had to wait this long for an observer mission, with calls being made as early as April 2011. Now over 30 of the members of the Arab League observer mission are of Sudanese origin,” the statement said.

Abdel Karim Rihawi, the head of Syrian Human Rights League based in Cairo, also complained to the Arab League about al-Dabi and the Darfur connection.

“This is not acceptable and could jeopardize the credibility of the mission and its role,” Rihawi said.

This is not acceptable, and It’s time to step in..