Sunday, April 25, 2010

A Lesson From An Extremist On How To Counter Counter-Terrorism

There are two ways to look at dealing with the radical Islamist websites that pop up like big, pus-filled pimples on the face of the Internet. First of all, one can do one's best to shut them down, knowing full well that they will re-emerge somewhere else in the bowels of the World Wide Web; or you can leave them alone, so that you can monitor what is going on in their sick little jihadist heads. I tend to favor the latter since knowing where your enemies are and what they are up to is far more profitable then not knowing what the scum are thinking and planning. Knowledge is power, as they say.

So, when was down (though it seems to be back up in all it's sickening glory) I did some googling and came across their blogger blog. While doing some digging there, I discovered another blog that their "South Park" PDF article was linked to: The Mujahid Blog . There's just one post by the same slug that wrote the "South Park" diatribe, this time instructions on how to counter, counter terrorism. It's fascinating in as much as it describes exactly the tactics that most jihadists use. So much for CAIR's asinine comment about RevolutionMuslim being an anti-Islam conspiracy, and Obama's equally asinine choice to ban the use of jihad and terrorism from our vernacular.

Saturday, 24 April 2010 18:09 Written by Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee


In sha'a Allah I will keep these things going with beneficial points for countering counter terrorism efforts. There are some things that obviously will not be said, because only a few people need to know them and it is harmful for CT officials to have a heads up on what is going on. However, there are some things which they already know, or which they cannot do anything about, or which the Muslims have significantly greater capabilities to counteract anything CT officials can come up with.

As things stand, we are currently dominating nearly every front in this war, but we are neglecting the true potential of this movement by allowing it to continue with almost no direction whatsoever. Al-Qa'ida does what they can to direct things, but it is not so easy when you are fighting a physical war at the same time. Also, we are much more aware of our own situation than they are, simply due to the fact that we are here and they are fighting jihad already.

Anyway, here begins the first set of points:

Anytime the kuffar have something which is perceived as a success it must be hidden:

In the event of the death of a leader we need to focus on things such as martyrdom and putting our trust in Allah. We should bring to light the fact that the greatest commander of all, salaa Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, died and left this Ummah in the most desperate situation it could possibly be in. They were against far greater odds than we are today.

We should not publish their media which is negative on our forums and websites. Even if it is the only source making a certain claim, and we know it is true, then we should not post it.

If a large number of mujahideen die, then we should mention how two or more people from their friends and families will take their places. Also, we should treat this in a similar manner to the death of a leader. This is only in the event of a large catastrophe.

Rather than saying someone died we should say that he/she embraced martyrdom in sha'a Allah.

* These stories can also be hidden by drawing people's attention to other successes of the mujahideen. However, unless we control the major newspapers and television programs, then outright "hiding" these stories will not work.

Successes of the mujahideen must be emphasized:

* Have we forgotten how beardless men and hijabless women were dancing in the streets on September 11th?

* We need to spread their success stories, articles, and videos massively. The kuffar need to see them as well, so that they are demoralized.

* We should use terms like, "5 Western pigs sent to Hellfire in sha'a Allah." There needs to be a clear bias in every story. This is why they call mujahideen who are clearly not insurgents "insurgents." It is to say, "These are the bad guys." That is also why the mujahideen use the words, "puppets," "apostates," and others.

Unbiased journalism is a myth and we should not seek to operate by it. It is extremely effective at getting a kafir to be against a war if he sees a dead body of his countryman and is told that he is in a ditch from Hellfire in sha'a Allah. It might get a bad reaction, but they will eventually feel like they are losing and nobody likes to lose.

* Make sure you publish the truth. Lies are counterproductive. Do not invent successes like the kuffar do. If you do this it might build temporary momentum, but it will eventually backfire when it is shown to be false.
Kill the sympathy factor:

* There can be absolutely no sympathy shown for dead kuffar. Even if the attack was clearly wrong, we should still emphasize that the kuffar who died will be in Hellfire and that they will never come out in sha'a Allah. If an attack is completely wrong we should say so, but we should defend the Muslim who carried it out. We should bring up the issue of his intentions and how people are forgiven for ignorance in sha'a Allah.

* Videos of kuffar dying should be spread. Death is an extraordinarily powerful image. There is nothing stronger in killing one's sympathy for the enemy than seeing him die enough times that there is no longer a "shock factor."

* This is not to say that we should not have mercy toward the disbelievers. One should not kill their humanity in this. We should look to the Sunnah and find the correct approach from there. We should not be rude to the kuffar and insult them. This is not the same thing as killing the sympathy factor. If you want to insult the kuffar then do so in a clever way where the wit can be appreciated.

* Publish statistics of how many Muslims have been killed by the kuffar and use the highest estimates from credible sources. Do not cite just violent deaths from the war in Iraq, but count those who lost their food, medicine, and shelter. Also, count those who died from depleted uranium and other toxins. The total impact of the actions of the kuffar must be known and spread.

* There are obviously different levels of killing the sympathy factor that should target different groups of people. The Muslim who still has a Barack Obama sticker on his/her backpack is not the target audience for a video of kuffar being mowed down by mujahideen.

Emphasize unpopular actions of the kuffar:

* Whenever a kafir does something wrong, then it should be emphasized. This ranges from silly statements that make them sound stupid (Bush had a lot more of these) to intentionally bombing civilians, these things need to be emphasized.

* Use only embarrassing photos of the kuffar when you can. How much different is it when the kuffar show the image of Khalid Shaykh Muhammad with no beard and disheveled than it is when they show him at peace with his long beard and nice clothing?

* Always label their "aid" as simply tools of imperialism. Point out how they drop bombs on a town and pass out free lunches to the survivors whose families they butchered the previous day. Show how it is American farmers who benefit the most. Show how most countries are actually harmed by American development aid in the long term.

* Emphasize drone attacks and the use of mercenaries.

* Show the kuffar disrespecting Islam and the Muslims. Forexample there is a large group of idiots who write "kafir" on their uniforms and weapons. This should be spread and explained.
Emphasize actions of the mujahideen which nobody disagrees with:

* Show images of them handing out zakat and publish articles about it. Show them taking people to hospitals and defending their families. Show the building of houses and schools. Mention how the mujahideen really are not against girls schools and how they actively work toward them.

* Use images which are the best looking. We should not use images which are awkward for the mujahideen.

* Mention areas in which the mujahideen were successful before the invasions, but which are problems now. For example, the poppy fields were almost non-existent in 2001. Now Afghanistan is destroying numerous countries with opium.

This is nowhere near complete and in sha'a Allah this is just a starting point. Many of these things are policies of the kuffar which we are not implementing or we are not implementing intentionally. All of these are things which anyone can do. We outnumber counter terrorism officials by millions, so as long as we evolve our methods and finetune them, then, in sha'a Allah, we will always outdo them. A Ph.D. does not make up for a righteous cause and a dedicated base. Those are our two advantages. We should use them. Allah is on our side so long as we are striving in His Path.

Saturday, April 24, 2010

RevolutionMuslim Alive And Well At Blogger

Looks like the slugs over at RevolutionMuslim, whose website still appears to be down since the "South Park" death threats, are back up and running at their blogger site. It appears they started it in 2008, although they haven't written much until an uber-long post (which I skimmed) in reaction to the reaction to their death threats. Posted on April 21, yes, they claim the Quran justifies those threats:

As for the Islamic ruling on the situation, then this is clear. There is no difference of opinion from those with any degree of a reputation that the punishment is death. Ibn Taymiyyah a great scholar of Islam says, “Whoever curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) -a Muslim or a non Muslim- then he must be killed…and this is the opinion of the general body of Islamic scholars.”

Likewise Ibn Mundhir, another classical scholar, said, “It is the consensus (ijma’) of our scholars that the one who curses the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) should be executed!”

This is also the opinion of Imams Malik, al-Laith, Ahmed, Ishaq, Shafi’i, and Numan Abu Haneefah.

This shows that taking this stance is virtually obligatory, but it does not mean that our taking this stance is in some way an absolute call toward the requirement that the creators of South Park must be killed, nor a deliberate attempt at incitement, it is only to declare the truth regardless of consequence and to offer an awareness in the mind of Westerners when they consider doing the same thing.

Many are proclaiming that the South Park episode’s insult was minimal and some might inquire about a situation where the insult is not that great. The renowned scholar Imam Malik said, “If someone says that the button of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is dirty, then he should be executed!”

And then Qadi I’yad says, “And we don’t know any different opinion, this is a consensus and we don’t know any different opinion!”

The content of the post harbors the usual hypocritical contradictions that justify what they do, in their twisted little minds.

U.S. imperialism- not cool. Islamist global domination- cool.

Western forces killing Muslims- not cool. Muslims killing other Muslims- cool.

Destruction of the Islamic identity- not cool. Destruction of the Western Judeo/Christian identity- cool.

And they still don't see anything wrong in their thinking. They're deluded into believing theirs is not a hate site and that calling for the death of individuals is not an act of hate. And at the end of the day, they still claim Matt Stone and Trey Parker will end up like Theo Van Gogh.

Way to go RevolutionMuslim-s!

RevolutionMuslim Spawns RevolutionIslam- We're mad and we're not going to take it anymore!

In retaliation, I presume, for RevolutionMuslim's death threats against the guys at "South Park", Trey Parker and Matt Stone, for their Muhammad the Bear episode (which the chicken- livered people at Comedy Central censored beyond recognition) comes ta-da.....


It's a bare-bones site, but makes its point clear. is not up and running right now, but I'm sure it will resurface, either in its past form or in a different incarnation.

People are getting very fed up with the overreaction from the Muslim world (like Malyasia's demand for an apology from Parker/Stone) and they're responding in kind. Blazing Cat Fur has a post with some interesting links, including one from Europe. The Islam In Europe blog talks about the Swedish anti-Islam Skåne Party's naked Mohammed with Aisha posters plastered around Malmö. You can check him out in all his naked glory at BCFs blog.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Taliban Hate Afghan School Girls

The Taliban despise their women folk so much that they want them covered head to toe in burqas, uneducated and at home, or dead.  Ever since the end of the Taliban reign of terror, young girls are back at school, getting the education every human being is entitled to. But the Taliban have been doing their best to make sure that doesn't happen. The cowards have no problem attacking innocent girls' schools with poison, or throwing acid on female students' faces.

The wonderful thing about these girls is that they are resilient. Scared but defiant even those girls who have been mercilessly attacked with acid are determined to get their education, in spite of the dangers and threats by the Taliban. In fact, according to the Quran, every Muslim should seek an education and that includes women, considering they too are Muslim.

"To seek knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim."
(Declared Authentic By Shaikh Muhammad Naasir-ud-Deen Al-Albaani)

And yet, the ignorant Taliban oafs seem to think knowledge is the privilege of men only. Thankfully the parents of these girls realize the importance of an education and allow their children to continue to attend school. The girl who suffered the most in the acid attacks had this to say:

“My parents told me to keep coming to school even if I am killed,” said Shamsia, 17, in a moment after class. Shamsia’s mother, like nearly all of the adult women in the area, is unable to read or write. “The people who did this to me don’t want women to be educated. They want us to be stupid things.”

Sometimes one has to make sacrifices and embrace the danger if one is to prevail. And I pray that the women of Afghanistan do just that.

One Of Geico's Voice Over Actors Fired Over Calling Tea Party Members Retarded

First of all, I want to say that not all of us actors are stupid, although admittedly plenty are. And very few are indispensable. Actors are a dime a dozen and when talent rarely factors into the casting process, it's incumbent upon us to mind our Ps & Qs. That's why it's always best to keep your politics to yourself, because you never know which side of the fence those in the position to hire (or fire) you are sitting.

One of the voices of Geico (not the Gecko), Lance Baxter (aka D.C. Douglas) learned the hard way that it's not best to mix politics and work, especially when you are the voice of a well-known, nationwide insurance company. When you represent a product, even if it's just your voice, you're the face (or voice, in this case) of that company, and anything you do reflects on said company. You certainly don't want to make them look bad, and you definitely do not go around acting badly without suffering the consequences. Not necessarily because the company disagrees with your actions, but there are enough people in this country who might and they'll have your ass. Baxter obviously is unaware of that fact or didn't care when he left a nasty message on Freedomworks' voicemail. FreedomWorks, one of the voices of the Tea Party Movement, has had its fair share of hate from bomb threats to racist diatribe including the message from Baxter. In his voicemail, Baxter matter-of-factly tells the FreedomWorks people he's doing a paper and wanted to know "the percentage of people that are mentally retarded who are working for FreedomWorks and who are following it." He then goes on to ask they will "spin it when one of your members does actually kill somebody, wondering if you've got a PR spinning routine planned for that or are you just gonna take it when it happens."

Now this is where Baxter really falls into the 'stupid actor' category: the man actually leaves his name and phone number on the message. If you want to be politically active, or voice your grievances in our business (if you're that pissed) you don't leave a name and number on a voice mail for the whole world to have access to. Anyone could pick up the phone, and leave an equally nasty message for him, though I wouldn't recommend it.

Anyway, as a result of his impetuous actions (or the outrage by Tea Partiers who more than likely flooded the corporate offices with complaints) Geico fired Baxter, and are already re-casting.

At least he admitted what he did was asinine:

"I called as a private citizen to make a complaint," explains Mr. Douglas. "Racism and homophobia are my Achilles heal, but unfortunately my message included inappropriate words and I am sorry for that. However, telling their members to harass my employer to get me fired is an egregiously disproportionate response to my actions."

Mr. Douglas believes his connection to GEICO, a company already on FreedomWorks' boycott list for pulling their ads from Glenn Beck's show, is the main reason he was targeted so forcefully. "Even though I left the message during the week of March 23, the harassing calls didn't hit until April 14, the morning after I posted about my GEICO campaign on my Facebook page."

Interesting comment. Maybe this whole thing was payback for Geico pulling their ads for Glenn Beck, but that's the beauty of this country, it goes both ways. Sad he doesn't see that. And to have lost a job based on some racial and homophobic comments no-one has been able to prove. Very stupid. I think from now on he might just keep his gripes out of a public forum, as all smart actors should

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Saudi-Funded U.S. Text Books Claim Muslims Discovered America

Rather disturbing video about the indoctrination of our K-12 students with Saudi-influenced textbooks claiming Muslims pre-dated Columbus' discovery, and other goodies.

Transcript H/T
"Public Schools Teach the ABCs of Islam," by Erick Stakelbeck for CBN News, October 9, 2008: - Several recent studies have shown that American students are alarmingly ignorant about U.S. history and world events.

Experts have contributed the problem to everything from failing schools to substandard teachers.

But what about content?

For instance, did you know that Muslims discovered America? Or that Jerusalem is an Arab city? That's just some of the "history" that students in America's K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years--with the help of taxpayer money.

A new report by the non-profit Institute for Jewish and Community Research finds that American high school and elementary textbooks contain countless inaccuracies about Christianity, Judaism, Israel and the Middle East.

The Institute examined 28 of the most widely-used history, geography and social studies textbooks in America. It found at least 500 errors.

One book ignored the Jewish roots of Christianity, saying the faith was founded by a "young Palestinian" named Jesus.

Another stated as fact that the Koran was revealed to Mohammed from God.

Yet another said ancient Jewish civilization contributed "very little" to to the arts and sciences.

Textbooks like these are used by millions of schoolchildren in all 50 states.[...]

Harvard is one of 18 universities that receives government funding under Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965. To qualify for that funding, the universities are required to conduct outreach to K-12 teachers, helping them to shape lessons for schoolchildren. Elementary and secondary teachers have taken full advantage of the arrangement: after all, they believe they're getting expert insight on Islam and the Middle East from distinguished university scholars.

"You have a lot of politically naive teachers--well intentioned teachers who do want their students to learn more about Islamic history," says Stotsky. "It has not been well covered in most history courses they've ever taken, so they do genuinely want to learn more for themselves and teach their students more."

In some cases they may be getting more than they bargained for: the Saudi government has donated millions of dollars to Middle East Centers at universities that receive Title VI funding.

The Harvard Middle Eastern Studies Center--whose recommendations to the Massachusetts Board originally drew Stosky's concern--is one of them. As CBN News reported earlier this year, the Harvard Center received a $20 million donation from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal in 2005. Georgetown University--another title VI recipient--also received $ 20 million from the Prince that same year.

It's through these Title VI university centers--all of them government-sanctioned and taxpayer supported--that Saudi-funded materials find their way into K-12 classrooms.

"Saudi donations to American universities should be seen in a much larger picture of Saudi promotion of a Saudi point of view," said Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia. "Whether it be Islamic or political, the Saudis have a point of view. And they have been very clever and very generous over the decades to promote that point of view."

Sunday, April 11, 2010

Jon Voight Tells It Like It Is Re. Barack Obama

Who would ever have thought that Jon Voight would become so vocal an opponent of Barack Obama. This is a video of a letter highly critical of Barry O that Jon reads to the American people on Huckabee's show. He has some very interesting things to say. Bravo Jon! Keep up the good work.

Thursday, April 08, 2010

Michelle Obama Talks About Visiting Barack's Home Country Of "kenya"

I want to preface this by saying I am not a "birther"- I don't necessarily believe that Obama was born in Kenya, and even if he was I could care less. It's not his place of birth that I have a problem with, nor his race, it's everything else about the man that I find suspect.

I do find it interesting, however, that Michelle Obama during a speech at an LGBT delegate luncheon with reference to the problem of AIDs said the following:

"....Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa and visited his home country in Kenya, we took an HIV test....."

His home country is Kenya? Yes his father was born there, and one might extrapolate that since his father was Kenyan, he too is part Kenyan. But my mother was not born in this country either, and yet I would never refer to her birthplace as "my home country". I too was born abroad, though since my father was with the US government I was automatically considered a US citizen, and yet I would never refer to my birthplace as "my home country". In fact I lived in many different countries until I came to the US for college, but I am an American first and foremost. This is my home country, and since Barack Obama also happens to be a US citizen, this should be considered his "home country."

Who knows why she said what she said, and I'm sure no-one would be mentioning anything about this particular comment had it not been for another of her infamous statements during the presidential campaign:

"For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"

I guess they are just more proud of Kenya then they are of the United States. I, on the other hand, am proud to be an American!

Wednesday, April 07, 2010

Obama's Disastrous Nuclear Policy- Or, how we'll be up a creek without a paddle

Let's face it, it's not that Barack Obama didn't promise during his campaign speeches to "slow the development of future combat systems" or set his "goal of a world without nuclear weapons." He said it many times, including in the video below, so we shouldn't be surprised he's trying to cap his Obamacare triumph with the disarmament of the U.S.

But even though he made those promises back then, I hoped he would have some semblance of intelligence, at least enough to know that a world without nuclear weapons is well-nigh an impossibility, especially with madmen like Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il floating around the planet. Frankly, I don't believe that we can even trust China or Russia, for that matter, and the rate things are going in Pakistan and Afghanistan with Karzai threatening to join the Taliban, Pakistan's nuclear weapons are a disaster waiting to happen. Sure, we could stupidly rid ourselves of our arsenal, as Obama seems to want to do so willingly, but that doesn't mean that others will do the same. Other than outright blasting Iran to smithereens, the Iranian government is not going to comply. They want their nukes and no-one is going to stop them, not UN sanctions (even if they got every one on board including Russia and China) or Obama's begging, or the threat of Israel attacking. In fact, it's more than obvious they are bucking for some kind of action so that they feel justified in retaliating. Ahmadinejad, after all, believes that the return of the 12th Imam is predicated on an Armageddon, and that's more than likely the reason they are so hell-bent on nuclear capabilities.

So, as the rest of the world increases their nuclear arsenal, we have our kumbaya President enacting a nuclear policy that decreases our potential for use.

The Obama administration is unveiling a new nuclear weapons policy that seeks to narrow the circumstances under which the United States would use such weapons while preserving long-standing assurances of nuclear protection for allies, U.S. officials said.

The U.S. officials said the administration's new policy would stop short of declaring that the United States would never be the first to launch a nuclear attack, as many arms control advocates had recommended. But it would describe the weapons' purpose as "primarily" or "fundamentally" to deter or respond to a nuclear attack.

The officials said the document would say it is a U.S. goal to move toward a policy in which the "sole purpose" of nuclear weapons is to deter or respond to nuclear attack. That wording would all but rule out the use of such weapons to respond to an attack by conventional, biological or chemical weapons. Previous U.S. policy was more ambiguous.

In an interview with The New York Times on Monday, Obama said his administration was explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons. Those threats, he told the newspaper, could be deterred with "a series of graded options" — a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.

It's all well and good that Obama wants to sit down with Russia to discuss nuclear disarmament, but he has no assurances Russia will ever comply. We're going to be sitting ducks with no means of reprisal. God knows what else Obama is going to drag us into in the next few years, but we have all those who voted for him, who didn't vote at all, or who voted 3rd Party to thank for the mess we are headed for.