Bilderberg.org

[TonyGosling]

Murdoch - Victims of Pakistani dictator are "brainwashed"
Brainwashed children plead to die as martyrs in Red Mosque siege
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2042156.ece
Dean Nelson, Islamabad

SAIMA KHAN wants to die a martyr. Life is transient, she told her father in a telephone call last week, and the real glory is to sacrifice it for Allah. Her statement would be alarming at any age, but Saima is only 10.

As she spoke, rifle shots rang out, the acrid smell of tear gas drifted over Islamabad and hundreds of troops surrounded the pro-Taliban Red Mosque, a religious school complex in the heart of Pakistan’s capital where Saima was among hundreds of children being held as virtual hostages in a stand-off between militants and the government.

Saima and her 14-year-old sister, Asma, were embroiled in a struggle for the soul of Pakistan in which up to 70 militants died last week and more than 100 were injured, according to mosque officials.

Holed up inside the complex behind the lines of troops and razor wire, the children – many of them girls whose families had sent them to the mosque to receive a strict Islamic education – repeatedly rejected relatives’ entreaties to leave before a threatened army onslaught......

[831]

I think that this report describes islam perfecly, for that reason I am reposting it on this thread, I hope you all find it of as much interest as I did. It comes from a site called Gamla here is the link http://gamla.org.il/english/index.htm .

Here is the report : 'Islam is a religion of peace and the great majority of Muslims are
not party to any plans and actions of the radicals'- so claim
academic pundits, leftist journalists, and hired Islamic apologists.
The incantation of these "authorities" is the lullaby that puts the
people into a sleep of complacency.

Complacency and appeasement on the part of the free world and those
well-meaning, non-practicing Muslims, can only serve Islam. There is
no chance for co-existence with Islam. All one needs to know is to
see what is happening in Islamic countries. That is exactly what is
in store for the presently free people of the world if Islam is not
held in check.

The average free person, who is busy with all manner of demands on
his time and resources, would hardly want to worry about the very
real threat which mainstream Islam poses to his life and to his
future. It is so much easier to accept the claims of authorities who
assure us not to worry; 'it's just a tiny minority of extremists',
and 'soon the great majority of "moderates" will triumph over the
crazy zealots'. So we lull ourselves back to the comfort of our
pretenses, serene in knowing that the "experts" have it all under
control.

Wait! Aren't these the same experts who told us Hitler could not
possibly be crazy enough to attack Russia or Britain? Aren't these
the same "experts" who tried to cover up Mao Tse Tung's reign of
terror in China, or Pol Pot's genocide in Cambodia? Isn't this the
same "expertise" that assured us in the 1970's that inflation was
good, and could never be accompanied by recession?

Aren't these the same folks who tell us the Saudis are our best
friends in the Middle East, that the Titanic was unsinkable, that we
should not succumb to our racist impulses by reporting suspicious
Muslim men who are learning to fly jumbo jets, and that goods
imported from China are perfectly safe? Or that if we just "open up
dialog with our enemies", we can create peace?? Hmmm...It seems like
we have much to worry about when the "authorities" begin to
disseminate their collective wisdom. And don't bank on the
politicians either. They are the master practitioners of the art of
the politically correct.

Yet, some of these professional advocates of Islam go farther by
accusing those who sound the alarm as racist, bigots, hatemongers and
much more. That attitude sure worked well for England, Holland and
France!

But the elites who scold us and seduce us into our slumbering
acquiescence never allow their dismal record of intellectual failure
to prevent them from claiming ever more enlightenment. Their present
project is to 'build a bridge to moderate Islam'.

Let us, for the record, be clear on this subject one more time:
Islamism, Islamofascism, Radical Islam, Political Islam, and Militant
Islam are different terms for essentially the same thing, a virulent,
hateful, and violent system of beliefs and practices. Yet, one and
all are progeny and mutation of Islam itself.

Islam in all of its forms and sects is simply an evil ideology that
is practiced by all Muslims. Islamism is a pincer, with the world in
its jaws between the end-of-the-world Shiism and the jihadist Sunnis.

To the simple mind of western "intellectuals," within every ideology
there must always be "good liberals" and "bad conservatives", and so
they search in vain for the "moderate", "reasonable", "pragmatic"
wing of any threatening ideology.

But in their enormous ignorance of the realities of Islam, they fail
to realize that in Islam, the wings are not "left" and "right," or
"liberal" vs. "conservative"; they are two jaws in the same
supremacist device that aims to crush the life of all non-believers.
I will explain why attempting to build a bridge to "moderate" Islam
is in fact a road to hell, since "moderate Islam" is oxymoronic.

The so-called "Moderate Muslims" or "Secular Muslims" would like to
have their cake and eat it too. They wish to remain Muslims in name
only, yet not bother to read the mandates of the Quran or understand
the context in which Muhammad foisted his poisonous prophecy upon the
world. Instead of conclusively demonstrating Islam's violent nature
from its very inception and moving in another direction with what
they can prove is the worthwhile portions of Islam, they have decided
to marry an inherently noxious religion with an inherently godless
philosophy, secularism. "Secular Islam Summit" was hilarious; a
run-down and meaningless show of desperate attempt to salvage a
bankrupt and deadly ideology.

These happy-go-lucky people-of-Islam are indeed delusional, for
Muhammad's record is not even the subject of debate. His utterances
and deeds are a part of history that is simply not debatable. Islam
is what Muhammad said it was in the diatribes of vitriol and hatred
that is the Quran; and Islam is what Muhammad did during his violent
life. If you accept Islam as your religion, you become a part of the
guiding principles of hatred, revenge, and rejection of prior
enlightened prophecies. But the "bridge-builders refuse to
acknowledge the fact that one cannot be a Muslim and not abide by the
dictates of the Quran.

Keep in mind that the fact being a Muslim is a clear admission of
wrongdoing, the extent of which depends on the degree of a person's
Muslim-ness. If he is only a Muslim who does not practice Islam, then
he is, at the very least, guilty of hypocrisy. If he is somewhat of a
Muslim by tithing, from time to time, following the ranting of the
local mullah or imam, and swallowing whole the pronouncements of the
high divines, then he is guilty of significantly contributing to the
evildoings of Islam.

It is time for the non-practicing Muslims to abandon their childish
desire to cling to evil, yet pretend they can "reform" it, like the
abused wife insisting that she can cure her alcoholic, violent spouse
by remaining in a codependent relationship. It's time the
self-described "moderates" either accept the truth of their ugly
religious ethics and reject them by joining the forces of liberty and
worldwide family of free people, or join the forces of darkness. But
to join the peace-loving free world, you must immediately stop making
excuses for the religion of hate!

Here is my 10-point process to understand why Islam cannot be
"moderated" for the benefit of those misguided people who are the
advocates of "Secular Islam." I will prove that Secular Islam is just
a hoax.

1. The first question that must be answered is whether or not any
doctrine can be called "evil." If nothing is good or evil, then all
of life is inherently nihilistic, and all thinkers and believers in
life (all of us) are necessarily nihilists. We must establish a way
to measure "evil."

Take for example, Naziism. How are we to know that the Nazi party
was evil, and that present-day believers in Nazi principles are doing
evil? We certainly cannot use traditional Islamic mea culpas, to rid
Nazis of their well deserved guilt! We can't look at present day
Nazis who are demonstrably not trying to take over the world.
We can't ask the average Nazis on the street to declare themselves
authorities on their entire cult.

We can't just look at the actions of some of them, for in doing so,
we could simply assert that the good Nazi party was hijacked by
"radicals". It is certainly true that the vast majority of German
supporters of the Nazi party in 1936 were normal, peaceful people who
were simply held hostage by the zealots. If you took a random
"Nazi", you'd be vastly more likely to condemn him for his taste for
Sauerkraut rather than see him participate in an actual murder.

So we have the same excuses at work that exist in the debate over
Islam, but today we condemn Naziism as evil. If it is illegitimate
to simply look for a nice Nazi, and try to build a bridge to the Nazi
power structure through him, then how can we think we can do it with
Islam? We think so because we have presupposed that Naziism is bad,
and because of the forces of propaganda, we believe that Islam is
not. But this begs the question: How then do we know what evil is,
so we can condemn it?

The answer is that the only way to determine if a thing is evil or
neutral or good is to establish a working definition of what
constitutes evil and its opposite, good, and then test the doctrine
against the definition.

While it is true that many people will disagree on the precise
definition, it does not matter. Let each person establish the
definition for him or herself, and at least be logical and fair in
evaluating the evidence of the creed. In other words, deal with the
consequences of the process, no matter how hard the findings are to
accept. The Bible says, "You shall know them by their fruits".

2. Once a definition is in place, the only way to evaluate a belief
system under any accepted definition is to read the foundational
books, the manuscripts that define the creed...the scripture that was
carefully written to explain the norms and intent of those who
established it. You cannot ask a Nazi whether he thinks he is evil.
He will tell you he is good, and that you are evil for resisting him,
because he is defending his "people" against those who resist his
beliefs. This is exactly what Muhammad said about the Jews and
Christians who resisted him.

"Thus (will it be said): 'Taste ye then of the (punishment): for
those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.'" Quran 8.014

"And when those who disbelieve plot against thee (O Muhammad) to
wound thee fatally, or to kill thee or to drive thee forth; they
plot, but Allah (also) plotteth; and Allah is the best of plotters."
Quran 8.030

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for
Allah. But if they cease (in defeat), then lo! Allah is Seer of what
they do." Quran 8.039

You cannot allow a random Nazi member to provide personal anecdotal
opinion and declare it to be authoritative. Only the written
treatises of the founders may be taken as true expression of the
belief system. You cannot take a third-party account of Nazi
goodness to be superior to the Nazi party principles and the
philosophy espoused in Mein Kampf. That would be ignoring Hitler's
beliefs in exchange for that of an outside observer commenting on
Hitler's beliefs. The same is true for Islamic apologists. We can't
just trot out any "scholar" and declare him to be authoritative over
the words and deeds of the most important figures in Islamic history.

This tells the truth.


God Bless you all
831