theway2k’s blog

AGAIN! Iran Threatens Reprisal if Nuke Program Attacked

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 23:33:23 -0500

I utilize an InJesus Group known as Prophecy Update frequently as a source of information. Prophecy Update searches for news around the world from secular and Christian sources and puts together a daily report which relates to End Times Prophecy and sends it out as an e-newsletter. As you might guess the focus tends to be the Middle East.

The Middle East for decades now has been growing as a region of Mohammedan hatred toward the West with America and Israel in its telescopes. I think America viewed Islamofascist terrorism as a pesky nuisance until 9/11. Then it became obvious that these Islamic radicals had the ability to exact global terrorism that affects the global economy in a negative way in the West.

Israel has had to deal with this threat from the very time of its modern inception in 1948 when surrounding Arab nations thought they would annihilate Jewish Israelis in a second Holocaust terminating a Jewish homeland before it could even get started.

Obviously the true God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had other ideas. The soundly outnumbered Israelis not only repulsed the 1948 invasion, but it has successfully repulsed several other invasions since 1948.

Now the rogue nations of Iran and Syria joined by transnational terrorists like Hezbollah and Hamas have upped the stakes in the constant Mohammedan pursuit to destroy Israel. Iran is becoming a regional hegemon building nuclear plants with the capability of producing weapons grade uranium for nuclear weapons.

Have you looked at a Middle Eastern map lately? Israel is still a speck of water surrounded by an ocean of hostile Mohammedans. Weary Israel is currently dominated by a government that has fallen hook, line and sinker for the concept that giving up what little Land it has acquired from God ordained victories will result in peace. And yet Iran continues to pursue weapons grade uranium. With the talk of giving up land at least the Israeli government has no illusions what a nuclear armed Iran would mean to the existence of Israel.

With that in mind there has been talk of either an American or Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities (or both) to slow down the manufacturing of weapons grade uranium.

So check out the first two articles from Prophecy Update. One is from the British Telegraph and the other is from Israel’s Haaretz. Both articles relate Iran is saber rattling that if ANY attempt to strike Iranian nuclear facilities occurs, Iran will blockade the Straits of Hormuz which 40% of the globe’s oil supply is shipped through.

So here is the Iranian tactic: 1) Stand by and assert that their nuclear program is peaceful (Yeah and I have a sand dune for sale real cheap); 2) Tell the UN, America and the EU that we all need to talk about it (stalling for time); or 3) Threaten America and Israel with a retribution that could affect the entire world’s economy and/or safety.

Most of the world appears to lean toward selling out Israel under the delusion an Islamic Agenda will stop in the Middle East; however Europe is already inundated with hostile Mohammedans that are giving every indication of overwhelming the continent with a Mohammedan birthrate.

Geez my fellow Westerners and Americans – WAKE-UP! The cancer of radical Islam has to be nipped in the bud even if it means a world war OR the West will it appease its way into subjugated dhimmitude.

I am not willing to replace my Liberty and Freedom with the despotism of Sharia Law and subservient dhimmitude. Are you?

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam, Part 10

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:22:33 -0500

Jihad this Mohammed

Here is another dose of “An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam” by the Political Islam website.

Bill Warner is a little terse in this essay. I would even say it might border on hate speech; indeed I know Mohammedans will consider this essay hate speech.

Warner targets Islam specifically as the enemy of all non-Muslims of all races, creeds, religions and political spectrums.

I preface this warning of hate speech because I have to tell you, Warner is correct of the nature of Islam whether Mohammedan practitioners view Mohammedanism as a spiritual faith or a death cult to violently over take the world with Mohammed’s vision of political conquest under the instilled fervor radical cultic devotion. The essence of Mohammed’s example and Mohammedanism’s general practice in nations where it is the majority is evidentiary of its non-peaceful existence. The West where Freedom and Liberty has become a learned heritage, the minority Mohammedans have began to be so bold as to demand government recognition of Sharia Law; indeed honor killings and rape are increasing in the West more so in Europe but the beginnings are emerging in America.

JRH 6/14/08

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam #9

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 19:20:00 -0500

War on Islam

I found this website called Political Islam. I signed up to receive a weekly e-newsletter which is also posted on the website. I pretty much agree with Political Islam’s purpose which is to expose and educate about Political Islam as well as to advocate ways or thoughts to with stand the death cult.

I like the website because it is definitely not Politically Correct. Frankly I suspect it is just a matter of time that American fifth column organizations like Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) will denounce the truth from the website as racist and bigoted.

So what! Sometimes you have to slap someone to wake them up!

I did post the last e-newsletter which is part of a series. I don’t know if it is in the middle or nearing the end of the series for the one I am posting today is Part 9.

JRH 6/8/08

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

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam

This newsletter is one of a series on the subject-Newsletter #9

Bill Warner

June 3, 2008

Political Islam

The Near Enemy

We have two sets of enemies. The far enemy is the politics of Islam. The near enemies are the dhimmi apologists, fueled by ignorance and multiculturalism and political correctness.

Our universities present Islamic history as a glorious triumph. Humanity's greatest moment came in the Islamic golden age. The Crusades were Western evil. Cultural self-loathing manifests in showing the history of the West as oppression and Islam is seen as liberating. Women's oppression under Islam is seldom discussed in feminist classes. Israel is condemned and jihadists are presented as "freedom fighters". Christianity is criticized, Islam is praised.

Leftist/liberal/progressive intellectuals give frequent speeches at universities while conservative speakers are sometimes forbidden to speak or toughs are allowed to drive them from the stage.

The dhimmis and the oppressed does not exist in universities. Muslims dictate what will be said about Islam in textbooks.

The news media rarely publishes anything about the Islamic doctrine. Most Islamic terror is never mentioned. The dots are never connected. Each event of Islamic violence is seen on its own and never as part of a pattern. The media love to follow up any bad news about Islam with Muslims speaking "nice".

The near enemy finds good reasons not to publish Mohammed cartoons, and find reasons to feel good about being a dhimmi. The near enemy criticized the Pope when he gave a historic quote about Islam's violence even when Muslims killed Christians in protest and called for the Pope's death.

A public policy of political correctness and multiculturalism forbids criticism of Islam as being racist and violent.

Pacifism

The elites have a solution for Islam. War is evil and causes suffering. If you treat people well, they will treat you well. This is a logical fallacy that if we treat others well they will treat us well. That is true, if and only if, they follow the Golden Rule.

So if the Golden Rule inspires you to be non-violent, and if the person you are dealing with also practices the Golden Rule, all is fine. But if the other person doesn't follow the Golden Rule, then they can take advantage of you.

Let's take three brief historical examples. The Buddhists of ancient Afghanistan were the descendents of Alexander the Great's warriors. The warriors had been converted to pacifism by Buddhism. Along came Islam and killed every single pacifist who would not convert to Islam. The result is that Buddhism was annihilated in Central Asia.

Martin Luther King applied Gandhi's non-violence to civil rights and it worked. Why? American culture was infused with the Golden Rule and we changed. If Martin Luther King had tried non-violence in Mecca to protest Arabia's religious apartheid, he would have been imprisoned or driven out. Islam does not follow the Golden Rule.

Gandhi used non-violence to shame the British over their rule of India and it worked since the British honored the Golden Rule. But when India practices tolerance with Muslims in India, they get taken advantage of every time.

Pacifists are idealists, not pragmatists, so they claim that any historical failure of pacifism is due to the fact that they just were not pacifistic enough.

All pacifists are social parasites. Every pacifist lives in a nation that was created by blood, since every nation's borders were a result of a violent struggle. Every pious pacifist depends upon someone else to do the dirty work of violence to protect them.

Pacifism can be seen as the societal version of AIDS. AIDS destroys the body's ability to defend itself against infections. Pacifism destroys a society's ability to defend itself against aggression.

Politics is a matter of perception. What pacifists don't know is that Islam sees them as not as a kind and reasonable people, but as dhimmis. Dhimmis are indistinguishable from pacifists. They both submit to Islam on whatever issue is at hand.

An Ethical Basis for War

Let's define the situation:

· Islam has a dualistic ethical system that denies the nature Golden Rule. It posits that all people are not equal.

· Islam is a dualistic political system that divides all the world into believers and non-believers.

· Islam has an eternal, universal mandate to annihilate all political systems based upon the ethics of unity.

· Intimidation, demands, and violence may be used against the kafirs.

· 270,000,000 kafirs have been killed by political Islam. Over half of Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism have been annihilated by political Islam.

· Islam cannot be reformed.

· Compromise is only a step towards dhimmitude.

There is no compromise that is logically possible between dualistic ethics and ethics of unity. There is no halfway point between honesty and deceit, freedom and slavery, equality and dhimmitude.

So the choice is between submission and annihilation or war and freedom. The third choice is dhimmitude, or a slow death, since every dhimmi population becomes Islamic over time.

We propose that to preserve our ethical civilization we must defeat political Islam. The question is: how shall we conduct this war?

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newsletter.

________________________

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam, part 8

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Wed, 28 May 2008 09:53:35 -0500

Suicide bomb class

Okay. I am a weekly subscriber to the blog Political Islam. The blog is militantly anti-Islam. I know it is not politically correct (especially among Leftists) but I do find Political Islam quite refreshing that it has busted out of the comfort zone of being nice. Political Islam points out the very things I believe about Mohammedanism: Radical Islam is not an aberration of Mohammedanism rather that theo-political Islamism is a revivalist movement following the example and teachings of a man called Mohammed. Radical Islamism is the true face of Mohammedanism even though the millions of adherents are the minority.

The so-called moderate Muslim is a person that has chosen to live a peaceful life. If a moderate Muslim is devout he/she cherry picks the nice beauty of the Quran and the lesser holy writings of Mohammedanism. The moderate adherent re-interprets the function of the not so nice writings of their holy scriptures and re-interprets the examples of Mohammed.

Thus a Westerner is propagandized that “jihad” means inner struggle and not holy war to convert or eradicate the kafir. To a moderate Muslim’s credit “jihad” has been revised to mean “inner struggle;” nonetheless that is not the example of Mohammed. Indeed one rarely reads or hears clamoring from the majority so-called moderate peace loving Mohammedan because in their heart there is an admiration of the purity of the theo-political beginnings of Islam.

With that little introduction I now lead into this week’s e-newsletter form Political Islam:

JRH 5/28/08

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

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam, part 8

Bill Warner

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Political Islam

Of Interest

What does the grand Ayatollah Sistani think of kafirs?

A British imam takes to the streets to terrorize the kafirs.

Why a jihadi wants to die a martyr for Allah.

This newsletter is one of a series on the subject -

An Ethical Basis for War Against Political Islam
Newsletter #8

Blacks as Islam's Molested Children
Let's run down the generally accepted history of race in the U.S. White men captured Africans, then brought them to the U.S. and sold them as slaves. Wrong: when the white slavers showed up on the west coast of Africa, they didn't capture Africans. They looked them over in the pens, gave the African slave traders their money, got their bills of sale, and loaded their purchases into boats.

The African slave traders were Muslims. Their ancestors had been plying the trade of war, capture, enslavement, and sale for a thousand years. Mohammed was a slave trader. Long after the white slave traders quit, the Muslims continued their African slave trade up into the 21st century.

Sacred Slavery
Islam is so very clear about slavery. The Arab has many words for slave. But he has only one word for blacks- abid. The word serves for both black slave and African. Islam has another word for white slaves-mamluk. Arabic has more words for slaves than any other language.

Mohammed was a slave trader, and the survivors of jihad were war booty. The Hadith contains a full legal and philosophic system of slavery. The Hadith have many sacred examples of how the slaves were traded and what was done with the children, women (frequently raped), and men who survived. Muslims took slaves from all cultures.

Slavery is a constant image in the Koran and the Hadith. Mohammed called himself and his followers slaves of Allah. One of the most common Arab names is Abdullah, slave of Allah, Mohammed's father's name.

What about modern Africa? How can black leaders not see what is happening as Islam carries out its sacred violence? Why aren't the black columnists, writers, professors, or ministers speaking out? They are in total denial. They are the molested children of Islam.

The one thing whites and blacks have in common is that their ancestors were enslaved by Islam, and both are too ashamed to admit it. Molested black and white children of Islam. It is our shame, a secret shame.

Our Ignorance
Blacks, whites, Christians, Jews, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, artists, intellectuals, and animists have all been brutalized by jihad and political Islam. Their reactions have all been identical to that of an abused child. Each and every one denies the events, refuses to teach the history, are profoundly ashamed, and try to placate the abuser, Islam. Each group of victims knows almost nothing about the other's suffering. All are afraid and even more afraid to admit it.

There are two more reasons for our ignorance-logic and ethics. People from a culture with ethics of unity find it almost impossible to actually understand Islam with its dualistic ethics.

The third barrier to understanding Islam is that Islam uses a different form of logic, dualistic logic. So we find it hard to understand a civilization that has a different way of thinking and feeling than everyone else.

Dhimmitude
Today the formal political status of dhimmi (a semi-slave who serves Islam) has been replaced by dhimmitude, the intellectual submission to Islam. One of the characteristic of a dhimmi under the fourth caliph, Umar, was that a dhimmi was forbidden to study the Koran. The chief mark of dhimmitude today is ignorance of the Koran, the Sira and the Hadith. The ignorance of our thinkers and historians about Islam is profound.

A dhimmi's second characteristic is attacking his natural allies. This is just one example: when Hindus are talking about jihad, they will frequently turn to criticizing Christians. This is due to impotence. It is like the husband who abuses his wife when he has a bad day.

A dhimmi's third characteristic is to try to make the situation with Islam better. This is done by complete denial of current events and arguing that Islam can be reformed or is not really so bad.

Our studies never mention the political doctrine in the Trilogy. The media discusses Islam in terms of political correctness, and multiculturalism. History courses don't teach about the civilizational annihilation due to jihad. Black history doesn't refer to the 120 million Africans destroyed over 1400 years of jihadic predation that fed the slave trade up to today. Religious leaders placate imams in public gatherings and have no knowledge what the imam actually thinks of them or their religion. Political thinkers do not even know Islam as a political force.

The problem with this ignorance is that our leaders are unable to help us. They do not understand that Islam is a civilization based upon the ideal of dualism, whereas our civilization is based upon the ideal of the ethics of unity. Our intellectuals cannot explain what this difference has meant in the past or what it will mean for our future.

In order for our civilization to survive, our leaders must understand the Trilogy and its impact. They must learn to think outside the politically correct, multicultural box of our media and universities. They must learn to connect the dots and see the systemic pattern of events based upon the Trilogy. The events of 9/11, the Mohammed cartoon riots, the London bombings, beheadings in Baghdad, the death fatwah against Salman Rushdie, and the killing of Daniel Pearl are all based upon the Trilogy. Know the Trilogy; know Islam.

Our historians must acknowledge the Tears of Jihad.

The Good Muslim
Here is the theory of the "good" Muslim. There are good Muslims and extremist Muslims. You can't judge Islam by a few extremists or even a lot of terrorists.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims. If you are going to measure Islam by individuals you will have to meet and talk with a lot of them, not just the handful you may know. That is the beauty talking about the doctrine. The doctrine stays the same everywhere and is constant over time. Every Muslim can interpret the doctrine as they see fit, so Muslims differ. But in the end, every Muslim is driven by the doctrine.

But let's talk about Ahmed, the good Muslim at work. Ahmed is a professional engineer. He says that terrorists are not real Muslims. His wife does not wear a burka.

It is the whole of Islam that we must measure. Even in Mohammed's day of full jihad, only some of the Muslims were out killing, stealing, raping, assassinating, slaving, kidnapping, and terrorizing. Others were back at home, doing whatever one does at home.

It has never been that every Muslim was a jihadist. But at any time that is always an option. Jihad is always an option for every Muslim.

So yes, Ahmed, the professional engineer at work, is a nice man. Where he differs from the nice Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, or atheist, however, is that Ahmed has another ethical option open at all times.

Remember that a good Muslim is commanded 14 times in the Koran to remember that a Muslim is not actually a friend to the kafirs. To the extent that Ahmed is your friend, he is not a Muslim. To the extent that Ahmed is a Muslim, he is not your friend. After all, you are kafir.

Koran 3:28 Believers should not take kafirs as friends in preference to other believers. Those who do this will have none of Allah's protection and will only have themselves as guards. Allah warns you to fear Him for all will return to Him.

Mohammed is the perfect model for a Muslim. Mohammed's uncle adopted him, raised him, taught him the trade of being a businessman, and protected him from harm. But his uncle never converted and Mohammed cursed him to Hell when he would not convert on his deathbed. Mohammed would be friendly to try to convert or get a favor, but he never, ever favored a kafir over a Muslim. He was never an actual friend to a kafir.

At any time that it is needed to advance Islam, Ahmed may be deceitful. He will also give money to Islamic charities that fund jihad. In political matters he will always come down on the side of Islam. And he will say that a terrorist is not a real Muslim. But according to the doctrine of political Islam both the terrorist and Ahmed are real Muslims.

So the question is how many Muslims follow which Koran? The same person can use either the Koran of Mecca or the Koran of Medina when needed. Islam will now and forever contain "good" Muslims who are kind and "bad" Muslims who are oppressive and confrontational. You can't have just "good" Muslims.

Within the secret heart of every "good" Muslim is the Koran of Medina and jihad. Ahmed's constant desire is to be more like Mohammed, who never had a kafir friend. Ahmed will always be one of those "moderate" Muslims who do not rise up and condemn or "rat out" the terrorists. And at all times and in all ways, Ahmed will support Islamization of our culture.

This problem of friendship is at the heart of the evil of dualistic ethics. It is this problem that members of the ethics of unity find the hardest to fathom. Most of the kafirs just cannot believe that someone with dualistic ethics is only being friendly, not a real friend. Ahmed, the person, may actually be your true friend. But, Ahmed, the Muslim, is forbidden to be your true friend.

Bill Warner

Signup for our weekly newletter.

_______________________

Use this as you will, just do not edit and give us credit.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Why Iran will fight, not compromise

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Tue, 27 May 2008 13:35:04 -0500

Iran Economy

Hello Barack Hussein Obama! Negotiation and Appeasement will not work with psycho Ahmadinejad or his sponsor Ayatollah Khamenei.

Come on BHO, read Spengler’s article in the Asia Times:

JRH 5/27/08 (Hat tip to ICJS Research)

Ahmadinejad in Pile of Crap cartoon

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

MI6 & Mossad Intelligence Disputes NIE 2007

nobody@vox.com(theway2k) — Sun, 04 May 2008 18:51:44 -0500

Mossad Crest 2

Remember the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 that proclaimed to the world that Iran had abandoned a weapons program in connection with the building of their weapons grade nuclear plant?

When that NIE report came out Iran crowed the big International “I told you so.”

But here is the thing: the NIE 2007 contradicted previous NIE reports and did not align with Israeli Intelligence. Many anti-war Westerners obviously would slough off Israeli Intelligence due to the fact that Israel and Iran are mortal enemies publicly in the war of words and behind the back door with the hushed diplomatic channels on obvious Iranian military supplies to Hezbollah and Hamas. Those two Islamist murdering terrorists (one is Shi’ite and the latter is Sunni) have one agenda: the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews.

But lo and behold it is becoming evident that NIE 2007 was a report put together by pro-Arab/pro-Islam oil authors because recent events (including the Israeli destruction of a secret Syrian nuclear program) and verified Intelligence from both British and Israeli Intelligence sheds light on a different outcome than NIE 2007. That outcome is indeed that Iran is has a nuke weapons program.

Apparently if the pro-Arab/pro-oil American Intelligence is willing to look the other way to embarrass the Bush Administration, Mossad of Israel and MI6 of Britain are collaborating and putting Intelligence notes that are leaning strongly to another conclusion completely divergent of the American Intelligence Community (an amalgam of Intelligence Agencies) headed by the Director of National Intelligence that collated the data to arrive at the NIE 2007 conclusion on Iran’s agenda.

Mossad and MI6 believe there is substantial evidence to execute some form of military strike on Iran to slow down or hopefully end Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Israel is even willing to risk a go it alone mission. Israel is hoping to get at least an OK from Washington and London to back up such an expedition since Leftists in both nations would scream bleeding heart murder if the American and British governments participated in such an endeavor.

My guess is that an Israeli strike would provoke a Middle Eastern free-for-all military chess that would draw America and possibly Western nations into the fray. That is not even mentioning the probable support of Iran by Russia and China that could range from limited to the extreme.

Wake up America! The Islamist/Western confrontation is on the horizon.

JRH

Read and post comments | Send to a friend