Stop The Presses!!!! Hold The Phone!!!!

From Pat Dollard's NEW and IMPROVED website!!!! (Go tell him it looks good, please)

Report: NATO Agrees To Let Afghan Government Try Koran-Burning Soldiers

In a development that could chill the dedication of every soldier in the field, the U.S. government has refused to deny reports by the government of Afghanistan that NATO has agreed to have the soldiers who burned copies of the Quran face trial.Last week, Afghan president Hamid Karzai demanded NATO turn over the U.S. troops to be tried in Afghanistan. President Obama subsequently sent a letter to Karzai reassuring him that the troops involved would be punished for their actions.

Part of the three-page letter to Karzai said, “I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies. We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

It is unclear exactly what Obama meant by that statement as the White House has not released the full text of the letter. However, the Afghan government may have provided insight into its contents.

Over the weekend, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan government media and information center website posted a joint statement by the delegations assigned to probe the Quran burning incident.

The statement says that two delegations were created to “investigate the circumstances and causes that have led to the inhumane incident.”The statement listed several items, including a demand that the U.S. turn over the authority of the prison in Bagram to the Afghan government to ensure similar incidents do not recur and “calls on the U.S. government to fully and comprehensively cooperate to this end.”
However, the statement used vastly different language when discussing the fate of the U.S. soldiers involved in the incident.

“NATO officials promised to meet Afghan nation’s demand of bringing to justice, through an open trial, those responsible for the incident and it was agreed that the perpetrators of the crime be brought to justice as soon as possible,” the statement said.The wording suggests members of the military could be handed over to an Afghan system that imposes Shariah-related penalties.

WND requests to both NATO and the Pentagon asking for confirmation of the statement by Afghan authorities were not returned.Although the statements apparently were made by the Afghan government Feb. 25, they have received no mention in the mainstream media.Clare Lopez, a senior fellow with the Center for Security Policy, said if the statement by the Afghan government turns out to be true, it would be an unprecedented betrayal of our men and women in uniform.“ (oh gee, a Marxist betraying American troops, whodathunkit)

I can’t imagine we would ever do this, what would we charge them with? Are we going to try Americans for crimes committed under Shariah law? I cannot believe our government would go that far,” she said.

Robert Spencer, founder of Jihad Watch, said it was fascinating that the U.S. government has not gotten out in front of this issue and denied the statement.“The administration needs to clarify their stance on this. The longer they wait to deny this the more it has the opportunity to further inflame the Muslim in Afghanistan.”
Spencer said that whether the soldiers end up being turned over to the Afghan government or face court-martial, either decision would set a dangerous precedent.“

"It would be unconscionable either way,” he said. “If they turn them over to the Afghan government for trial then we are endorsing the applicability of Shariah law to non-Muslims in the U.S. military. If they court-martial them then they are adopting those norms as part of the UCMJ. Either way it’s frightening.”

Lopez said that while U.S. officials have made large concessions to appease Muslims, turning the soldiers over to face trial would be over the line.“If they were to allow our soldiers to be tried under a legal system that calls for the death penalty for destroying a Quran, that would be unthinkable,” she said. She said that the silence on the part of U.S. officials has the potential to cause real damage to the morale of troops.

“When the government will not come out with a strong denial of this statement by the Afghan government it has the potential to cause our troops to wonder if the U.S. will truly stand behind and protect them when they are simply trying to do their job,” she said. It appears that the soldiers may not have violated Islamic law at all by their burning of the Qurans.

In a PBS interview, Imam Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at the Islamic Center of Southern California, said it was acceptable to burn the Quran if it was in a state of “disrepair.”

Or being used to pass messages to other terrorists for the purpose of conspiring to murder ISAF troops or escape detention in order to re-join the Taliban to murder ISAF troops.

Book Burning Is An Expression of Bigotry

Just as public demonstrations of hate for anyone are expressions of bigotry, so is book burning. An over simplification of the definition of bigotry is a belief that one is morally and intellectually superior to all others and no one is right but them. Jones didn't kill those people in Afghanistan, but he tripped the triggers of those who are by nature violent and bigoted. Radical islamists are bigots and need very little provocation to act out. They do not have the wiring in their brains to allow them to embrace the philosophy of freedom of expression. The problem is, Jones essentially yelled FIRE!!! in a crowded theater knowing the crowd would panic and trample one another, and there was no fire. Jones caused the deaths of those people just as surely as if he had been there. But Jones is a bigot and bigots don't care about innocents.

Sharia Law Is Illegal In This Country

Why are we obliged to accept the presence of Sharia and Islamic laws or values anywhere in our society if adherence to them demands the violation of our laws? Must we accept this simply because they arrive under the banner of religion? Is not freedom of speech a basic right for all Americans, even Muslim women? Sharia says no. Are those women chattel? Should all religions be subordinated to Islam (if tolerated at all) in civil society? Should we not prosecute honor killings? Do we want legal sanctions, as Sharia has, for violating dietary laws (Michael Bloomberg, the trans fat Mayor of NY not withstanding).

Islam – Phobia or Simple Misunderstanding?

The very politically incorrect joke goes, "The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, George Bush, and a moderate Muslim are standing on four corners of a road with a ten dollar bill in the middle. Who got the ten dollar bill? George Bush of course. The other three are fairy tale characters."

The problem we face at the Mosque and elsewhere is not one of moderate Islam versus an extreme or perverted version. The problem is with the fundamental nature of Islam itself. Read the Koran, listen to the Imams. One need not be selective in the passages he chooses, just try to understand what the Koran is commanding the faithful to do. For anyone who still has doubts after that, play back the tape of millions of wildly cheering Muslims from Cairo to London after the 9/11 attacks.

The US is a Christian nation. No, you don't have to be Christian to be a citizen, but we are a nation of laws, and our laws are derived from natural law and are consistent with Christian teachings. Simply put, laws are born of values, and in the US that means Christian values. Most faiths share these values, and thus practicing them presents no problem. However, Islam and Sharia law are different. They are inconsistent with those values, inconsistent with our laws, and therefore Islam should be treated like any outlaw organization that sets itself above our law.

Why are we obliged to accept the presence of Sharia and Islamic laws or values anywhere in our society if adherence to them demands the violation of our laws? Must we accept this simply because they arrive under the banner of religion? Is not freedom of speech a basic right for all Americans, even Muslim women? Sharia says no. Are those women chattel? Should all religions be subordinated to Islam (if tolerated at all) in civil society? Should we not prosecute honor killings? Do we want legal sanctions, as Sharia has, for violating dietary laws (Michael Bloomberg, the trans fat Mayor of NY not withstanding). You get the point.

Foreign law has no standing in the US (liberal justices notwithstanding), and neither does religious law. We should use every means possible to eradicate illegal and often treasonous teachings from all sources which require the breach of our law. There is nothing inconsistent with following Christianity (or Judaism, or Buddhism, or Scientology), and following American law. But there is a huge conflict between following Islam and following US law. If we are to remain a nation where the law, our law, continues to reign supreme, it is not only our right but our obligation to fight against any person or organization that would undermine them.

The Mosque Must Go

The argument that the proposed mosque near Ground Zero is an issue of religious freedom misses the point. We all agree that worship is constitutionally protected. The real question is, does anyone have the right to build a monument where ever they want to what they believe was a great military victory over the United States? Would the United States have the right, under private property laws in Japan, to build a monument to the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki on those sites? I think not.

The argument that this proposal will be a monument to a battle victory of radical Islam at Ground Zero has a lot of evidence supporting it. Certainly throughout history Islam has built monuments in the form of Mosques on the sites of many battle victories. Imam Rauf, the promoter, has said many things (you have heard them all) that supports that contention here. If this would simply be a place of worship with the added purpose to reach out to Islam's neighbors, why would the Imam fight for this particular sight? He would create a mountain of goodwill before even breaking ground if he went elsewhere. But if this is a victory monument, fighting for that location makes good sense. I think his refusal to change locations betrays his real motive.

To those who would argue we can not know what is in his mind, rather we can only guess at his innermost motives, I would agree. We can not know with absolute certainty, in fact we can not even know beyond a reasonable doubt. But knowing with that degree of certainty is not necessary for the state to exercise its authority. This is not a criminal case. Different standards of proof are intentionally set in different areas of the law. A civil case need not meet the standard of proof that a criminal case does. If the smell test were applied, this proposal would fail miserably. I believe that whatever standard is ultimately applied, the Imam’s own statements leave only one reasonable conclusion. The mosque should not be built.

We Don't Need Continuity, We Need Reciprocity

If you listened to Doc today, he was asking for continuity in the manner in which the liberal left is dealing with the Ground Zero mosque.

That is a fair request, but I doubt the left will ever grant it.

I, on the other hand, want reciprocity. I want the practitioners of Islam to grant the same freedoms and rights we as Americans are obligated, according to the Most High Annointed One (may peace be upon him), to grant them under our Constitution.

Problem is: practitioners of Islam do not recognize any document other than the Koran. Islam is not just a religion, it is a form of government. Predominately muslim countries have no constitution. They have Islam and the Koran and culture police. They have no religous freedom. Christians and Jews are routinely persecuted and possession of a Bible in a muslim country could result in a death sentence.

Islam, as practiced today, cannot exist under our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, simply because the Koran is antithetical to our system of government, and while we are more than willing to allow anyone to worship anything, a religion which places women in a less than human standing cannot be allowed. Any system which discriminates against non-believers cannot function in our society, because we have the God given right to believe anything we want. We have the God-given right of free will and self-determination. Islam and the Koran do not recognize those rights.

As a Christian, I am directed by the Bible to tell others about Jesus and the way to salvation and Heaven. I am not obligated to do it. If I choose to do so, I am also directed to not cast my pearls before swine, or preach to dogs. Those are metaphors for non-believers. I am not directed to force those non-believers into salvation, nor am I directed to kill them for being non-believers. Thats the beauty of free will. The Koran directs followers of Islam to convert those they can and kill the ones they can't.

A religion which directs its followers to kill is not a religion, its a cult. Just like Charles Manson or Jim Jones.


Crazy wackjobs.

I Got Yer Fatwad, Right Heah

Exclusive: Will Terrorists Be Allowed to Sidestep Security?
Gadi Adelman

Muslim-American groups are supporting a “fatwa” – a religious ruling – forbidding Muslims from going through body scanners at airports saying that the body scanners violate Islamic law. In a statement on February 9th, the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) asked that scanner software be altered to produce only an outline of the body and urged Muslim travelers to avail themselves of alternative pat-down searches. (The term "fiqh" refers to Islamic jurisprudence.)

In a press release on February 10th, The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) supported the statement. In the press release CAIR stated:

“It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women. Islam highly emphasizes ‘haya’ (modesty) and considers it part of faith. The Qur’an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts. Human beings are urged to be modest in their dress. See Holy Quran, 7:26-27; 24:30-31; 33:59. Exception to this rule can be made in case of extreme necessity, such as medical treatment, to investigate a crime or in a situation of imminent danger. There must be a compelling case for the necessity and the exemption to this rule must be proportional to the demonstrated need.”

I don't need a book or a pedophile to "command" me to get dressed. I know enough to do that.

A "compelling case for the necessity"...."the exemption"..."must be proportional to the"..."need"

Weeelll alrighty then...I'd say protecting the public makes a "compelling case" and a simple scan certainly is "proportional to the need".

Here's my take on this:
It is a clear violation of international law and common decency for wackjobs, whether they be male or female, moooslim, Christian or Jew, to strap on fanny packs or crotch sacks of PETN and murder innocent civilians. Therefore I am issuing a fat wad to stop it.

Here's some more advice for CAIR...buy your own damn airline or learn to walk faster.

There, that should take care of things.

Al-Arabiya gets the word from The One.

President Obama has given his first formal interview as President to the Dubai-based Al-Arabiya network, presenting a conciliatory image to the world and backing away from any confrontation.




Excerpts from the transcript:
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the
United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen.

Right, the US has been dictating to the Middle East whenever we have been involved with the numerous peace proposals. We never listen...that's our problem...Carter "dictated" that the Shah should be replaced by a terrorist ayatollah and then, of course there was all that dictating at Camp David. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, all dictators of peace.....

I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

I think its clear by now that the Muslim world has little "respect" for the US. And as to "mutual interest", how does one have mutual interests with absolutist organizations like HAMAS?

My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that.

If the Muslim world does not understand that yet, then THEY are the ones that refuse to understand. 50,000,000 Muslims liberated. Tyranny fought on behalf of Muslims from Croatia to Afghanistan. And relationship with the Muslim world 20-30 years ago was TERRIBLE. 1979? Remember a certain hostage crisis brought about the missteps of another President that refused to see reality? 1989? Conflict with Libya, terrorism, and Salman Rushdie under threat of death.

I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

This answer was based on a question about the term "islamic fascism.: Of course the language we use matters. He implies that Bush "painted with a broad brush," which of course, he did not. Bush was very careful in stating that the majority of Muslims were peaceful. He bent over backwards trying to demonstrate his belief that Islam was "peaceful" against all evidence. Even with a five year decrease, over 100,000,000 Muslims approve of "suicide bombings."
And then, Obama has to bring up "other faiths." Yep, I've been following the new about those suicide bomber nuns and murderous Buddhists.

Peace will arrive when the jihadists renounce the intention to rebuild the caliphate. Until then, this is all smoke and mirrors. When the Muslim world agrees with the Western world on the same definition of peace, then we will see the end of terrorism. Jihadists have the long view. They believe that the West will eventually capitulate and Islam will be the dominate force/religion in the world.

And with refusal of the West to stand up to the Muslim demands for separate sharia-based communities, and for Muslim demands that western communities adapt to them instead of the immigrants assimilating into their new countries, I believe that they may be right.

Unless the West starts to take the words of the faithful as spoken, and the words of the Koran as written, the West will continue to misunderstand. "Radical" muslims are nothing more than faithful Muslims that believe that the Islamic faith must be exercised as it was under Mohammad. They believe that if Muslims "return" to the pure faith, mu slims will triumph. Arafat said such things. HAMAS and Hezbollah and Al Qaeda say such things. The Muslim Brotherhood says such things. And the "moderates" do nothing. Because they cannot dispute the "fanatics" with writings from the Koran. The Koran backs up the "fanatics" and the moderates do not wish to be ostracized and targeted. Even if a small percentage of Malaysians agree with the "radicals", that's 19 million people.

Negotiation does not work when a) one side does not negotiate in good faith, which in fact, is based on Koranic instructions to the faithful when negotiating with non-believers and b)one side wants nothing more than your death or capitulation.

Obama is living in a dream world. If he was a Muslim while living abroad, then he will be considered an apostate. And if he was not a Muslim, he's just another infidel. Treaties and negotiations are allowed, but, only with the goal of advancing Islam.

While the majority of Muslims want to live in peace, unless they assimilate in their new countries, even peaceful Muslims want their communities to change to a sharia based community, and thereby destroying the very western ideals and freedoms that originally let them move to that country.

Until the Islamic world rejects the ideals of Jihad or the West loses, there will be no peace.

h/t Gateway Pundit and Politico

UPDATE: The Palestinians respond to the One's message of Al-Hopiya, Al-changiyah