January 30, 2009
January 29, 2009
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has cut off contacts with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) amid mounting concern about the Muslim advocacy group's roots in a Hamas-support network, the Investigative Project on Terrorism has learned.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR was made quietly last summer as federal prosecutors prepared for a second trial of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), an Islamic charity accused of providing money and political support to the terrorist group Hamas, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
CAIR and its chairman emeritus, Omar Ahmad, were named un-indicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. Both Ahmad and CAIR's current national executive director, Nihad Awad, were revealed on government wiretaps as having been active participants in early Hamas-related organizational meetings in the United States. During testimony, FBI agent Lara Burns described CAIR as a front organization.
Hamas is a US-designated foreign terrorist organization, and it's been illegal since 1995 to provide support to it within the United States.
The decision to end contacts with CAIR is a significant policy change for the FBI. For years, the FBI worked with the national organization and its state chapters to address Muslim community concerns about the potential for hate crimes and other civil liberty violations in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
But critics said the FBI improperly conferred legitimacy on CAIR by meeting with its officials, even as its own investigative files contained evidence of CAIR leaders' ties to Hamas.
Last autumn, FBI field offices began notifying state CAIR chapters that bureau officials could no longer meet with them until CAIR's national leadership in Washington had addressed issues raised by the HLF trial, according to people with knowledge of the notifications.
CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper declined to comment Wednesday when the IPT called for comment. Before hanging up, Hooper said "We're more than happy to cooperate with legitimate media. But we don't cooperate with those who promote anti-Muslim bigotry."
In one letter obtained by IPT News, James E. Finch, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Oklahoma City field office, canceled a meeting of the local Muslim Community Outreach Program, a state-federal program designed to enlist Muslims in terrorism prevention and investigate reports of civil liberties violations.
"Regrettably, due to circumstances beyond my control, the meeting will be postponed until further notice as a result of the planned participation by the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations," Finch's Oct. 8, 2008 letter to Muslim groups in the Oklahoma outreach program said.
Finch made clear the Oklahoma office valued its relationship with local Muslims. He said the stumbling block to further outreach was CAIR's national leadership.
"[I]f CAIR wishes to pursue an outreach relationship with the FBI, certain issues must be addressed to the satisfaction of the FBI. Unfortunately, these issues cannot be addressed at the local level and must be addressed by the CAIR National Office in Washington, D.C.," the letter said.
A spokesman for the FBI's Oklahoma City office referred questions about the letter to the FBI's national press office. In Washington, FBI spokesman John Miller said, "We've certainly been in contact with CAIR chapters" about the un-indicted co-conspirator designation. "The letter speaks for itself."
Letters with similar wording were sent in other states, people with knowledge of the matter said. It is not known how many letters were issued, but the FBI has had strong working relationships with CAIR chapters in states including Ohio, Michigan, Arizona and Florida.
Hamas was formed in 1987 as the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, the global Islamic political movement that aims to spread the rule of Shariah, or Islamic law, throughout the world.
A North American branch of the Brotherhood supervised HLF, CAIR and other organizations to build political, financial and public relations support for Hamas, evidence at the HLF trial showed.
The U.S.-based Brotherhood formed a Palestine Committee, headed by Hamas official Mousa Abu Marzook, in 1988 during the first intifada uprising in Palestinian territories against Israel. Hamas's stated policy is for the destruction of Israel.
CAIR co-founders Ahmad and Awad were early active members of the Palestine Committee, evidence showed. Wiretaps recorded the two CAIR leaders participating in strategy meetings of the committee in the 1990s, and both were also on a phone list of its members, the evidence showed.
The first HLF trial in Texas ended in a mistrial in October 2007. In November 2008, the second trial resulted in convictions of five former HLF officials on all counts of providing material support to Hamas.
It is unclear what changed between the first and second HLF trials to make the FBI rescind its policy of outreach to CAIR. The un-indicted co-conspirator designations were made on May 27, 2007 in connection with the first HLF trial. Moreover, much of the evidence linking the CAIR officials to Hamas was aired in an earlier public trial in 2006.
CAIR, however, vigorously challenged the un-indicted co-conspirator designation as a violation of its First and Fifth Amendment rights, accusing the government of "demonization of all things Muslim" in a brief filed in the summer of 2007 with the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Click here to continue reading this article.
January 28, 2009
A Practical Way To Support Freedom Of Speech, Stop Islam's Relentless Encroachment, And Help a Good Man
Geert “Winston” Wilders, the Dutch Parliment member (and leader of the Party of Freedom) is fighting Islamic supremacism. He is one of the few politicians in the world who is speaking honestly about Islam. (See more about Geert Wilders here.)
Wilders is being prosecuted by dhimmis (a dhimmi is someone who accepts Islam's dominance) because he warned the European people about Islamic supremacism with his movie Fitna (watch the video here). The dhimmis harassing him obviously have a defective memory.
Let’s remember that both Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler had the same opinion about Islam: It is a totalitarian and violent religion. Churchill denounced and warned about that ideology while Hitler admired it.
Today Winston Churchill, the most stalwart anti-Nazi, would be arrested in Holland for incitement to hate and racism whereas Hitler would be free to promote Islam and recruit Muslims into his Nazi party unmolested.
As reported by the BBC, the Dutch court has ordered prosecutors to put elected politician Geert Wilders on trial for making anti-Islamic statements.
“The Amsterdam appeals court has ordered the prosecution of member of parliament Geert Wilders for inciting hatred and discrimination, based on comments by him in various media on Muslims and their beliefs,” the court said in a statement.
“The court also considers appropriate criminal prosecution for insulting Muslim worshippers because of comparisons between Islam and Nazism made by Wilders,” it added.
Things have changed for the worse since Europe defeated Nazism in 1945.
Winston Churchill, the most prominent European fighting Nazi tyranny, had this to say about Islam :
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.Nazi leader Himmler had this to say about Islam :
A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.
The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.
No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled- the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
“Muslims responded to the call of Muslim leaders and joined our side because of their hatred of our joint Jewish-English-Bolshevik enemies, and because of their belief and respect for, above all — Our Fuehrer.”In his memoirs, Albert Speer wrote about Hitler’s appreciation of Islam, reporting a discussion which captures Hitler’s effusive praise for Islamic supremacism:
“…a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.”Hitler, according to Speer’s account, repeatedly expressed the conviction that :
“The Mohammedan religion…would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?”Churchill likened Islamic terrorism to Nazism :
“In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that even more important than invoking the famous British “stiff upper lip,” to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies.”Geert Wilders, among many others, likened the Koran to Mein Kampf. Jihad means “personal (supposedly) struggle.” Mein Kampf means “my struggle.” During WWII Muslims themselves — when they were completely free to make their own choice — did choose the Nazi side.
People trying to silence Geert Wilders need to be brought back to crude reality. Let’s explain to them, loud and clear, that European people will NEVER accept to lose freedom of expression, and even less to lose democracy.
HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT:
Doing something real and effective to support Geert Wilders — and freedom of expression above all — is very simple with the Amnesty International-SITA method: a letter in a stamped envelope, sent by snail-mail. Amnesty International has a strong record of success with this method.
For the letter itself, it is even simpler: A basic-rate stamp allows sending at least two sheets of paper. Here are some possible things you could include:
1. Print out the first two pages of this article (one sheet front and back). Dutch people commonly read English in addition to Dutch. (Note than another article supporting Geert Wilders is available too). So that's one page. For the second page...
2. You can add another sheet with information to help people better understand and face Islam. A small cartoon is worth a thousand words, and does not need any translation. For example you can print a Steph Bergol cartoon depicting the situation well. Here's another one.
Or you could include a leaflet about Islam, like this one (PDF document).
Or you might include the first two pages of chapter XXII from the 1923 book “Islam and the psychology of the Musulman” by André Servier.
Or how about including a letter to mankind from Ali Sina?
Or how about including two pages of comments chosen among the thousands on the internet petition for virtual support to Geert Wilders?
WHERE DO YOU SEND THE LETTER?
1. To the dhimmi lawyer who initiated that “legal” Jihad is Gerard Spong. Here's the web site of his office. And this is his postal address:
P.O. Box 15812
1001 NH Amsterdam
Dhimmi lawyers are very sensitive to snail-mails. You might also want to send a message to his associates so they can choose if they really want to still work with somebody fighting democracy to install an Islamic dictatorship. Here are the names of Gerard Spong's associates. Send your letters to the same PO Box above, but with the associates' names.
2. It is the Amsterdam district which rules the case (court of appeal and public prosecutor’s department), so another place to send your letters is to them.
Here is their mailing address:
1000 BH Amsterdam
Telefoonnummer (020) 541 21 11
You can find the names of the three judges here.
3. Regarding the public prosecutor’s department, an article gives the name of a spokesperson, Otto van der Bijl, allowing to go back to the page giving all the names of the main people for the public prosecutor’s department of Amsterdam here:
Dhr. F. (Franklin) Wattimena
Mw. S.Q. (Sanne) van Meeteren
Dhr. D.M. (Dino) Daal
Dhr.mr. O.J.M (Otto) van der Bijl
Mw. mr. H.A.B. (Hanneke) Festen
Mw. mr. A. (Alexandra) Oswald
Send letters to them so that they can fully realize the tremendous mistake they made when accusing Geert Wilders. He will have no more escape than demonstrating publicly, in front of all the medias (thanks to them!) to the extent that the Qur'an is indeed an hypocrite hate book, and Islam is a fascist underhanded ideology, completely incompatible with Western democracy.
Use this mailing address for the six names above (this is the all-purpose address for the public prosecutor’s department of Amsterdam):
(put the person's name here)
1080 BN Amsterdam
4. And finally, the Minister and State Secretary of Dutch Justice must take a stand. If they stand against Geert Wilders they will have to face the consequences. You can send to them your letter supporting Geert Wilders in order to incite them to protect freedom of expression in Europe by politely sending back to their deserts the bedouins lost here in our infidel lands. Here is how to write to them:
Dr. E.M.H. Hirsch BallinThe State Secretary:
2500 EA Den Haag
Mw. mr. N. AlbayrakChoose someone to write to (or better yet, choose several), print the article, put it into an envelope, stamp it (”Europe” rate) and send it.
2500 EA Den Haag
Support Geert Wilders against Islam to protect your freedom of expression (among other values). It is that simple.
Eventually, you can register your action on the Sitathon, to encourage more people to do as you did. You can also register for the newsletter (if you can read French) to be told about the future actions.
Take a stand: Spend a letter!
PS: In addition, Geert could use our financial help to face this “legal harassment jihad." If you can contribute, do not hesitate to make a donation on Geert’s website.
The above is a fleshed-out, edited version of SITAmnesty's article. Now here's an explanation of the Geert Wilders' situation by Pat Condell (five minutes, nineteen seconds long):
Support Geert in whatever way you can! Sooner is better than later. Convince your friends and family to support Geert. Even if you fail to motivate them to take action, your effort will help introduce them to what Islamic supremacists are up to, making them more open to information in the future (if you do it calmly and matter-of-factly, and think in terms of small bits and long campaigns). Let's help Geert Wilders and advance the cause!
January 27, 2009
In just the past three weeks we have seen:
- A violent Islamic protest in Britain, where an angry mob shouting “Allahu Akbar” chased – yes, chased – dozens of British policemen for blocks. You must see this video to believe it! (Please be warned – there is offensive language and profanity). Click here to see this shocking video.
- Pro-Hamas, anti-Israel Muslims conducting demonstrations here in America, shouting praises to Hitler for what he did to the Jews, yelling “go back to the ovens,” and at times physically attacking counter-protestors.
- The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ordering the prosecution of Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders because he has made statements deemed “insulting” and harmful to “the religious esteem” of Muslims.
- Austrian parliamentarian Susanne Winter convicted of “incitement,” because of public statements she has made, including the claim that the prophet Mohammed was a pedophile.
- Muslim protest marches in Italy that ended with the protestors, in an obvious act of intimidation, conducting mass prayer vigils directly in front of Catholic places of worship.
- The release of an official U.S. government report stating that Hezbollah is forming terrorist cells here in the U.S. that could become operational.
- The UN continuing to move ahead with the “Durban II” conference and its document that is little more than an anti-Israel rant that calls for suppressing public “defamation” of religion – notably Islam. This has run parallel to an effort by the Organization of the Islamic Conference to get the UN Human Rights Commission to pass a resolution condemning public “defamation” of Islam.
January 25, 2009
The War on Terror has been an amazing success not only in what has been accomplished but in what it has cost in lives. Two brutal regimes were obliterated, Al-Qaeda was decimated, fledgling democracies were established. But, most importantly, the US was able to do this while sacrificing the fewest number of soldiers monthly than in any other military campaign in US history. In fact, the US today is losing fewer soldiers each month in Iraq and Afghanistan combined than the average number of soldiers lost monthly during the Clinton years (~35 to 78).
Here's how the War on Terror stacks up with other US Wars:
The population today in the US is much larger than when these previous wars were fought. If you factor that in it really puts things into perspective.
The US has suffered 604 fatalities in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. The Taliban and Al-Qaeda has suffered 12,000 fatalities. 28,700 militant Islamists have been captured.
The US has suffered 4227 fatalities in Iraqi Freedom. More than 19,429 Al-Qaeda and Islamic militants have been killed. Over 18,900 insurgents have been captured.
Not only that but as Vice President Dick Cheney said this week we've achieved most of the objectives in Iraq that were established in the spring of '03:
We've got the violence level down to its lowest level since '03. We've had three national elections, a constitution written, a new government stood up, new army recruited and trained, the Iraqis increasingly able to take on responsibility for themselves. And we've now entered into a strategic framework agreement with the new Iraqi government that will provide for the ultimate withdrawal of U.S. forces.It's only fitting that this is reported before President Bush leaves office.
You could not have asked for much more than that in terms of the policies that we started on in '03.
Obviously, you won't hear this from the liberal media.
It certainly doesn't fit their narrative that Bush's War was the worst foreign policy mistake in US history.
1. More innocent Iraqis were being killed and dying because of sanctions when Hussein was in power than have been killed during the liberation of Iraq. The war has saved lives even as it’s being fought.UPDATE 2: Bill Kristol added this on Bush's legacy today:
2. The vast majority of the killing of innocent Iraqis has been by the domestic insurgents and foreign terrorists. Americans have killed a small percentage of the innocents who’ve been killed.
3. The American war against Iraq ended on April 9, 2003. The war against Iraq by domestic insurgents and al Qaeda followed. That war is also largely over. The pacification of Iraq is continuing apace.
4. The pacification is also proceeding inexorably. Iraqis show every sign of keeping the gift of democracy they have received from the United States.
5. Calling for an end to the war – as have Reid and Pelosi – when it is insurgents and al Qaeda who are continuing the war is a brain -dead Democrat talking point. Even Obama understands that if the United States withdraws prematurely the hard won victory over the insurgents may be reversed.
6. Premature withdrawal will cause the war to continue, not end.
But I don’t think keeping us safe has been Bush’s most impressive achievement. That was winning the war in Iraq, and in particular, his refusal to accept defeat when so many counseled him to do so in late 2006. His ordering the surge of troops to Iraq in January 2007 was an act of personal courage and of presidential leadership. The results have benefited both Iraq and the United States. And the outcome in Iraq is a remarkable gift to the incoming president, who now only has to sustain success, rather than trying to deal with the consequences in the region and around the world of a humiliating withdrawal and a devastating defeat.The above article was written by the inimitable Gateway Pundit.
January 23, 2009
In a stunning decision, a Dutch court has ruled that Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders has committed criminal “hate speech” due to his public criticisms of Islam, and should be prosecuted. (See the International Free Press Society release below).And this is from the International Free Press Society:
When a court takes such a step in a country as “progressive” as the Netherlands, every person who cherishes liberty and the right of free speech should shudder.
Mr. Wilders has, at the risk of his own life, courageously spoken out against Islamofascism and everything that comes with it. The decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeals is a crushing blow to free speech and a victory for radical Islamists who are bent on suppressing any public criticism of their ideology.
This is why we keep issuing warnings and action alerts to you about how politically correct governmental actions, in league with radical Islam, are moving us ever closer to the day where we cannot speak out against an evil that has produced 270 million deaths and caused untold suffering over the past 14 centuries.
This is why we must build a powerful, informed and organized citizen action network that will stand in unity against the evil of Islamofascism and the political correctness that aids and abets it. Whether we are Democrats, Independents or Republicans…conservatives, moderates or liberals…there is no choice. We cannot allow America to sink to a place where an American prosecutor would obtain an indictment against a Member of Congress for criticizing Islam.
If you would like to help us further this effort, whether by making a contribution or helping to start or get involved in a local chapter, please log on to www.actforamerica.org today.
While the Dutch court seeks to censor, through unjust criminal prosecution, the kind of political speech that has been the hallmark of free countries, it looks the other way when radical Muslims in its country call for the death of infidels and praise Hitler for what he did to the Jews.
The message is clear. It’s okay for a radical Muslim to call for your death, but don’t you dare criticize the Muslim for doing so.
January 22, 2009 - Washington, DC and Copenhagen, Denmark: A Dutch court yesterday ordered the criminal prosecution of Geert Wilders, Dutch parliamentarian and leader of the Freedom Party (PVV), for his statements — written, spoken and filmed -regarding Islam. The Amsterdam Court of Appeals has deemed such statements "insulting," declaring that they "substantially harm the religious esteem" of Muslims.Let's use Geert Wilders' prosecution to bring this vital issue to a wider audience. Help him win this case and let's publicize it and talk about it to everyone we know. His case is a clear example of the goals and methods of Islamic supremacists. This is long-range jihad.
Clearly, the effect of this Dutch court order is to set new limits to public debate in Dutch society, in this case about the highly controversial but nonetheless crucially important subject of Islam. This makes the prosecution of Geert Wilders an unacceptable breach of the sanctity of freedom of speech in Western society.
Having ordered a criminal prosecution for the opinions of a duly elected leader of a legitimate political party, Dutch authorities have dealt a devastating blow to political expression. While Dutch prosecutors prepare their indictment and Geert Wilders' future hangs in limbo, who in The Netherlands will dare discuss political and cultural matters related to Islam - Islamic law, Islamic integration, Islamic crime, Islamic policy - openly, freely and fearlessly? The chilling effect is instantaneous. If, indeed, Wilders is ultimately convicted, free speech will cease to exist in the heart of Europe.
The International Free Press Society believes this court-ordered prosecution against Geert Wilders, a central figure in the fight against the Islamization of the West, amounts to a dangerous concession to the strictures of Islamic law, which prohibits all criticism of Islam, over Western traditions of, and rights to robust and unfettered debate. As such, it is tantamount to a surrender to totalitarian influences that undermine all Western freedoms. And as such, it must be resisted.
It is important to recall recent history. Two Dutchmen, Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh, have been murdered for their outspoken opposition to Islamization in The Netherlands. Another Dutch politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has been infamously forced into exile. Wilders alone now carries this debate over Islam in Dutch society forward — forcefully but logically, outspokenly but reasonably, and always peacefully. In order to do so, this member of Dutch parliament lives in a virtual prison, consigned to 24-hour guard by Islamic death threats against his life. Now, Dutch authorities have ordered him to be prosecuted for the Orwellian crime of committing "insulting" words.
As Wilders puts it, "If I have to stand trial, I will not stand trial alone, but also with the hundreds of thousands of Dutch people who reject the Islamization of The Netherlands." He will also stand trial with those in The Netherlands and beyond who reject government prosecutions of free speech. In recognition of this dire situation, the IFPS immediately calls on every supporter of free speech to come to the aid of Geert Wilders. To assist in this effort, the IFPS has launched an international campaign in defense of Geert Wilders and his freedom of speech.
To support these efforts, we urge you to contribute to the Geert Wilders Defense Fund. Donation information can be found at the IFPS website at http://www.internationalfreepresssociety.org.
January 18, 2009
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — One morning two months ago, Shamsia Husseini and her sister were walking through the muddy streets to the local girls school when a man pulled alongside them on a motorcycle and posed what seemed like an ordinary question.I thought that last comment was interesting. It is the definition of a sociopath. I've often thought that Islamic teachings, if they are internalized, are basically an artificially-induced sociopathy.
“Are you going to school?”
Then the man pulled Shamsia’s burqa from her head and sprayed her face with burning acid. Scars, jagged and discolored, now spread across Shamsia’s eyelids and most of her left cheek. These days, her vision goes blurry, making it hard for her to read.
But if the acid attack against Shamsia and 14 others — students and teachers — was meant to terrorize the girls into staying home, it appears to have completely failed.
Today, nearly all of the wounded girls are back at the Mirwais School for Girls, including even Shamsia, whose face was so badly burned that she had to be sent abroad for treatment. Perhaps even more remarkable, nearly every other female student in this deeply conservative community has returned as well — about 1,300 in all.
“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.”
In the five years since the Mirwais School for Girls was built here by the Japanese government, it appears to have set off something of a social revolution. Even as the Taliban tighten their noose around Kandahar, the girls flock to the school each morning. Many of them walk more than two miles from their mud-brick houses up in the hills.
The girls burst through the school’s walled compound, many of them flinging off head-to-toe garments, bounding, cheering and laughing in ways that are inconceivable outside — for girls and women of any age. Mirwais has no regular electricity, no running water, no paved streets. Women are rarely seen, and only then while clad in burqas that make their bodies shapeless and their faces invisible.
And so it was especially chilling on Nov. 12, when three pairs of men on motorcycles began circling the school. One of the teams used a spray bottle, another a squirt gun, another a jar. They hit 11 girls and 4 teachers in all; 6 went to the hospital. Shamsia fared the worst.
The attacks appeared to be the work of the Taliban, the fundamentalist movement that is battling the government and the American-led coalition. Banning girls from school was one of the most notorious symbols of the Taliban’s rule before they were ousted from power in November 2001.
Building new schools and ensuring that children — and especially girls — attend has been one of the main objectives of the government and the nations that have contributed to Afghanistan’s reconstruction. Some of the students at the Mirwais school are in their late teens and early 20s, attending school for the first time. Yet at the same time, in the guerrilla war that has unfolded across southern and eastern Afghanistan, the Taliban have made schools one of their special targets.
But exactly who was behind the acid attack is a mystery. The Taliban denied any part in it. The police arrested eight men and, shortly after that, the Ministry of Interior released a video showing two men confessing. One of them said he had been paid by an officer with the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, the Pakistani intelligence agency, to carry out the attack.
But at a news conference last week, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, said there was no such Pakistani involvement.
One thing is certain: in the months before the attack, the Taliban had moved into the Mirwais area and the rest of Kandahar’s outskirts. As they did, posters began appearing in local mosques.
“Don’t Let Your Daughters Go to School,” one of them said.
In the days after the attack, the Mirwais School for Girls stood empty; none of the parents would let their daughters venture outside. That is when the headmaster, Mahmood Qadari, got to work.
After four days of staring at empty classrooms, Mr. Qadari called a meeting of the parents. Hundreds came to the school — fathers and mothers — and Mr. Qadari implored them to let their daughters return. After two weeks, a few returned.
So, Mr. Qadari, whose three daughters live abroad, including one in Virginia, enlisted the support of the local government. The governor promised more police officers, a footbridge across a busy nearby road and, most important, a bus. Mr. Qadari called another meeting and told the parents that there was no longer any reason to hold their daughters back.
“I told them, if you don’t send your daughters to school, then the enemy wins,” Mr. Qadari said. “I told them not to give in to darkness. Education is the way to improve our society.”
The adults of Mirwais did not need much persuading. Neither the bus nor the police nor the bridge has materialized, but the girls started showing up anyway. Only a couple of dozen girls regularly miss school now; three of them are girls who had been injured in the attack.
“I don’t want the girls sitting around and wasting their lives,” said Ghulam Sekhi, an uncle of Shamsia and her sister, Atifa, age 14, who was also burned.
For all the uncertainty outside its walls, the Mirwais school brims with life. Its 40 classrooms are so full that classes are held in four tents, donated by Unicef, in the courtyard. The Afghan Ministry of Education is building a permanent building as well.
The past several days at the school have been given over to examinations. In one classroom, a geography class, a teacher posed a series of questions while her students listened and wrote their answers on paper.
“What is the capital of Brazil?” the teacher, named Arja, asked, walking back and forth.
“Now, what are its major cities?”
“By how many times is America larger than Afghanistan?”
At a desk in the front row, Shamsia, the girl with the burned face, pondered the questions while cupping a hand over her largest scar. She squinted down at the paper, rubbed her eyes, wrote something down.
Doctors have told Shamsia that her face may need plastic surgery if there is to be any chance of the scars disappearing. It is a distant dream: Shamsia’s village does not even have regular electricity, and her father is disabled.
After class, Shamsia blended in with the other girls, standing around, laughing and joking. She seemed un-self-conscious about her disfigurement, until she began to recount her ordeal.
“The people who did this,” she said, “do not feel the pain of others.”
This fear is justified. Writers have been killed, publishing houses have been firebombed, and death fatwas have been declared, leaving writers and cartoonists living in fear for their lives. Hitchens writes:
Sometimes this fear—and this blackmail—comes dressed up in the guise of good manners and multiculturalism. One must not wound the religious feelings of others, many of whom are poor immigrants in our own societies. To this I would respond by pointing to a book published in 1994. It is entitled For Rushdie: Essays by Arab and Muslim Writers in Defense of Free Speech. Among its contributors is almost every writer worthy of the name in the Arab and Muslim world, ranging from the Syrian poet Adonis to the Syrian-Kurdish author Salim Barakat, to the late national bard of the Palestinians, Mahmoud Darwish, to the celebrated Turkish writers Murat Belge and Orhan Pamuk. Especially impressive and courageous was the list of 127 Iranian writers, artists, and intellectuals who, from the prison house that is the Islamic Republic, signed their names to a letter which said: “We underline the intolerable character of the decree of death that the Fatwah is, and we insist on the fact that aesthetic criteria are the only proper ones for judging works of art.… To the extent that the systematic denial of the rights of man in Iran is tolerated, this can only further encourage the export outside the Islamic Republic of its terroristic methods which destroy freedom.” In other words, the situation is the exact reverse of what the condescending multiculturalists say it is. To indulge the idea of religious censorship by the threat of violence is to insult and undermine precisely those in the Muslim world who are its intellectual cream, and who want to testify for their own liberty—and for ours. It is also to make the patronizing assumption that the leaders of mobs and the inciters of goons are the authentic representatives of Muslim opinion. What could be more “offensive” than that?
January 17, 2009
January 16, 2009
Arafat was particularly struck by Ho Chi Minh’s success in mobilizing left-wing sympathizers in Europe and the United States, where activists on American campuses, enthusiastically following the line of North Vietnamese operatives, had succeeded in reframing the Vietnam war from a Communist assault on the south to a struggle for national liberation. Ho’s chief strategist, General Giap, made it clear to Arafat and his lieutenants that in order to succeed, they too needed to redefine the terms of their struggle. Giap’s counsel was simple but profound: the PLO needed to work in a way that concealed its real goals, permitted strategic deception, and gave the appearance of moderation:Read the whole article>>
“Stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your terror war into a struggle for human rights. Then you will have the American people eating out of your hand.”
At the same time that he was getting advice from General Giap, Arafat was also being tutored by Muhammad Yazid, who had been minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments (1958–1962): wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab states, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead, present the Palestinian struggle as a struggle for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression that in the struggle between the Palestinians and the Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.
To make sure that they followed this advice, the KGB put Arafat and his adjutants into the hands of a master of propaganda: Nicolai Ceausescu, president-for-life of Romania.
He is the man who sang the lead vocals on Pink Floyd's song "Welcome to the Machine."
He was also featured on the album Led Zeppelin III. In fact, Led Zeppelin titled one song on that album, "Hats Off To Roy Harper."
Here's some info on Roy Harper from Wikipedia:
Roy Harper (born June 12, 1941), is an English rock/folk singer-songwriter/guitarist who has been a professional musician since the mid 1960s.Here is an audio of the song, and below it, the lyrics.
As a musician, Harper is known for his distinctive, sophisticated fingerstyle playing and lengthy, complex compositions. He has released a large catalogue of albums as an artist, most of which are available on his own record label Science Friction.
His career and influence have been respected by many musicians including; Jimmy Page and Robert Plant, both members of the 1970s band Led Zeppelin, Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull and more recently Californian harpist Joanna Newsom. Harper is also known for his guest lead vocals on Pink Floyd's song "Have a Cigar."
Harper has been referred to as “the longest running underground act in the world”.
The Black Cloud of Islam
Well I'm sick to the teeth of the news on the screen
of the Hezbollah scum and Jihad the obscene
whose men plant the bombs and then live feeling free
to watch women and children be killed on TV.
Which Satan delivers a child a death curse
in the name of a worn out collection of verse?
I've not read the book so I cannot recite
but I'd b More..et Salman Rushdie is just about right
underneath the black cloud of Islam
What kind of publicity needs so much blood
that's not for some sad diabolical god
selling himself as a two-bit Macbeth
as the expert in sentencing cousins to death
And what kind of god can this be anyway
that you have to prostrate to it five times a day
with hate in your heart and a gun in your hand
is force the only thing to understand
underneath the black cloud of Islam?
And the butchers who've got all this blood on their hands
are the ones who need god to be stood where he stands
blessing this kidnapping, murder and war
with books written hundreds of ages before
And women in veils walking paces behind
doesn't sit easy in my kind of mind
it speaks of oppression and no other choice
than rigid compliance with the loudest voice
underneath the black cloud of Islam
And you can put a lead bullet clean through this guitar
'cos I'm not overjoyed with the story so far
sharing a world with the nutters of god
is as good as being six feet under the sod
And words that are written are all here to stay
and these are the latest there are anyway
and I am the prophet so don't believe me
I'm the same as the old ones except that I'm free
to give you a piece of my mind which is this
you're the worst of Jehovah's blind witlessnesses
with your feet in the door of the deepest abyss
which is underneath, which is underneath,
which is underneath the Black Cloud Of Islam
There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight:
§ As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.
§ If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.
§ If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back.
Read the rest of the article.
January 15, 2009
At that point these Arab states encouraged any Arabs remaining within Israel — around 400,000 — to leave. The refugee status of these unfortunates was prolonged by the Arab states’ general refusal to allow them to settle in their countries, despite the absence of any serious ethnic or linguistic differences between them and the people of Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. (Jordan did grant Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs of the West Bank when it annexed this territory in 1950.) The Arab states wanted to use the refugee problem as a propaganda weapon against Israel, and thus had no interest in seeing these refugees settled in new homes.
Read the rest>>
January 14, 2009
While Europeans occasionally dare to speak about a Muslim problem, they won't for long. If you let the cockroach problem in your house get bad enough, you stop having a cockroach problem, and the cockroaches start having a people problem. Soon enough Europe won't have a Muslim problem, Muslims will have a European problem... and if anyone wonders how they will take care of it, a short look at the way Sudan, Indonesia, not to mention most of the Middle East have taken care of their Christian problem should answer that question. Men may have qualms about killing cockroaches, but cockroaches have no qualms about killing men.
WE AFFIRM AND DECLARE TO ALLIt says this declaration will be delivered to Obama and Congress. Knowing Tom, he will probably deliver it in person with the cameras rolling. If you want to sign it, go here: The Declaration.
• SUPPORT - for the state of Israel and for all Palestinians who agree with the United States that HAMAS is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization as detailed in Section 219 of the American Immigration and Nationality Act.
• SUPPORT – for the actions of the State of Israel to use all necessary military force to stop HAMAS’ illegal and immoral rockets attacks aimed at innocent Israeli civilians.
• SUPPORT - Israel to use every effort to target only HAMAS members and property and to minimize all collateral damage to the Palestinian population.
• DEMAND – that HAMAS immediately stop the torture and murder of their Palestinian brethren.
• DEMAND - that HAMAS recognize the right of Israel to exist and until such recognition HAMAS assumes complete moral responsibility for any and all deaths of Palestinians killed by Israeli military actions.
• CHALLENGE - all Americans to fully support Israel and reject the global Islamist propaganda machine that uses the doctrine of victimization to re-focus attention from the fundamental source of this conflict, the ideology of radical, political Islam.
January 12, 2009
Let's get one thing straight, terrorism is not a successful military tactic, it's a successful political tactic.Read the whole article.
Viewed from a purely military perspective, terrorist tactics may be devastating to a civilian population, but achieve next to nothing strategically. A suicide bomber detonating himself in a crowd accomplishes nothing except to spread terror.
Terrorism exploits not a military weakness, but a political one...so when terrorists are winning, don't blame the soldiers — blame the politicians.
At home and abroad, politicians when confronted with Islamic terror, choose halfhearted measures and appeasement, rather than confronting and dealing with the threat. The weak link in the chain remains the political link...
A year ago, it came to our attention in Washington County MD that a non-profit group (Virginia Council of Churches) had been bringing refugees into the city of Hagerstown (county seat) for a couple of years. Some problems arose and citizens started to take an interest and ask questions about how this federal program works. Our local paper had no interest in finding the facts, so we decided to find them ourselves.
One of the many startling things we found out about this very quiet effort is that these non-profit groups bring to the US on average each year 15,000 (FY90-FY03) Muslim refugees from the Middle East, Africa, the Balkans, etc, almost completely funded by the US Government through grants and contracts to these non-government agencies. Of the 168 refugees brought to our county since 2004, 125 are Muslim. Although we all have sympathy for persecuted and suffering people there are real questions to be answered about the wisdom of this policy.
It turns out that there are hotbeds of this refugee resettlement controversy throughout the US. We have identified some of those. Because the issue is much more complicated than we initially realized, we have set up this online community organizing center at:
If you have information or questions from your communities about Refugee Resettlement please get in touch with Ann Corcoran at Ann@vigilantfreedom.com.
WE HAVE NO way of determining which Muslims subscribe to pure Islam.
- If they are Muslims, then they subscribe to the whole doctrine set; otherwise, they are Mushrikun or hypocrites.
- If they don't subscribe to Jihad, then they suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance — as out of place as a prude in a whore house.
The reason this matters is that pure Islam is seditious. Islamic doctrine is more political than religious, and its sole political goal is the domination of Islam over all over religions and all governments.
- Islam demands a monopoly on faith, practice and government. It is under a permanent mandate to conquer the entire world so that only Allah is worshiped and 'people of the book' are subjugated, humiliated and extorted.
When Muslims move to a country, a certain percentage of them start agitating for special considerations. They start to organize and influence the nation politically in a way that is good for Islam and bad for freedom and equality. When the percentage of the Muslims in a nation's population becomes high enough, they gain so much political power that freedoms and rights begin to disappear. (Watch this video to learn more.)
- They tend to form enclaves and avoid assimilation, retaining their culture and practices. They complain about any porcine symbolism, contact with dogs, even leader dogs for the blind and demand extra breaks from work for their prayer schedule.
- As their numbers rise, violence begins and increases, as it has in Australia, France & Sweden.
Given all this, until we have a way of determining who is dedicated to pure Islam, no more Muslims should be allowed to immigrate into free countries.
- Any and every believing, faithful, pious Muslim is a threat to civil society because he is obligated to join the Jihad when called. Even if he is not a Salafi, he will always have potential for radicalization under the influence of media, friends and clerics.
Does this seem extreme? It's not as bad as it might seem. We already choose who can immigrate and who cannot. We make the rules. This is our country, after all. We are not under any obligation to allow anyone to immigrate who wants to. They do it with our blessing or they don't do it.So this policy is simply adding to the already-existing filter.
- Filtering out our sworn enemies is common sense. In recent decades, Nazi prison camp guards were still being deported.
This is not racist. Islam is not a race; it's an ideology. The policy of stopping Muslim immigration is simply acknowledging the reality of the Islamic teachings. I know there are Muslims who reject the violent and intolerant verses of the Qur'an. But Islam also teaches taqiyya and we have no way of knowing who is sincere and who is deliberately deceiving us.
- Islam had an Arabic genesis, but conquered Africans, Asians & Europeans, forcibly converting many. It is, in fact, an ideology, not a race; it victimizes people of several races.
- The reality of Islamic teachings is clear on the face of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. Book O, Chapter 9 of Reliance of the Traveller sets forth the rules of Jihad, including its definition. Allah commanded:
- perpetual conquest: outcome oriented imperatives to fight
- pagans until all resistance ceases and only Allah is worshiped on a global scale 8:39
- 'people of the book' until they are subjugated, humiliated and make annual extortion payments 9:29
- genocide: 'great slaughter' is set as a prerequisite to holding prisoners for ransom 8:67
- terrorism: Commanded in 8:12 and exemplified in 33:26 & 59:2
- If you reject Jihad, genocide & terrorism, you are not a good Muslim, you are a hypocrite, and you ought to reject the entire institution.
- 2:225, 3:28, 5:89 & 16:106 are cited as foundations of al-taqeyya
- (unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Ibn Kathir
We should not take the chance, at least until we find some way to discern between people who genuinely reject the political goals of Islam and those who do not. In the meantime, we should stop all immigration into free countries by Muslims while we can. You can get the process started right now by signing this petition.
- There is no real possibility of sorting the hypocrites from the zealots. There isn't much chance of that petition having much effect, either, but it is a way to apply pressure, show solidarity and build a contact base.
Does signing a petition do any good? According to ThePetitionSite (the organization I used to create this petition), the answer is: "Yes — often, but the answer really depends on a number of factors. In general, the more a target organization is impacted by public opinion, the more effective are the petitions. In addition, ThePetitionSite enhances the credibility of online petitions by centralizing signature collection, structuring/regulating signature data collection and output, facilitating communication of petitions via fax, email, etc. and by using fraud-reduction technology. Remember — the effect of a petition usually goes far beyond the actual list of signatures. Journalists write stories about the petitions, signers get inspired to take additional actions, and other "potential targets" conform their behavior to avoid being a target."
Petitions can also exert an influence through two powerful principles of influence: Social proof and commitment and consistency. Petitions have been known to ignite important public debates.
When this petition reaches 50,000 signatures, I will make sure each member of the House and the Senate finds out about it. And I will make sure newspapers and magazines all over the country find out about it. Your signature will make a difference. Sign the petition today: No More Muslim Immigration.
While there are other valid objections to Islam, my objection is based on the violent imperatives to conquest, genocide & terrorism. Islam has long history of rapine, beginning with razzia against returning trade caravans in 623 and continuing through the major conquests and has its modern manifestation in reconquista & terrorism. It is sanctified as outlined above, exemplified in the Jihad hadith of the four major collections and codified in Sharia & Fiqh. Two hadith bring the whole matter to the surface with extreme clarity I will quote the relevant portion of the first and the entirety of the second.
- 446, a gain of only 78 signatures.
When Umar sent the army to the great nations to fight disbelievers shortly after Moe's death, his General was asked, by a Persian General, for the casus beli.
Bukhari Volume 4, Book 53, Number 386There is only one rational conclusion to draw from that: Jihad is their religion. What is Jihad? Examine the definition given in Reliance of the Traveler.
[...]Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, has ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah Alone or give Jizya (i.e. tribute); and our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says:-- "Whoever amongst us is killed (i.e. martyred), shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever amongst us remain alive, shall become your master."[...]
Abu Dawud Book 23, Number 3455:
Narrated Abdullah ibn Umar:
I heard the Apostle of Allah, (peace_be_upon_him) say: When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion.
Chapter O9.0: Jihad
(O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad.
- The above analysis was written by Dajjal.
January 8, 2009
Stop Female Genital Cutting
It's about stopping Female Genital Mutilation. It doesn't say anything about Islam, but just getting rid of this hideous practice would probably help restrain Islamic encroachment. Even if it doesn't, stopping FGM is worth doing regardless.
This is one of those causes that can help force multiculturalists to choose between multiculturalism and human rights — a choice and a distinction that should be made. When they conflict, human rights should trump multiculturalism, as this issue makes crystal clear. If this hierarchy of values was clearer to more people, I believe much of the resistance we meet in telling people about Islam's relentless encroachment would evaporate.
January 7, 2009
Christmas Eve, Samuel Huntington died at his home at Martha's Vineyard. A decade and a half ago, in his most famous book "The Clash Of Civilizations," professor Huntington argued that Western elites' view of man as homo economicuswas reductive and misleading – that cultural identity is a more profound behavioral indicator than lazy assumptions about the universal appeal of Western-style economic liberty and the benefits it brings.
Very few of us want to believe this thesis.
"The great majority of Palestinian people," Condi Rice, the secretary of state, said to commentator Cal Thomas a couple of years back, "they just want a better life. This is an educated population. I mean, they have a kind of culture of education and a culture of civil society. I just don't believe mothers want their children to grow up to be suicide bombers. I think the mothers want their children to grow up to go to university. And if you can create the right conditions, that's what people are going to do."
Thomas asked a sharp follow-up: "Do you think this or do you know this?"
"Well, I think I know it," said Secretary Rice.
"You think you know it?"
"I think I know it."
I think she knows she doesn't know it. But in the modern world there is no diplomatic vocabulary for the kind of cultural fault line represented by the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, so even a smart thinker like Dr. Rice can only frame it as an issue of economic and educational opportunity. Of course, there are plenty of Palestinians like the ones the secretary of state described: You meet them living as doctors and lawyers in Los Angeles and Montreal and Geneva … but not, on the whole, in Gaza.
In Gaza, they don't vote for Hamas because they want access to university education. Or, if they do, it's to get Junior into the Saudi-funded, Hamas-run Islamic University of Gaza, where majoring in rocket science involves making one and firing it at the Zionist Entity. In 2007, as part of their attempt to recover Gaza from Hamas, Fatah seized 1,000 Qassam rockets at the university, as well as seven Iranian military trainers.
At a certain unspoken level, we understand that the Huntington thesis is right, and the Rice view is wishful thinking.
So when Britain's Channel 4 says that we don't get the chance to see these fellows speak for themselves, it would be more accurate to say that they speak for themselves incessantly but the louder they speak the more we put our hands over our ears and go "Nya nya, can't hear you." We do this in part because, if you're as invested as most Western elites are in the idea that all anyone wants is to go to university, get a steady job and settle down in a nice house in the suburbs, a statement such as "England's demise is on our agenda" becomes almost literally untranslatable. When President Ahmadinejad threatens to wipe Israel off the face of the map, we deplore him as a genocidal fantasist. But maybe he's a genocidal realist, and we're the fantasists.
The civilizational clashes of professor Huntington's book are not inevitable. Culture is not immutable. But changing culture is tough and thankless and something the West no longer has the stomach for. Unfortunately, the Saudis do, and so do the Iranians. And not just in Gaza but elsewhere the trend is away from "moderation" and toward something fiercer and ever more implacable.
January 4, 2009
Living with Cancer, Living with Islam
99 percent of Muslims are Muslims because their many times over great-grandfather was living in a village someplace when a group of men with swords marched in, and declared that they were all going to become Muslims now, or die horribly. Unless he was smart enough to get on board by being one of the men with the swords, and take home his share of the loot and slaves.
Today these people would be known as Muslim extremists. Back then they were just known as Muslims.
But there's a new Gold Rush in the West now as Western scholars, academics and politicians look around for something that isn't there — a way to co-exist with Islam. Except it's not a Gold Rush but a Fool's Gold Rush, because when it comes to Islam, co-existence has never been on the table. Islam is a religion that from its earliest days was spread by the sword of Mohammed, and then by various Caliphs, Emirs, Sultans, assorted warlords and rulers.
Religions that spread like that are no more interested in achieving co-existence, than telemarketers are interested in Do Not Call lists. It puts them out of business. Even the current boom due to "interest in Islam" can be traced back to 19 Muslims flying several planes into two major US cities with a death toll in the thousands. Minus the planes and with a much higher death toll, that is generally how people get "interested" in Islam in the first place.
When Muslim leaders talk about co-existence, what they really mean is "Stop bombing us long enough to let us destroy you."
This of course hasn't stopped well meaning Westerners from trying to find ways to get along with cancer. Like living with Cancer, living with Islam is a dead end proposition. You either go for Chemotherapy or sooner or later you wind up lying face up on a steel table with a toe tag on your foot. Except in this case the toe tag will be a Koran.
Like Cancer, Islam is a devouring entity that exists to consume, leaving destruction and misery in its wake. You cannot live with it, your choices are to either die, or force it out of your body. The West has currently pushed Button 1 while assuming that any moment now, the Cancer will turn moderate, and become willing to talk about how it can be integrated with the rest of the body.
France has banned Hijabs, Holland is looking at immigration, America has selected a leader from a Muslim background, and Cancer is laughing its ass off at the whole spectacle. It knows all this is nothing more than one of the Kubler-Ross stages of death, and that the West is still stuck on Bargaining.
We'll give you complete equality, social services, a good deal of respect, a seat at the table, the privilege to censor anything that offends you and the right to beat and rape as many women as you want — so long as you agree to be our friends. That kind of thing naturally doesn't work.
Giving people who already view you as subhuman, carte blanche to do whatever they want, isn't going to endear them to you. Just ask the Jews sitting in ghettos during WW2 and hoping that cooperating with the Nazis would avoid the worst from happening. Submission to people who already place no value on your life is death. When you do that you might as well take an ad out in the Dhimmi Personals Section.
There is of course such a thing as a Moderate Muslims, but moderate Muslims aren't a movement, they're just individuals who aren't very good Muslims — much like Jews who eat Pork or Catholics who have abortions. There are plenty of both, particularly in well off countries where religion isn't a big deal anymore, but self-indulgence is. By no coincidence those are also the places you're likely to find moderate Muslims, whose moderation consists of not being very good Muslims.
You can co-exist with Moderate Muslims because they really do want most of the same things you do, a house in the suburbs, a steady paycheck and Cable TV. Of course then their sons head to a Madrassa in Pakistan, and next thing you know they're on the plane back with a box cutter.
And that's the problem with confusing self-indulgence with moderation. The pendulum on self-indulgence always swings back to the extreme sooner or later, just as it did in Iran, just as it will in Egypt. Prosperity always breeds discontent and disgust among the very sons of those who enjoy it. It certainly did in the West producing the likes of Lenin and Ayers.
The problem is that Western anti-materialists are socialists. Muslim anti-materialists are Muslims. And so while Socialists and Muslims do their best to shake hands, the Muslim has a dagger palmed in his hand. The socialist has a copy of Das Kapital in his. It wasn't even an even match in the early 20th century. It certainly isn't an even match now, as even a casual observer of the European scene can't help but notice.
While we think of Muslims as a cultural problem, they think of us as a demographic problem. We think the solution is teaching them to be moderate. They think the solution is teaching those of us who survive to be slaves. And guess who's currently ahead on points?