November 25, 2008

Somalia's Islamic Pirates

The following is from an article called Pirates Exploit Confusion about International Law:
On Saturday, off the coast of East Africa, pirates seized their largest catch ever: a giant Saudi-owned oil tanker called the Sirius Star. The brazen attack came on the heels of the capture of a Ukrainian vessel (loaded with armaments destined for Kenya) by Somali pirates in September. Humanitarian food shipments into Somalia have had naval escort for nearly a year — evidence of how much the security of sea-lanes has eroded. Media reports suggest that Somali pirates have already attacked more than 80 ships in 2008. [You will see in the report below, the number is already up to 95.]

By the 1970s, as a part of a growing chaos in parts of Africa and Asia, incidents of piracy began to pick up. But it was not until the 21st century that piracy has experienced a meteoric rise, with the number of attacks increasing by double-digit rates per year. Last year, according to the International Maritime Bureau, 263 actual and attempted pirate attacks took place. Large maritime areas have now become known as pirate heavens, where mariners can expect to be routinely molested.

Experience — especially that of colonial America — suggests that a few sporadic antipirate efforts will not be enough to solve the problem. Only a dedicated naval campaign, along with a determined effort to close the pirates' safe havens, will succeed in sending piracy back to the history books.

There has been some progress on this front. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has dispatched a formidable multinational force — including British, Italian and Greek ships — to join the American, French, Canadian and Danish vessels already cruising off Somalia's vast coastline. France has also aggressively pursued pirates, freeing captured vessels and hostages.

One thing is certain: As in the war on terror, the new campaign against piracy will test the mettle of Western governments. It will also require them to balance the rights of lawbreakers against the indisputable rights of the law-abiding to not live their lives in danger and fear.

The following is quoted from an article called Somalia's Dangerous Waters:
In the bad old days they used to hang them on the mast. Today the "international community" is worried about their "human rights." But they remain what they have always been — criminals of the high seas or, simply put, pirates. In recent years they have been active in a number of places — Nigeria, the Malacca Straits and, most blatantly, Somalia. The difference is that in the former two cases pirates are mostly freelancers, while in the latter case piracy is the national industry (together with the cultivation of khat, the Somali narcotic of choice). Piracy flourishes along the Somali coast because it is profitable and it can be done at small risk. [Not to mention the fact that imitating the example of Mohammad is obligatory on all Muslims, and Mohammad was a raider of caravans, usually taking the plunder to fund his jihad and ransoming the wealthy people he captured, and enslaving the rest.]

As Mary Harper reported for the BBC: “Whenever word comes out that pirates have taken yet another ship in the Somali region of Puntland, extraordinary things start to happen. There is a great rush to the port of Eyl, where most of the hijacked vessels are kept by the well-armed pirate gangs. People put on ties and smart clothes. They arrive in land cruisers with their laptops, one saying he is the pirates’ accountant, another that he is their chief negotiator. Special restaurants have even been set up to prepare food for the crews of the hijacked ships.”

Reporter Jonathan Clayton, meanwhile, provided this portrait of life in a pirate city: "Activity in Eyl moves up a gear. Clan elders arrive, eager to broker a deal between their young clansmen, who use speedboats to board vessels, and shipping companies eager to pay a ransom for cargoes and staff. The ransoms are sometimes paid into foreign accounts in places such as the United Arab Emirates and even Western Europe, and may also be paid in cash through middlemen in neighboring Kenya. These have spawned more pirate gangs, armed with better weapons and better attack boats.” [This is the same mistake Europe and America made in the 1500's, 1600's and 1700's with the Muslim pirates on the Barbary Coast. They armed and funded the enemy.]

Even Abdullahi Said O’Yusuf, the mayor of Eyl, has admitted that pirates use ransom payments to "buy houses in big cities" in different parts of the country. All of these activities mean local jobs, a share of the loot, delivered through clan elders, and strong popular support. It also involves the shrewd manipulation of Western respect for the law, a concept that does not exist locally.

Since the beginning of 2008, pirates operating off the Somali coast have seized 95 ships, the most spectacular being the Saudi-owned Sirius Star, a supertanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil, more than a quarter of Saudi Arabia’s daily exports and worth about $100 million. Insurance companies have so far paid hundreds of millions of dollars in ransoms for ships and crews, with the rate per ship varying from $300,000 to $1.5 million. As a result, insurance premiums have gone up by 10 percent and the increasingly frequent change of ship routes, from the Suez Canal to that around the Cape of Good Hope, is 30 percent longer and 20,000-30,000 Euros a day more expensive.
Something can and should be done about this, and the rest of the article goes into detail about what needs to be done.

Intimidation and Violence

The cartoon riots successfully intimidated many news sources in the "free world" into silence, as you can read about here: Muslim Violence Censors Western Media.

But along these lines, I thought I'd share this interesting observation form an article by Daniel Pipes:

The violence by Muslims responding to comments by the pope fit a pattern that has been building and accelerating since 1989. Six times since then, Westerners did or said something that triggered death threats and violence in the Muslim world. Looking at them in the aggregate offers useful insights.

1989 – Salman Rushdie's novel, The Satanic Verses prompted Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a death edict against him and his publishers, on the grounds that the book "is against Islam, the Prophet, and the Koran." Subsequent rioting led to over 20 deaths, mostly in India.

1997 – The U.S. Supreme Court refused to remove a 1930s frieze showing Muhammad as lawgiver that decorates the main court chamber; the Council on American-Islamic Relations made an issue of this, leading to riots and injuries in India.

2002 – The American evangelical leader Jerry Falwell calls Muhammad a "terrorist," leading to church burnings and at least 10 deaths in India.

2005 – An incorrect story in Newsweek, reporting that American interrogators at Guantánamo Bay, "in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet," is picked up by the famous Pakistani cricketer, Imran Khan, and prompts protests around the Muslim world, leading to at least 15 deaths.

February 2006 – The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes twelve cartoons of Muhammad, spurring a Palestinian Arab imam in Copenhagen, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, to excite Muslim opinion against the Danish government. He succeeds so well, hundreds die, mostly in Nigeria.

September 2006 – Pope Benedict XVI quotes a Byzantine emperor's views that what is new in Islam is "evil and inhuman," prompting the firebombing of churches and the murder of several Christians.

These six rounds show a near-doubling in frequency: 8 years between the first and second rounds, then 5, then 3, 1, and ½.

The Islamic Situation in Sweden

Muslim Pirates Against America

Michael Savage, a member of the top twelve Islamophobes, gives us a little history lesson:



Sponsored by Morocco and the city-states of Tunis, Algiers and Tripoli, the pirates preyed on civilian vessels, plundering their cargoes and kidnapping their crews. "It was written in the Koran...that it was their [the pirates'] right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners," the emissary of Tripoli's pasha told a startled John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in London in 1785. The emissary demanded $1 million from the United States — one-tenth of the national budget — to suspend the assaults or face losing the valuable Mediterranean trade, representing one-fifth of all American exports.

Read more: How To Deal With Pirates and Pirates Exploit Confusion About International Law.

Racist Confusion

In an article on the Infidel Bloggers Alliance, The Cultural Invasion Project, which was about a document found in a raid that showed a long-term plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to eventually replace our culture with Shari'a law and Islamic culture, the article received the following comments:

muslim from brooklyn
said...

You people are really paranoid. Not to mention stupid and bigoted. I'm a proud Muslim and a proud American. Being from Brooklyn, I also don't put up with dumbass cracker bullshit like this. Get with the program people — this is America in the 21st century — all of your white power, this is exclusively a "Judeo-Christian" nation crap is outdated.

Delete
I responded...

Muslim from Brooklyn: It seems strange that you would come here and make a racist comment.

I'm glad you're a proud American. But I'm sorry to hear you're racist. We don't need any more racism in America.

Please read more about what seems "paranoid" to you:

The Muslim Brotherhood's US Network

You must not know what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing or you wouldn't think our legitimate concern is paranoid. You are not alone. Most of America doesn't know yet.

Delete
Then another commenter, white=stupid said...

Dear hate-filled Jews and Christians: give it up!

Judge Rules That Suspects Cannot Be Detained Because of Ethnicity

A federal judge in Brooklyn ruled on Monday that the United States government could not use ethnicity as justification for detaining two Egyptian-born men who were questioned for four hours after a cross-country flight in 2004.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/nyregion/25lawsuit.html?ref=nyregion

Delete
I replied...

White=Stupid, I am neither a Jew or Christian, and I completely agree that someone should not be detained because of ethnicity.

However, as it says in the article you gave us, they were detained for questioning because they had "had acted strangely during their flight." The "two counterterrorism agents had observed them switching seats, checking their watches often and speaking in Arabic."

This sounds very much like a setup similar to the case of the six imams who were denied access to a U.S. Airways flight in 2006. CAIR, which represented these imams, claimed this was a clear case of discrimination against Muslims. Yet the imams were prevented from flying not because they were Muslim or held a prayer session directly outside the gate (and again on the plane, which is peculiar since even devout Muslims do not pray this frequently), but because they were behaving like hijackers. The imams demanded to board at the same time even though only two had first-class tickets and then attempted to reseat themselves on the plane in a suspicious formation (two in the tail, two in the mid-section, and two in first class). They muttered loudly in Arabic about jihad and cursed the United States for its involvement in Iraq. They requested seat belt extensions (which can be used as makeshift weapons) even though none was large enough to need it. Other Muslim passengers on the flight were not harassed. Given their blatantly suspicious behavior it has been suggested by many that the imams were deliberately trying to provoke their removal from the airplane. (source: here)

This is a classic use of the principle of pretext in provoking a hostile response so Muslims can "defend Islam." (read more about that)

I don't really know what their real intentions were, of course, and neither do you. I can say something about you, however. You seem to be prejudiced against Jews, Christians, and people with fair skin. In other words, you appear to be hate-filled and that hate is directed toward ethnicity. What seems equally strange is that we here at the IBA have taken a stand against exactly that sort of thing. (read more)

My guess is that the two commenters either really don't know anything about the cultural invasion now underway, or they are actually members of the Muslim Brotherhood using a little taqiyya. Or they could have been simply Muslims trying to "defend Islam."
Either way, it was a surprisingly hostile and bigoted response to an article that had nothing to do with race.

November 24, 2008

A Victory For Freedom

In the Netherlands, they've had a blasphemy law on the books since the 1930's. Muslim immigrants started using those laws to censor speech and writings critical of Islam's political, totalitarian, and suppressive teachings.

So the Dutch government repealed the blasphemy laws on November 1st, 2008. Religious criticism is a legitimate activity in a free country.

You can read more about this important victory here: Blasphemy Law Dropped in Netherlands. Here are a few excerpts from the article:
Blasphemy will no longer be a crime in the Netherlands, the Dutch government announced last week. On Nov 1 Justice Minister Ernst Hirsch Ballin said the country’s coalition government would repeal a 1930s blasphemy law in favor of strengthening the current anti-discrimination legislation.

Religion not be given a privileged place above free speech.

The push to reform the blasphemy laws comes in response to heightened tensions with the Netherland’s Muslim minority. Criticism of Islamists and Islam by comedians, cartoonists, filmmakers and politicians has led to threats of prosecution for offending Muslim sensibilities.

They Keep Pushing

The Home Secretary in Britain announced a new measure that prevents foreign Jihadis from coming to Britain to promote hatred. The Jihadis in Britain responded by having an event where Omar Bakri Muhammad spoke to the British crowd with a live feed. Omar was in Lebanon. The event was covered in an article in the Evening Standard. Here are some excerpts from the article:
More than 250 Muslims at a packed public meeting in Tower Hamlets were told by organizer Anjem Choudary, (a lawyer): "We have a special surprise, a special treat for you. Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad will be joining us on a live feed from Lebanon." He added: "As Muslims, we will not submit to any man-made law, any government, or any prime minister — Bush or Brown — or [to] Jacqui Smith. We submit to Allah."

"It is our religious obligation to prepare ourselves both physically and mentally and rise up against Muslim oppression and take what is rightfully ours," Choudary said. "Jihad is a duty and a struggle and an obligation that lies upon the shoulders of us all. We will not rest until the flag of Allah and the flag of Islam is raised above 10 Downing Street."

To loud cheers of "Allah Akbar" [God is great], he railed: "There are three types of Muslims, those in prison, those of us that are on our way [to prison] and non-practicing Muslims. Brothers and sisters, if you do not fear your home being raided by the Kufar [non-believer] police, you are not enforcing the Sharia."

Apart from a group of elders with long groomed white beards sitting in the front row, most of the 200 men in attendance were Muslims in their late teens or early 20s, mostly dressed in shalwar kameez with westernized accessories — trainers, hoodies and jackets. At the back of the hall, segregated by partitions, were more than 50 women wearing burkhas.

Besides Bakri, there were three other speakers. Each spoke for 40 minutes, their talks interspersed with video clips from Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo that were designed to fuel the meeting's "grievance theme" of Muslims being oppressed by Britain and the West.

Abu Muaz spoke out against UK imams, claiming they are too soft and tolerant. He said that "speech was not enough" and that it was time to "take action". "You must destroy the West," he declared.

But the most provocative was student leader Abu Rumaysah, who spoke to the crowd as if they were trainee terrorists. "Delete unnecessary material from your computers, take precautions not to attract attention to yourself and prepare your family for [police] raids," he said. He added that they should support the families of Muslims who were arrested and that Islam will only take over the UK if Muslims are proactive and enforce Sharia law in their own communities.

When a woman in a burkha asked how he could justify this when Islam was supposed to be a religion of peace, the crowd mocked her. But it was Choudary who rose to put her in her place. "Islam is not a religion of peace," he said. "It is a religion of submission. We need to submit to the will of Allah."
Read the whole article here: Islamic Radicals Make Mockery of Hate Laws.