Omnia21

What have we learned from the attack on the natural gas complex in Algeria by "Islamist" militants?

First off, we should learn what an "Islamist" is. An "Islamist" is a Muslim who truly believes what the Koran and Mohammad said and it is his duty to follow those teachings.

The message is simple: It is the duty of every Muslim to spread Islam over the entire world and to convert, subjugate or kill every non-Muslim until Islam rules supreme everywhere.

All means that advance Islam are acceptable, including murder, rape and pillage, as was true for Mohammad and those Islamic leaders who immediately followed his example and is true for the wise men of Islam today.

The New York Times report of the Algerian attack had this illuminating paragraph:

One Algerian who managed to escape told France 24 television late Friday night that the kidnappers said, "We've come in the name of Islam, to teach the Americans what Islam is." The haggard-looking man, interviewed at the airport in Algiers, said the kidnappers then immediately executed five hostages.

President Obama has tried to hide this reality by, for example, ordering all government agencies never to refer to "Islam" and "terrorism" in the same sentence. An Army major killing dozens at Ft. Hood in Texas while shouting "Alahu Akbar" was said to be just an incident of "workplace violence," not Islamic terrorism.

There is a major shift in understanding that must occur: We in the U.S. and the rest of the non-Muslim world are not engaged in a "war on terror" or even a "war on Islam." Islam is at war with us. It has been so for 1400 years and that war presently is expanding as oil money funds the true teachings of Islam and the means to prosecute the war. Islam means war.

Islam is being spread by violence in Africa and other parts of the world. In Africa, Islam is pushing southward from lands on the southern rim of the Mediterranean that have been Muslin since the early Islamic invasions of the 600s and 700s. Mali is in the news today as Algerian, Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian Islamists seek to take over new territory for Islam.

The same has been happening in Nigeria for many years, as Muslims in the north kill and torture Christians and burn their churches, forcing them to flee to the Christian south.

In Sudan, Muslims in the north have fought for decades to conquer the oil-rich south populated by Christians and followers of traditional native religions, killing an estimated 2 million. Even though South Sudan won its independence, the attacks from Islamists in Sudan continue.

Inside a Muslim country such as Egypt, the ascendance into government of the Muslim Brotherhood, Islamist to the core, has meant more harassment of the Coptic Christian minority, ranging from killing and kidnapping to destruction of churches and persecution of various kinds. Coptics, who were in Egypt before the Muslims, are fleeing by the tens of thousands.

Christians have been fleeing from Iraq since Saddam Hussein was deposed and only a handful remain.

Persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims in Pakistan is widespread (as is persecution of those Muslims who do not subscribe to the Wahhabi strain of "true" Islam promulgated by the Saudis, who have run madrassas in Pakistan for decades).

In all Muslim majority countries, non-Muslims are persecuted or in danger of persecution up to and including murder. Even a non-Arab Muslim country such as Indonesia, known for its moderation, has sporadic outbreaks of attacks on Christians and one province of the country (Aceh) where Saudi Islamic rules are enforced. Tourist areas bring in money so they are heavily guarded, but deadly attacks nonetheless can and do take place, Bali being a prime example.

The basic problem is that at its core Islam is at war with everyone and everything non-Islamic. The great majority of Muslims may not be engaged in that war, in large part because they have not been as yet fully educated as to what Islam requires of them. The Saudis are as active today in educating Muslims around the world in what true Islam is as they have ever been and more true believers are created every day -- including in every country of Europe, Australia and the United States.

Obama endangers all Americans by misrepresenting this reality.

Jamie Foxx and Samuel L. Jackson attend a screening of "Django Unchained" hosted by The Weinstein Company with The Hollywood Reporter, Samsung Galaxy and The Cinema Society at Ziegfeld Theater on December 11, 2012 in New York City.

"Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?"

So historian and classicist Victor Davis Hanson asks. We all know the answer. Obama was lying. Obama has promoted racial and class division since the day he became president. The white people are the enemy and they must be put in their place as blacks and other coloreds get their revenge. He has four years ahead of him to exact retribution. The plea of Martin Luther King Jr. that content of character rather than skin color be the measure of a man is being flipped the other way round by Obama and his racial avengers.

The New Racial-Derangement Syndrome

By Victor Davis Hanson

December 20, 2012 12:00 A.M.
National Review Online

There is a different sort of racialist derangement spreading in the country -- and it is getting ugly.

Here is actor Jamie Foxx joking recently about his new movie role: "I kill all the white people in the movie. How great is that?" Reverse white and black in the relevant ways and even a comedian would hear national outrage. Instead, his hip Saturday Night Live audience even gave Foxx applause.

Race-obsessed comedian Chris Rock tweeted on the Fourth of July, "Happy white peoples [sic] independence day . . . "

Actor Samuel L. Jackson, in a recent interview, sounded about as unapologetically reactionary as you can get: "I voted for Barack because he was black. . . . I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years."

No one in Hollywood used to be more admired than Morgan Freeman, who once lectured interviewers on the need to transcend race. Not now, in the new age of racial regression. Freeman has accused Obama critics and the Tea Party of being racists. He went on to editorialize on Obama's racial bloodlines: "Barack had a mama, and she was white . . . very white, American, Kansas, middle of America . . . America's first black president hasn't arisen yet."

Freeman's racial-purity obsessions were echoed on the CNN website, where an ad for the network's recent special report on race included a crude quote from three teen poets: "Black enough to be a n. White enough to be a good one."

In the 21st century, are we returning to the racial labyrinth of the 19th-century Old Confederacy, when we measured our supposed racial DNA to the nth degree? Apparently, yes. ESPN sports commentator Rob Parker blasted Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III last week for admirably stating that he did not wish to be defined by his race rather than by his character: "He's black, he does his thing, but he's not really down with the cause." Parker added: "He's not one of us. He's kind of black, but he's not really like the kind of guy you really want to hang out with." (ESPN suspended Parker for his remarks.)

Unfortunately, the new racialist derangement is not confined to sports and entertainment. The Reverend Joseph Lowery -- who gave the benediction at President Obama's first inauguration -- sounded as venomous as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright in a speech that Lowery delivered to a black congregation shortly before this year's election: "I don't know what kind of a n***** wouldn't vote with a black man running." Lowery reportedly preceded that rant by stating that when he was younger, he believed that all whites were going to hell, but now he merely believes that most of them are. And in his 2009 inauguration prayer, Lowery ended with his hopes for a future day when "white will embrace what is right."

Wasn't Obama's election supposed to mark a new post-racial era? What happened?

For nearly a half-century, cultural relativism in the universities taught that racist speech was bigotry only if it came from those -- mostly whites -- with power. Supposedly oppressed minorities could not themselves be real racists. But even if that bankrupt theory was once considered gospel, it is no longer convincing -- given that offenders such as Foxx, Rock, and Lowery (who was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Obama) are among the more affluent and acclaimed Americans.

While focus is on the disastrous course Obama is pushing this nation along domestically, we cannot ignore his pro-Islamic policies that are a threat to the entire West. His speech in Cairo of appeasement and false praise was followed by his support of the anti-western and anti-American Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt from the pro-America Mubarak.

Now Obama is doing the same thing in support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria.

Melanie Phillips is a distinguished British writer whose book "Londonistan" was the earliest of modern alarms about how Islam is infiltrating the West seeking to destroy Western culture and capture Europe from within through immigration and non-assimilation. The Britain she wrote about several years ago is worse today as the Islamic advance has continued unabated aided by those who refuse to see reality. Britain is not alone. The same war of conquest is underway throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, non-violent in some places, aided by violence where Islam is strong enough so it can be.

Phillips sees Obama clearly for what he is:

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table ...?

Malice.

Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes.

To sum up, what Phillips in effect is saying in this important piece and other warnings she has issued is this:

Obama's hatred of the West, the white West, nurtured from his earliest days by his mother, his years in Muslim schools in Indonesia, his communist high school mentor's hatred of white America, his Marxist and black power associates at Occidental and Columbia and the anti-Israel academics he sought out at Columbia and in Chicago, along with white America-hating Jeremiah Wright and Obama's communist community organizer hero Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the destruction of the America's free enterprise systems, now has free rein. America the oppressor of all colored peoples deserves to be brought down and he is the one to do it. He has the power to do it. And he is doing it.

While speaking of British and European leaders Phillips speaks of catastrophic "mistakes."

But, in her assessment of Obama, she sees America and the West being betrayed. "Malice" is what she sees.

Into the abyss
Melanie Phillips
12.21.12
www.melaniephillips.com

To an astonishing silence by the media on both sides of the pond, the US along with the UK and a number of European governments is leading the west into an abyss. I have repeatedly noted here that the US, UK and France helped bring to power in Egypt Islamic extremists hostile to the free world, and were threatening to do something very similar in Syria. Now they have indeed done so by recognising the Syrian National Council as the legitimate leader of the Syrian opposition.

The thinking behind this is to designate the al-Qaeda linked Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group, while supporting the Muslim Brotherhood - which dominates the Syrian National Council -- as a reasonable alternative. But this is the same catastrophic mistake the US et al have made in Egypt. For the Brotherhood are not a reasonable alternative to Islamic extremists hostile to the west. They are themselves Islamic extremists hostile to the west.

The disastrous implications of this fundamental strategic mistake were spelled out in a forensic piece by Jonathan Spyer in the Jerusalem Post. As Spyer observed:

'The difference between the Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated groups is one of degree, not of kind.

'... The focus on Jabhat al Nusra should not obscure the fact that the better-organized, non-Salafi, home grown, Muslim Brotherhood elements that the US is backing are no less anti-western and no less anti-Jewish.

'Could things have been different? As with Egypt, perhaps, if the west had perceived the risks and opportunities clearly at the start. This might have triggered a vigorous policy of support for non-Islamist opposition and fighting elements, which were there.

'The result is that the force now facing the retreating Assad regime is split between differing brands of Sunni Arab Islamism, some aligned with the west, some directly opposing it, but all holding fast to fundamentally anti-western ideologies.'

Barry Rubin spells out even more starkly the looming disaster for the west from its idiocy over Syria:

'American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaeda-affiliated Salafists.

'One day, those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and to kill or intimidate its opponents.'

The mistake being made by the US and the rest is as deep-seated as it is egregious. The campaign in the west to promote the Muslim Brotherhood (to its motto: 'Islam is the solution' one obviously has to ask, 'But what is the problem?') as helpful allies against those who want to bring the west down has been making relentless and dismaying progress into the establishment for years - an establishment that refuses to see the Brothers for what they are, in essence because it refuses to acknowledge that what the west is now up against is a religious war. From that most profound and seminal error, all follows.

But when you look at Barack Obama, you see another factor at work which is not simply the strategic stupidity that results from an appeasement mentality, nor a myopic view of the national interest, nor the unsurpassed arrogance and ignorance of cultural hubris, all of which drive western foreign policy.

Just look at Obama's favoured candidates for the two US administration positions central to the defence of the west. They are both people whose attitudes would in fact deeply endanger it still further. John Kerry, tipped to become Secretary of State, is an anti-war activist and left-wing fantasist who, despite serving as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee, is such a man-made global warming fanatic that he believes climate change is

'as dangerous as any of the sort of real crises that we talk about'

ie, as dangerous as say, Syrian chemical weapons or a nuclear Iran.

The record of Chuck Hagel, Obama's favoured candidate for Defence Secretary, is more troubling still, as outlined here. He has consistently downplayed Iran's terrorist record and the danger it poses to the free world. He consistently voted against sanctions on Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons capability; he voted against naming Iran's Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization; and he refused to sign a letter calling on the European Union similarly to name Hezbollah - which has the blood of countless Americans on its hands -- as a terrorist organisation. Instead, he advocates 'engaging' with Iran - ie, appeasement, which he prefers to parse as

' "... a bridge-building process, an opportunity to better understand" others on the basis of "mutual self respect."'

This is all of a piece with his attitudes towards Israel and the Jews. Not only is he associated with gross anti-Israel canards which reverse truth and lies, but he also said that

'the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here...'

'up here' meaning Washington.

Whether or not these men are actually appointed is not the issue. The key point is that Obama wants to appoint them, from which we may infer that he believes they will enact his own vision of foreign and defence policy.

What therefore is the factor that Obama brings to the west's dismal foreign policy table as illustrated by these truly appalling choices? Malice. Against the west, and also against the ancient civilisation that lies at the heart of its moral codes. Factor that into the truly stupendous myopia and worse of Britain and Europe, and you are looking at the emergence of a new world order: the eclipse of the west, brought about by the unholy alliance between the Obama administration and death-wish Britain and Europe - and leaving Israel, once the forward salient of the west in the Middle East, emerging instead as the lonely and isolated defender of liberty in the face of the gathering Islamic storm.

How to destroy incentive, ambition and the desire to succeed and replace them all with a dependency on government handouts for which you will vote in thanks.

They didn't get rid of Scott Walker, So they have to leave for .....

The Obama administration systematically downplays, denies or ignores the threat to the United States presented by the followers of Muhammad and Islam. Those who agree with the mission set forth in the Koran and advocated by Muhammad are a danger to the United States and its citizens. A Muslim officer murders fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood while shouting "Allahu Akbar" and the Obama administration classifies the incident as "workplace violence," with no mention of Islam. This is one of hundreds of simiilar examples.

The war against the infidels has been waged by Islam since its founding and has grown in strength in recent years fed by billions of petrodollars from Saudi Arabia, funding mosques teaching the truth of the Koran to young people around the world, from Pakistan to the UniteD States. Violence in the cause of jihad (holy war) is integral to the Koran's message. The only sure road to Paradise is dying in violent jihad.

The signs are everywhere, but the America public is not on alert. This video spells out in detail the war threat we are not confronting and which is growing.

This is a brilliant insight into why Obama is the way he is, "a president who dislikes our country."

Dog-Eating and Obama's Identity

April 19, 2012 - 4:44 am - by David P. Goldman

What a careful reader will take away from Barack Obama's memoir Dreams of My Father is not only that the president used to eat dog meat, but more importantly, that he identifies with dog-eaters. He wants us to understand that he is one of them. Obama's most severe critics on the right think of Obama as a socialist, for example, Dinesh d'Souza, or Stanley Kurtz in his exhaustively-researched book Radical-in-Chief.

Obama used to attend the annual "Socialist Scholars Conference" in New York, which was a hard-core affair; I went to a couple of them, and they weren't for the curious. But there is something far more visceral, more existential to the president's dislike of the United States, and that arises from his early residence in the Third World, and his identification with the people of the Third World whose lives are disrupted by the creative destruction that America has unleashed.

Obama is the son of a Kenyan Muslim father, the stepson of an Indonesian Muslim, and the child, most of all, of an American anthropologist who devoted her career to protecting Indonesian traditional life against the depredations of the global marketplace. Her doctoral dissertation, "Peasant blacksmithing in Indonesia: surviving against all odds," celebrated traditional cultures hanging on desperately in the face of the global economic marketplace.

Ms. Dunham was not only a Communist fellow-traveler, but the sort of 1960s woman who (as we used to say) "put her body on the line," first by marrying two Third World men, and then by spending her career in the Third World. It is no surprise that Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States. Consider this description of the Jakarta of his childhood from Obama's autobiography, Dreams of My Father: "And yet for all that poverty [in the Indonesian marketplace], there remained in their lives a discernible order, a tapestry of trading routes and middlemen, bribes to pay and customs to observe, the habits of a generation played out every day beneath the bargaining and the noise and the swirling dust. It was the absence of such coherence that made a place like [the Chicago housing projects] so desperate." Obama had chance to compare the orderliness and regularity of traditional life with the rough-and-tumble of American capitalism, and chose to identify with the former.

One has to spend time in the Third World to appreciate how intensely Ann Dunham's boy dislikes America. Once in Lima, around the corner from the Finance Ministry, I watched a father and mother selling chewing gum at a stoplight. At the curb sat a little girl who couldn't have been more than four and probably was younger, taking care of her one-year-old sister. They were indigenous and probably spoke little Spanish. And they would spent the day at the stoplight to earn enough to buy sufficient calories and cooking fuel to keep body and soul together for another day. No wealthy Peruvian would think to fund a soup kitchen; they were more likely to get help from foreign charities, American evangelicals or perhaps the Catholic Church. But there wasn't much help to go around. I gave the four-year-old a few dollar in local currency; she took the money and ran to her parents to show them the manna that had fallen from heaven.

One sees things like this every day, a hundred times a day, in most Third World cities. If you grow up watching this sort of pain around you, and you are told by daddy and step-daddy and mommy that it is the United States of America that is to blame for the pain, you form the sort of attitudes that Obama represented frankly and without disguise in his autobiography.

Globalization-which ultimately is a good thing-may be unspeakably destructive for traditional societies in its path. Tens of millions of people are forcibly torn out of their roots. In Thailand, farmers become construction workers in the big cities, and the girls they would have married in their villages becomes prostitutes. Education and income and health all improve, on average, but the disruption of lives produces immeasurable hurt.

We laugh about it, but people in some Third World countries eat dog meat because they are poor-not only so poor that they will consume almost any source of protein, but so poor that they cannot afford to enjoy the natural bond between human and canine that began almost 15,000 years ago. For a billion or so people, life is a daily struggle to survive. People who are that poor also sell their daughters into prostitution. Female flesh is almost as cheap as dog meat in parts of the Third World, and for the same reason.

I wrote in February 2008, nine months before Obama was elected:

America is not the embodiment of hope, but the abandonment of one kind of hope in return for another. America is the spirit of creative destruction, selecting immigrants willing to turn their back on the tragedy of their own failing culture in return for a new start. Its creative success is so enormous that its global influence hastens the decline of other cultures. For those on the destruction side of the trade, America is a monster. Between half and nine-tenths of the world's 6,700 spoken languages will become extinct in the next century, and the anguish of dying peoples rises up in a global cry of despair. Some of those who listen to this cry become anthropologists, the curators of soon-to-be extinct cultures; anthropologists who really identify with their subjects marry them. Obama's mother, the University of Hawaii anthropologist Ann Dunham, did so twice.

Obama profiles Americans the way anthropologists interact with primitive peoples. He holds his own view in reserve and emphatically draws out the feelings of others; that is how friends and colleagues describe his modus operandi since his days at the Harvard Law Review, through his years as a community activist in Chicago, and in national politics. Anthropologists, though, proceed from resentment against the devouring culture of America and sympathy with the endangered cultures of the primitive world. Obama inverts the anthropological model: he applies the tools of cultural manipulation out of resentment against America. The probable next president of the United States is a mother's revenge against the America she despised.

At conception, a life begins.

A debate took place at the Cambridge Union in Britain on Iran or War. Douglas Murray spoke for proposition that appeasement means war with a nuclear Iran. A nuclear Iran should not be. He recounts the shameful past of Europe standing aside when the very existence of Israel was threatened. Powerful.

"Honor killings" are rampant in Muslim countries and have been brought to Canada and the United States by Muslim immigrants. Fathers, mothers and siblings can kill daughters who have "dishonored" the family by, for example, un-Islamic dress or being friendly with infidels. It is estimated that Pakistan, for example, has hundreds if not thousands of such honor killings each year in which the killers suffer no punishment.

Honor killings are often not reported by the mainstream media, be it newspapers, radio or TV. If a murder is reported, the term "honor killing" is seldom employed and the fact the killer is a Muslim is rarely mentioned. The vast majority of honor killings worldwide are by Muslims, for whom such killings are culturally acceptable.

A jury in Canada made it clear such killings are murder.

Flash mobs of black hoodlums in Philadelphia are condemned by Mayor Nutter, who calls them a disgrace to the city and themselves.

The breakdown in society is also seen in the riots in Britain, condemned by columnist Max Hastings as the poisonous fruit of liberalism, which has created a dependent underclass without moral compass, sense of purpose or concept of personal responsibility.

The National Debt is a huge problem. Driving that point home to everyone is very important because all of us will one way or another is affected and will be affected even more as necessary attempts are made to reverse the direction in which Obama is driving this country. Thanks to PowerLine for sponsoring the contest that produced this masterpiece.

True believers of Mohammad are embedded in Pakistan's security forces, most notably the intellingence service (ISI). A book published yesterday written by recently murdered Syed Saleem Shahzad recounts how the ISI planned the 2008 Mumbai massacre and handed the plans over to Lashkar-e-Taiba (L-e-T) for execution. Americans were among the hundreds killed and wounded.

Yet the U.S. calls Pakistan an "ally" and showers billions of dollars on the weak government, which itself is infiltrated with hard-core terrorist supporters. Appeasement? Yes. It is an unstable country with nuclear weapons and a danger to the world. No good plan has emerged for dealing with it.

This 99% Muslim, Sunni majority country of 170 million has for generations been "educated" by Saudi imans in what the Koran really requires of Muslims. Saudi-supported madrassas teaching the Koran and little else are more influential than public or private schools and are the prime souce of suicide murderers.

As a consequence, persecution of Christians and other minorities is rampant. As a civilized socienty, Pakistan appears to be sliding backward toward the 7th century more and more every year. Our alliance with India is critical for the years ahead.

ISI scripted Mumbai attack, Qaida cleared it: Shahzad book

NEW DELHI: The 26/11 terror attacks that killed 166 people and brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war was scripted by ISI officers and approved before its execution by al-Qaida commanders, according to a book just written by slain Pakistani journalist Syed Saleem Shahzad.

The 40-year-old reporter in his book titled `Inside Al-Qaeda and the Taleban -- beyond bin Laden and 9/11' describes the Mumbai plan as one pushed through by Ilyas Kashmiri, a key al-Qaida ally with wide links with the Pakistan defence establishment. Shahzad, who was an authority on terrorism in Afghanistan and the neighbourhood, says in the book that the plan was authored by the Inter-Services Intelligence officers and embraced and executed by Lashkar-e-Taiba.

"With Ilyas Kashmiri's immense expertise on Indian operations, he stunned the al-Qaeda leaders with the suggestion that expanding the war theatre was the only way to overcome the present impasse. He presented the suggestion of conducting such a massive operation in India as would bring India and Pakistan to war and with that all proposed operations against Al-Qaeda would be brought to a grinding halt. Al-Qaeda excitedly approved the attack-India proposal," Shahzad wrote in the book, excerpts of which were published in Karachi's The Dawn newspaper on Wednesday.

Shahzad's friends and family believe the ISI may have had something to do with his kidnapping on Sunday and his death by torture and Shahzad himself had spoken of threats from the ISI. The bureau chief of Asia Times Online was killed days after he had exposed links between Pak navy personnel and al-Qaida, explaining how the devastating attack on the Mehran naval base in Karachi was engineered. He is believed to have been killed for "knowing too much" about how al-Qaida has infiltrated the Pakistani defence forces, sources said. The book, yet unavailable in India, is further proof of the close ties between Pakistani officers and al-Qaida.

"Ilyas Kashmiri then handed over the plan to a very able former army major Haroon Ashik, who was also a former LeT commander who was still very close with the LeT chiefs Zakiur Rahman Lakhvi and Abu Hamza," the book says.

"Haroon knew about a plan by Pakistan`s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) that had been in the pipelines for several months with the official policy to drop it as it was to have been a low-profile routine proxy operation in India through LeT.

"The former army major, with the help of Ilyas Kashmiri`s men in India, hijacked the ISI plan and turned it into the devastating attacks that shook Mumbai on November 26, 2008 and brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a war."

According to a friend of Shahzad, the slain writer and he discussed the militant infiltration in the lower ranks of the defence forces. "He also expressed a fear that there would be a rise in violence as the security establishment is really shaky," the friend was quoted as saying in the Dawn newspaper

Bernard Lewis, the premier Western authority on Islam for many decades, see the era of tyrannies in the Middle East coming to an end. Western-style freedon, tolerance and free speech as a result? Islam westernized? Not likely.

More likely is a return to the consultative process of the Ottoman Empire in which the sultan had to work things out with the various power brokers to get things done.

islam will remain dominant.

He notes the distressing regression taking place in Turkey. In a way, it's a non-violent repeat of the transition in Iran from the secular. The mullah tyranny will be replaced by an Ottoman-style system of governance. Turkey and Iran will be running parallel courses. It's anyone's guess how Islamic fundamentalist fervor will act out. The odds are continuing trouble for the West from an expansionist, fundamentalist Islam.

He has no answer for a nuclear-armed Iran. He thinks a military move would incite patriotism among the opponents, so should not be tried. At the same time, he fears the "fanatic mullahs" who have an apocalypitc end-time vision.

Lewis sees things this way, nuclear holocaust skipped over:

{E}ven as... young Middle Eastern activists rise up against the tyrannies that have oppressed them, he keeps a wary eye on the spread of Islamic fundamentalism. It is particularly challenging because it has "no political center, no ethnic identity. . . . It's both Arab and Persian and Turkish and everything else. It is religiously defined. And it can command support among people of every nationality once they are convinced. That marks the important difference," he says.

"I think the struggle will continue until they either obtain their objective or renounce it," Mr. Lewis says. "At the moment, both seem equally improbable."

That's pretty depressing. Lewis does not see Islam succceding in achieving world domination as decreed in the Koran, but he does not see any wholesale defection of the billion plus Muslims from the creed of Mohammad and the effort to impose Islam on the world.

In other words, Islam will continue sreading through violent and non-violent means as at present with intermittent successes and setbacks. It will keep progressing in its war of expansion as long as the non-Muslims of the world do not resist and mount an effective counterattack to preserve their values. Europe is being swallowed thus far with no resistance by Muslim immigration, procreation and separatism, with not much need of terror. Stealth Jihad in the U.S. is well underway with the government in total denial.

The 1400-year war continues.

'The Tyrannies Are Doomed'

The West's leading scholar of the Middle East, Bernard Lewis, sees cause for optimism in the limited-government traditions of Arab and Muslim culture. But he says the U.S. should not push for quick, Western-style elections.
By BARI WEISS in the Wall Street Journal, April 2, 2011
THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW
Princeton, N.J.

'What Went Wrong?" That was the explosive title of a December 2001 book by historian Bernard Lewis about the decline of the Muslim world. Already at the printer when 9/11 struck, the book rocketed the professor to widespread public attention, and its central question gripped Americans for a decade.

Now, all of a sudden, there's a new question on American minds: What Might Go Right?
To find out, I made a pilgrimage to the professor's bungalow in Princeton, N.J., where he's lived since 1974 when he joined Princeton's faculty from London's School of Oriental and African Studies.

The fight against the tenets of Islam goes on in Muslim lands as well as Europe and America. Brave are those who dare to speak out against this frozen 7th Century culture.
Pakistani actress Veena Malik defended herself against a cleric and the anchor attacking her on Pakistani TV for appearing on a popular Indian television program. Good for her. Great job.

Geert Wilders is the leader of the Dutch Freedom Party and the foremost European fighting against the Islamization of Europe. Wilders gave an important speech in Rome this past week on what must be done in the Western world to defeat the spread of Islam, which is incompatible with Western civilization and democracy.

Islam's goal is the destruction of Western civilization to be replaced with Islam and Islamic law. Wilders speaks most urgently about Europe, which is already imperiled, but his words of warning and recommendations for actdion apply equally to the United States. The agents of Islam are already at work undermining our culture.

The Muslim Brotherhood's "work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and 'sabotaging' its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions. This goal was approved by the Muslim Brotherhood's top council in 1987.

Multiculuturalism must be defeated. Western civilization is far superior to that of Islam. Islam's evil must be widely made known. Free speech must be free and political correctness must end. As John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Winston Churchill have warned, Islam is a retrograde expansionist force that must be opposed and defeated. Geert Wilders is echoing a centuries-old message that is still falling on too many deaf ears. The late Harvard historian Samuel Huntington wrote of a coming clash of civilizations. One ex-Mulsim Wafa Sultain more correctly says it is a clash between barbarity and civilization.

Wilders' speech in full follows.

"The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide"
Geert Wilders, March 25, 2011
Rome

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe's Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization - the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

WATCH --

Muslim persecution has driven most Jews and Christians out of Muslim lands. The latest outrages in Nigeria, Egypt and Pakistan reflect the pressure of Islam to convert, kill or drive out "the other." Now the number of ever-expanding Muslim clusters in the big cities of Europe are driving Jews out of not-yet Islamic countries.

Is this reversible?