Hillbilly White Trash

From the TimesOnline:

Italians have been left shocked by a ferocious assault on Franciscan monks by hooded thugs at a monastery in the foothills of the Alps, which has been compared to incidents seen in the film 'A Clockwork Orange'.

Father Sergio Baldini, 48, the guardian of the San Colombano Belmonte monastery near Turin, and three elderly monks from the Franciscan order of Friars Minor, were having their evening meal when they were attacked by three hooded men who gagged and bound them before punching, kicking and beating them with clubs.

Father Baldini suffered severe head injuries but also has "serious respiratory problems" because he choked on his food while being assaulted, doctors say. He has had brain surgery and was in a coma.

Father Salvatore Magliano, 86, Father Emanuele Battagliotti, 81, and Father Martino Giurini, 76 suffered less serious injuries, but were still being treated in hospital today.

Speaking from his hospital bed, Father Battagliotti said the monks had been eating "a dish of spinach" when they heard noises outside.

"I got up to have a look, but the moment I got to the door I was attacked - suddenly, immediately. I was struck on the head with a blow which made me totter," he said.

"Father Sergio (Baldini) came to my aid. He put himself in front of me to try and defend me, but he too was knocked down without mercy. They hit him until he stopped crying out. Then they beat Father Salvatore and Father Martin as well. It was terrible."

Cardinal Severino Poletto, the Archbishop of Turin, who visited the victims in hospital, said the attack was "beyond comprehension". The only possible explanation was that the assailants had been "either drugged or possessed, or both", he said.

Police said the motive appeared to robbery, although the monks only had "small amounts of money". A spokesman said: "Presumably the attackers thought they would find riches at the monastery."

Italian media compared the attack to A Clockwork Orange, Anthony Burgess's story of violent young thugs, filmed in 1971 by Stanley Kubrick.

Father Gabriele Trivellin, provincial head of the Friars Minor, said the assault amounted to "mindless, savage and gratuitous violence". He said the hooded men had carried on beating the monks even though they offered no resistance.

Colonel Antonio De Vita, head of the Carabinieri in the province of Turin, said a manhunt was under way for the perpetrators, with road blocks set up in the area of the monastery.

One of the areas where the Europeans unquestionably do a better job than America is in public education. However I still doubt that a bunch of thugs would be literate enough to have read A Clockwork Orange, although I suppose that it is possible that they saw the movie.

What I find much more likely is that the punks were Muslims out to recreate the glories of jihad by looting a monastery just like the great heros of the faith like Mehmed and Saladin. The only thing missing was the demand that the monks convert or die.

That there is nothing about this in the press reports is meaningless. The European police and press are even more reluctant than their American counterparts to say anything remotely critical of Islam.

If I am right about this it cannot even be called a "disturbing development" in that it represents nothing more than the continuation of well established behavior patterns among Europ's Islamic population.

The Dowager Viscountess had this to say about the post about Muslim offense against the Scottish police advertisement featuring a photograph of a puppy:

This started me to thinking. Do you remember that story by Robert Heinlein called "The Man Who Sold The Moon"? Heinlein wrote this is 1949 when the idea of even launching satellites into earth orbit was new. The story involves a businessman who develops the first rockets which can reach the moon, but he needs funding to develop his idea. So he goes to "Moka-Cola" wearing a button depicting the full moon with a giant "6+" logo (their chief competitor) on it and then to someone from the US government with a full moon button with a giant hammer and sickle plastered across its face.

He explains that it would be possible to place an image on the face of the moon by firing rockets with payloads of powdered coal programed to impact in the right pattern on the lunar surface.

He then explains that for a fee he could be persuaded not to do such a thing. Coke and Uncle Sam pony up the cash and thus begins the colonization of the moon.

As I said this started me thinking. The idea of using powdered coal to create a pattern on the lunar surface is absolutely sound from a technological point of view. What if we placed a large image of a dog standing next to a pig on the moon so that every time Muslims looked up into the night sky they were forced to view those hateful images? What if they knew that even when they couldn't see the moon that it was still there the dog and pig looking down upon them, mocking their faith and their prophet?

You know, we could even add that picture of Mohamed with the bomb in his head rag that gets them so riled up!

What would happen? Would they kill each other off in a mass wave of rioting?

It's worth thinking about.

From The Daily Mail:

A postcard featuring a cute puppy sitting in a policeman's hat advertising a Scottish police force's new telephone number has sparked outrage from Muslims.

Tayside Police's new non-emergency phone number has prompted complaints from members of the Islamic community.

The choice of image on the Tayside Police cards - a black dog sitting in a police officer's hat - has now been raised with Chief Constable John Vine.

The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

'It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

'They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.'

Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.

He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board.

The chief constable said he was unaware of the concerns and that the force had not sought to cause any upset but added he would look into the matter.

Councillor Asif said: 'People who have shops just won't put up the postcard. But the police have said to me that it was simply an oversight and they did not seek to offend or upset.'

Cards featuring police dog-in-training Rebel have been distributed to communities throughout the area to advertise the single number point of contact for non-emergency calls to the police.

Rebel has proved a popular recruit for Tayside Police after coming through the very first Lothian and Borders Police dog-breeding programme in February.

One of seven German Shepherd pups born in early December, he has now completed his course of inoculations, and is free to venture out onto the streets of Tayside.

A spokesman for Tayside Police said: 'Trainee police dog Rebel has proved extremely popular with children and adults since being introduced to the public, aged six weeks old, as Tayside Police's newest canine recruit.

'His incredible world-wide popularity - he has attracted record visitor numbers to our website - led us to believe Rebel could play a starring role in the promotion of our non-emergency number.

'We did not seek advice from the force's diversity adviser prior to publishing and distributing the postcards. That was an oversight and we apologise for any offence caused.'

Good lord but the British Empire has surely fallen hard and far. Why in heaven's name would anyone have thought to consult the "diversity adviser" before using a picture of a puppy in an advertisement?

Why in heaven's name do they even have a "diversity adviser"?

Of course Muslims are offended. Muslims are offended by anything which does not conform exactly to the standards of their filthy Dark Ages religious code. If the UK wishes to have a nation full of offense free Muslims they must get busy conforming their entire society to the standards of sharia.

Oh, wait a minute. They already are busy conforming their entire society to the demands of sharia.

Never mind.

In a sane West these seventh century savages would be told to either learn to live in a civilized nation or go crawl back under whatever Middle Eastern rock they slithered out from under in the first place.

But the West is no longer sane.

From The BBC:

The Metropolitan Police Force is to drop the crown and cross from its insignia for non-Christian officers because of objections from a Muslim recruit.

A Muslim traffic warden resigned because he complained he was unable to wear the symbol from any other faith.

The Sunday Times reports that the force has come under pressure from a threatened employment tribunal resulting from the case.

Currently all officers in Britain's 51 police areas wear the badge which incorporates the St Edward's crown, topped with a Christian cross.

Now the Met is proposing to develop an alternative badge for people who do not want to sport the traditional one.

In a statement, the Met said it had long "cherished" its association with the Crown.

However, its future depended on its "ability to attract and maintain the most talented people and cater for their individual needs and requirements".

It proposes that all employees will still be issued with the traditional badges "as a matter of course" but if they object - with supportable reasons - they will be offered a badge without the crown.

The initiative could be adopted nationwide after the Met's deputy commissioner Ian Blair discusses the issue with the Association of Chief Police Officers.

Traditionalists have rejected the idea.

Inspector Glenn Smyth, chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, told the Sunday Times: "Uniform should be exactly what the word means - it should apply to everyone.

"We swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. The crown is the symbol of that oath and this move attacks its meaning."

Tony Arbour, a Conservative member of the Greater London Authority, said it was political correctness "going mad".

Un friggin' believable. No, its Europe so it it all too believable.

At least there are some people left over there with the sanity to object. Not enough of them, but at least the great mass of Eurosheep won't be able to claim that they weren't warned.

Red Planet presents a couple of good articles to go with this cartoon. Here is one of them:

Mark Steyn, The Wall Street Journal (2006): It’s the Demography, Stupid.

The thing is though that it won't be an empty continent. It will be teeming with humanity - it's just that it will be Muslim humanity. By the middle of this century Europe will be majority Muslim, unless the Europeans find the political will to do something about it right now.

Unfortunately "doing something" would mean deporting tens of millions of Muslims - and not just immigrants but native born as well - back to the North African and Middle Eastern nations from which they, or their parents, came. Given the sheer number of Muslims living in Western Europe and the degree to which they have been radicalized this would likely mean continent wide civil wars of terrible savagery.

The question is whether Europeans will be willing to pay that kind of price to retain their civilization. I would guess that the answer is going to be "NO". After all if they do not even care enough about the survival of their culture to have enough children to replace themselves will they really be willing to turn their streets into rivers of blood to save it?

PARIS - Brigitte Bardot was convicted Tuesday of provoking discrimination and racial hatred for writing that Muslims are destroying France.

A Paris court also handed down a $23,325 fine against the former screen siren and animal rights

campaigner. The court also ordered Bardot to pay $1,555 in damages to MRAP.

Bardot's lawyer, Francois-Xavier Kelidjian, said he would talk to her about the possibility of an appeal.

A leading French anti-racism group known as MRAP filed a lawsuit last year over a letter she sent to then-Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. The remarks were published in her foundation's quarterly journal.

In the December 2006 letter to Sarkozy, now the president, Bardot said France is "tired of being led by the nose by this population that is destroying us, destroying our country by imposing its acts."

Bardot, 73, was referring to the Muslim feast of Aid el-Kebir, celebrated by slaughtering sheep.

French anti-racism laws prevent inciting hatred and discrimination on racial or religious or racial grounds. Bardot had been convicted four times previously for inciting racial hatred.

"She is tired of this type of proceedings," he said. "She has the impression that people want to silence her. She will not be silenced in her defense of animal rights."

It would be easy to express unqualified admiration for Ms. Bardot. She is standing up to the oppressive climate of political correctness and appeasment of Islam which is killing European culture.

However honesty compels us to note that Bardot is offended by the killing of sheep by Muslims as part of a religious festival. It would seem that Bardot is not nearly as worried by the practice of Muslim males murdering women and girls in "honor" killings over "crimes" like going out with their hair uncovered or wearing jeans.

As an animal rights extremist Ms. Bardot and her ilk have helped create the climate of political correctness which has now turned against her. I hope that Ms. Bardot is self aware enough to figure that out for herself.

BAGHDAD (AP) - An American soldier used a Quran, the Islamic holy book, for target practice in a predominantly Sunni area west of Baghdad, prompting an apology from the U.S. military, a spokesman said Sunday.

[. . .]

Iraqi police found the bullet-riddled Quran with graffiti inside the cover on a small-arms range near a police station in Radwaniyah, a former insurgent stronghold west of Baghdad, U.S. military spokesman Col. Bill Buckner said in an e-mailed response to a query.

American commanders then launched an inquiry that led to disciplinary action against the soldier, who has been removed from Iraq, Buckner said.

The Association of Muslim Scholars, a Sunni group, condemned the shooting of the Quran, calling it "a hideous act against the book of almighty God and the constitution of the nation and the source of its glory and dignity."

The incident was first reported by CNN, which broadcast a ceremony at which the top American commander in Baghdad apologized to tribal leaders in Radwaniyah. The military confirmed the details in an e-mailed response to a query.

"I come before you here seeking your forgiveness," Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond was quoted as saying. "In the most humble manner I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers."

The commander also read a letter of apology by the shooter, and another military official kissed a Quran and presented it to the tribal leaders, according to CNN.

"[K]issed a Quran and presented it to the tribal leaders". I may vomit.

The troops have been ordered not to desecrate Qurans or other Muslim religious artifacts so discipline was in order however there is a line between showing a decent respect for our allies beliefs and imposing dhiminitude upon our military personnel.

I thought that at least one of our goals in liberating Iraq was to help lift this nation out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. It would seem to me that helping the Iraqis understand that however offensive they might find the defacing of the Quran on a personal level that it should not be legally actionable unless the book belonged to someone other than the defacer.

In other words unless private property rights have been violated then it is not a matter for the authorities.

I know that it is a great deal to ask of Muslims to understand the fact that the best way to protect their own right to believe and worship as they please is to protect the rights of others to not only think but actually say - out loud - that they are crazy for doing so, but it should be among the least of things we ask of them in exchange for all of the blood and treasure we have poured into making and keeping them free.

This morning's cartoon is another calculated insult to Islam where Porky Pig battles Arab terrorists, and defeats them by causing them to be blown up by their own suicide bomber.

Imagine the Koran being trampled underfoot by a PIG. All Muslims are symbolically castrated by this cartoon!

DEATH TO ISLAM!

From Front Page Magazine:

Islam is not a religion nor is it a cult. It is a complete system.

Islam has religious, legal, political, economic and military components. The religious component is a beard for all the other components.

Islamization occurs when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'

When politically correct and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table. Here's how it works (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book (2007)).

As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:

United States -- Muslim 1.0%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1%-2%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%

At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs:

Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population.

They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. ( United States ).

France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad &Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions ( Paris --car-burnings). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats ( Amsterdam - Mohammed cartoons).

Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 10-15%

After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%

At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare:

Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%

From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels:

Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%

After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide:

Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace -- there's supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim:

Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 99.9%

[. . .]

It is good to remember that in many, many countries, such as France, the Muslim populations are centered around ghettos based on their ethnicity. Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. Therefore, they exercise more power than their national average would indicate.

From The Brussels Journal:

If Brigitte Bardot (73) had been fifty years younger, French President Nicolas Sarkozy might have made her France’s First Lady and her nude pictures might have been sold to help charities in Cambodia. Now, instead, the French are taking her to court. The former French sex symbol stood trial in Paris today for “inciting racial hatred” against Muslims. The public prosecutor demanded that the former filmstar be given a two-month suspended prison sentence and a fine of 15,000 euros.

For the last fraking time, Islam is a RELIGION, not a RACE!

In December 2006, Bardot wrote a letter to Sarkozy, then France’s Interior minister, to demand that Muslims anaesthesize their animals before slaughtering them. In her letter she said, referring to Muslims, that she is “fed up with being under the thumb of this population which is destroying us, destroying our country and imposing its habits.”

What, exactly, has she said that isn't true? I rather suspect that commercial butchers in all of the EU member states are required to conform to humane slaughter laws. Why should Muslims be any different?

Since 1997 Bardot has already been fined four times for “inciting hatred” against Muslims. Recently she was given a fine of 5,000 euros. Public prosecutor Anne de Fontette told the court today that she was seeking a tough sentence because she is getting “tired of prosecuting Mrs Bardot.” The former star refuses to shut up. The verdict of the Paris court is expected on 3 June.

She just won't shut up, the bitch! Just wait till Muslims are in the majority. She'll be put in a sack, buried up to her neck and stoned.

In Austria, the authorities are prosecuting the politician Susanne Winter on similar charges of “Islamophobia,” while in Belgium the minister of Justice has asked the European Parliament to lift the immunity of Frank Vanhecke, a member of the European Parliament and a leading member and former president (1996-2008) of the Vlaams Belang party, a secessionist party which aims for the independence of Dutch-speaking Flanders from Belgium. The Belgian authorities want to prosecute Vanhecke for a leaflet his party published in 2005, in which acts of vandalism in the city of Sint-Niklaas were linked to Moroccan youths. As the perpetrators of the vandalism were minors their identity has not been divulged by the authorities and Vanhecke is unable to prove whether or not they are indeed immigrants.

Seriously, does anyone doubt the identity of the vandals? Really?

On September 11 last year Mr. Vanhecke was severely beaten up and publicly humiliated by the Belgian police during a demonstration in Brussels to remember the victims of 9/11. If convicted now he could lose his seat in the European Parliament as well as his right to be active in politics.

This is why I say that Europe is doomed. Oh, Europe will still exist as a geographic expression, that is there will be a place on the map called Europe. But the European culture; the culture which gave the world Mozart and Leonardo da Vinci and Newton and Wagner and penicillin and the scientific method and Aristotle and the Parthenon and so many other wonders will be dead.

In its place will be the dysfunctional society of Islam under sharia. Like the barbarians who dressed as Romans and occupied Roman villas but repaired nothing, built nothing, invented nothing and whose existence ushered in the Dark Ages the Muslim masters of Europe will rule over a decaying continent.

And all of it will come about because the European people lost faith in their own culture's value, forgot the great contributions they gave to the world, turned their backs upon God and sold out their entire future for a comfortable socialist present.

From Front Page Magazine:

. . . Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC’s (Organization of the Islamic Conference) secretary general, declared: “Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination.” The Associated Press reported that OIC “delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted.” Ihsanoglu stated that “Islamophobia cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement.”

What kind of robust political engagement? Nothing less than restrictions on freedom of speech, of course. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, said: “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits.”

These words, and the OIC’s “legal instrument” in general, demonstrate why the foundations of a free society cannot take root where Islamic Sharia law prevails.

Once you declare one group off-limits for critical examination or declare that these people must at all costs not be offended, or that if they are they’re perfectly within their rights to stone, or lash, or imprison, or kill the offender, then you have destroyed free speech. In a free society, people with differing opinions live together in harmony, agreeing not to kill one another if their neighbor’s opinions offend them. Whenever offensive speech is prohibited, the tyrant’s power is solidified. No less in this case, although the tyrant in question is of a different kind.

That’s why all free people should oppose the OIC’s legal initiative. Not only does it threaten the foundations of Western society, but as it would render us unable to analyze it, it is an attempt to leave us defenseless against the jihad threat.

Yet at the United Nations, officials seemed eager to use Fitna as an excuse to enact laws restricting free speech. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon dubbed the film “offensively anti-Islamic” and declared: “There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence. The right of free expression is not at stake here.” Or maybe it is: the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, urged those angered by the film to work to limit free speech rights. “There is a protective legal framework,” she noted, “and the resolution of the controversy that this film will generate should take place within it.” She said that legislators “should offer strong protective measures to all forms of freedom of expression, while at the same time enacting appropriate restrictions, as necessary, to protect the rights of others.” And last week, the UN Human Rights Council passed unanimously a resolution proposed by Egypt and Pakistan that calls for the policing of individuals and media reports for negative statements about Islam.

Will it soon be illegal to speak about the use that Islamic jihadists make of Islamic texts and teachings to justify violence and supremacism? If it is, the only ones who will benefit will be the jihadists themselves – advancing the jihadist agenda far more effectively than riots ever could alone. The demonstrations on the one hand and the calls to limit free speech on the other neatly coalesce into a carrot-and-stick strategy. The message to the West is that speech about Islam that the Islamic world dislikes could lead to violent reprisals – but if the West heeds the voice of reason and clamps down on free speech and free inquiry, this violence will melt away. It is a message that all too many Leftist, appeasement-minded European and American leaders will find quite enticing. And that could be the most serious threat of all to our survival as a free people.

That Islam is the enemy of freedom in general and the United States in particular is no secret. So this kind of initiative from an Islamic organization is only surprising in its sophistication (normally they just strap on explosives blow themselves up in a day care center.

What I want to do here is ask why the United Nations is still allowed on US soil, why the US is still a member of that organization and why we are still providing the majority of its funding?

The UN is an enemy organization. It is hostile to the United States and to the freedom which Americans enjoy as their birthright. How could it be otherwise given that the great majority of nations which make up the membership in the world body are unfree and hostile to the US?

Why have we not long ago withdrawn from that useless anti-American talking shop, expelled its worthless diplomats from our shores and turned the buildings into low rent housing for the elderly?

In decadent societies of the past, the authorities didn't open the gates to hostile nations and ban opposition to this as intolerance and barbarophobia. What we are dealing with in the modern West is not merely decadence; it's one of the greatest betrayals in history. Our so-called leaders pass laws banning the opposition to our dispossession as "racism and hate speech." To native Europeans, when listening to our media and our leaders, it's as if we don't even exist, as if it were normal for them to put the interests of other nations over their own. Despite having "democratic" governments, many Western countries have authorities that are more hostile to their own people than dictators in some developing countries. Why?

We could ask the same thing about the pro amnesty forces in the United States.

The alleged jet bomb plotters considered taking their wives and children on the suicide missions, a court has heard.

As police listened in on the men using a hidden bug, they heard Umar Islam and Abdulla Ahmed Ali discuss a train bombing in which one participant wanted to take his child.

The Austrian authorities have indicted politician Susanne Winter on charges of incitement and degradation of religious symbols and religious agitation. This offence carries a maximum sentence of two years. Last January, Ms Winter said that the prophet Muhammad was “a child molester” because he had married a six-year-old girl. She also said he was “a warlord” who had written the Koran during “epileptic fits.”

The politician, a member of the Austrian Freedom Party FPÖ, an anti-immigration party which is in opposition, added that Islam is “a totalitarian system of domination that should be cast back to its birthplace on the other side of the Mediterranean.” She also warned for “a Muslim immigration tsunami,” saying that “in 20 or 30 years, half the population of Austria will be Muslim” if the present immigration policies continue.

Following her remarks, Muslim extremists threatened to kill Susanne Winter and she was placed under police protection. Today, the Justice Department in Vienna announced that Ms Winter will be charged with “incitement and degradation of religious symbols” (Verhetzung und Herabwürdigung religiöser Symbole). If convicted she may have to serve up to two years in jail for her opinions.

However, Alfred Hrdlicka, the Austrian “artist” who depicted Jesus and his apostles engaging in homosexual acts of sodomy during the Last Supper, has not been indicted. Nor will he be. Depicting Jesus sodomizing his apostles is not considered to be a “degradation of religious symbols” in Austria, but referring to the historic fact that Muhammad married a six-year old girl is “incitement to racial hatred.”

Neither has Mr Hrdlicka been threatened by Christian assassins for his “opinions.” The difference between Christian and Muslim extremists is that the former do not aim to kill those who offend them, but the latter do – which is perhaps also why the European authorities fear the radical Muslims and persecute their opponents while they subsidize those who insult Christians.

By 2050 most of the nations in Europe will be majority Muslim and sharia will be the law in the European Union. This is not conjecture it is demographic fact.

Fitna, the expose of Islam produced by courageous Dutch politician Geert Wilders, has been removed from the British video site Livelink. They state that they have received credible and serious threats against employees if the video remains accessible on their site.

Fortunately the video has also been posted on YouTube. Here is part 1:

And part 2:

The Islamic world does not want you to watch this video and they will murder to keep people from seeing it.

From World Net Daily:

Defying the wishes of the government of the Netherlands, a Dutch MP has posted his 17-minute documentary on the Quran, juxtaposing images of Islam's holy book with terror attacks and bombings by Muslim extremists.

Geert Wilders, leader of the Freedom Party, released "Fitna," an Arabic word meaning strife, on the political party's website today, but it disappeared a short time later due to "technical difficulties," reported the London Times.

The film is currently viewable on the British video-sharing website, LiveLeak.com, in Dutch and English.

Here is the video:

It is good to know that there are still brave souls in Europe. I fear that it is too late and there are too few of them, however.

I ran across a link to this entry on dailykos (H/T LGF by way of KisP):

In the United States, there's now an almost universally held belief that most women in Islamic societies face wretched persecution and that Islam itself is wholly to blame. But there's scant empirical evidence to support the claim -- mostly, we're treated to detailed reports of horrific abuses in theocratic states like Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite the fact that just six percent of the Muslim world live in those two countries. If you ask average Americans how they came to their beliefs about how badly women suffer in Islamic societies, most will reply that "everyone knows it."

But I've seen no empirical data to suggest that an Islamic majority itself correlates with the subordination of women better than other co-variables like economic development, women's ability to serve in government, a political culture that values the rule of law or access to higher education. . .

Well perhaps Islam has something to do with a nations willingness to do, or not do, that which brings about economic development, women's ability to serve in government and a political culture that values the rule of law or access to higher education. Of course the Muslim would here protest that sharia is law and that his greatest wish is for all the world to live under its rule.

Of course the best refutation to this nonsense is simply to google the phrase "honor killing". You get more than half a million hits which take you to stories like these:

From The National Geographic - Hundreds, if not thousands, of women are murdered by their families each year in the name of family "honor." It's difficult to get precise numbers on the phenomenon of honor killing; the murders frequently go unreported, the perpetrators unpunished, and the concept of family honor justifies the act in the eyes of some societies.

[. . .]

Reports submitted to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights show that honor killings have occurred in Bangladesh, Great Britain, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, Sweden, Turkey, and Uganda. In countries not submitting reports to the UN, the practice was condoned under the rule of the fundamentalist Taliban government in Afghanistan, and has been reported in Iraq and Iran.

Yes, Sweden, Italy and Great Britain, blighted Third World hell-holes all.

From Spiegal Online - The shots came from nowhere and within minutes the young Turkish mother standing at the Berlin bus stop was dead. A telephone call from a relative had brought her to this cold, unforgiving place. She thought she would only be gone for a few minutes and wore a light jacket in the freezing February wind. She had left her five-year-old son asleep in his bed. He awoke looking for his mother, who, like many Turkish women in Germany, harbored a secret life of fear, courage and, ultimately, grief. Now her little boy has his own tragedy to bear: His mother, Hatin Surucu, was not the victim of random violence, but likely died at the hands of her own family in what is known as an "honor killing."

Hatin's crime, it appears, was the desire to lead a normal life in her family's adopted land. The vivacious 23-year-old beauty, who was raised in Berlin, divorced the Turkish cousin she was forced to marry at age 16. She also discarded her Islamic head scarf, enrolled in a technical school where she was training to become an electrician and began dating German men. For her family, such behavior represented the ultimate shame -- the embrace of "corrupt" Western ways. Days after the crime, police arrested her three brothers, ages 25, 24 and 18. The youngest of the three allegedly bragged to his girlfriend about the Feb. 7 killing. At her funeral, Hakin's Turkish-Kurdish parents draped their only daughter's casket in verses from the Koran and buried her according to Muslim tradition. Absent of course, were the brothers, who were in jail.

The crime might be easier to digest if it had been an archaic anomaly, but five other Muslim women have been murdered in Berlin during the past four months by their husbands or partners for besmirching the family's Muslim honor. Two of them were stabbed to death in front of their young children, one was shot, one strangled and a fifth drowned. It seems hard to fathom, but in the middle of democratic Western Europe -- in Germany, a nation where pacifism is almost a universal mantra -- murderous macho patriotism not only exists but also appears to be thriving. It may even be Germany's liberalism -- and its post World War II fear of criticizing minority cultures -- that has encouraged ultra-religious families to settle here.

If only Germany could join the industrialized world and offer access to education and allow women to participate in the political process.

From Reuters - A Kurdish woman was brutally raped, stamped on and strangled by members of her family and their friends in an "honor killing" carried out at her London home because she had fallen in love with the wrong man.

Banaz Mahmod, 20, was subjected to the 2-1/2 hour ordeal before she was garroted with a bootlace. Her body was stuffed into a suitcase and taken about 100 miles to Birmingham where it was buried in the back garden of a house.

Her badly decomposed body was found in April 2006, three months after the killing.

Last month a jury found her father Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, guilty of murder after a three-month trial. Their associate Mohamad Hama, 30, had earlier admitted killing her.

You know London, where raw sewage runs down the streets and the electricity works for an average of three hours per day. Maybe one day England will learn to value the rule of law.

I could go on, but it is just too damn depressing to keep looking at the pictures of these women who were murdered because they tried to escape the clutches of the vicious dark age death cult of Islam.

The writer of the post on dailykos is, like every other person who posts on kos, a low grade moron blinded by Bush Derangement Syndrome.

And people wonder why I dream of throwing people like this onto bonfires.

From Front Page Magazine:

It was as swift and brutal an honor murder as any among the dozens committed in Germany over the years but with two noticeable differences.

First hit with baseball bats over the head by two Muslim men, the victim fell to the ground and was then viciously kicked to death. However, instead of the usual, crumpled form of a Muslim female lying lifeless before her attackers, who were out to restore their twisted notion of “honor”, the unfortunate victim this time round was male – and German.

While more western societies are waking up to the harsh and brutal reality of honor killings perpetrated against Muslim girls and women living in their midst, less attention has been paid to the fact that males are also subjected to this horrific and savage custom. This is probably because the numbers of men killed for reasons of “honor” are not nearly as high as those for Muslim women, about 48 of whom have perished in Germany alone between 1996 and 2006.

As well, some of the murdered males are also not Muslim and not from the Middle East or any Muslim country for that matter. These victims are sometimes killed for racial and/or religious reasons, which the liberal media do not like to report, let alone admit. In their eyes, only native European cultures can be racist and never the ethnic minorities.

But what the male victims of honor killings all seem to have in common, besides their gender, is that they were involved in a relationship or friendship, often secret or forbidden, with a Muslim woman. Such was the case with Yvan Schneider, who was only nineteen when he met a horrific death at the hands of his two, baseball bat-wielding assailants.

One of the killers, a Turkish-German named Deniz Eroglu, 20, is currently on trial for this male “honor” murder, which, German police say, is unprecedented in its savagery.

Schneider was a soccer-loving teenager, living in the town of Rommelshausen, when he got to know a teenaged Muslim girl named Sessen, whose parents had immigrated to Germany from Eritrea. So when Sessen telephoned him one day, asking him to meet her to help with school work, the German teen readily agreed. But it was this call, made at Eroglu’s demand, which set up the ambush that resulted in the innocent youth’s death.

What Schneider did not know was that Sessen had taken up with Eroglu, the murder plot’s ringleader, who now regarded the Eritrean female as his personal property. According to court testimony, the very jealous and controlling Turkish-German had forced the teenage girl to cut off contact with everyone but him and to reveal through threats of violence the names of any boys, with whom she had earlier been friendly.

Armed with this information, Eroglu then drew up a hit list of seven males with Schneider’s at the top, since the girl had told him the young German student had taken her virginity. This losing of her hymen to Schneider, the court was told, threw Eroglu into a frenzied, murderous rage. Since Muslim culture places such a high, obsessive value on female chastity, the price to be paid for the Eritrean girl’s missing, flimsy membrane, which is somehow supposed to define her “honor”, was Schneider’s life.

But extinguishing Schneider’s young life in such brutal fashion was still not enough for the depraved Eroglu. In his unrelenting savagery and ferocity of intolerance, he took the German’s battered corpse to his apartment where it was sawn into pieces and disposed of with the help of his father, who is also now facing charges. The limbs and head were cemented into flower pots before being dumped into a river, while the torso was disposed of in a wooded area.

[. . .]

While the Schneider case may be the most sensational male honor murder in Germany, there have been others. In another, current murder trial in Berlin, the prosecution is accusing two men of Turkish background, aged 21 and 24, of having shot and killed a Greek man, 21, because he was involved in a relationship with a cousin of one of the defendants.

According to the prosecution, the cousin’s family, who never approved of the relationship, believed the Greek youth had not only “dirtied” their daughter’s honor but stood in the way of an arranged marriage to another Turk. The two accused are claiming self-defence, saying the murder victim had attacked them with a knife.

Besides those resulting in death, there were also several attempted male honor murders in both Germany and France last year.

In Munich, A Turkish father tried to kill both his 18-year-old daughter and her German boyfriend on a busy downtown street in broad daylight because he did not like his daughter having a relationship with a German. Police intervention saved the girl’s life only at the last moment.

Also in Munich, a father, mother and son kidnapped a nineteen-year-old German youth who was living with their twenty-year-old daughter. She had moved out against their will and was living with her chosen partner. The young woman’s family wanted the boyfriend to divulge her whereabouts or the father said he would kill him. The youth managed to escape at a gas station.

A similar kidnapping occurred last year in France where, French police believe, they averted a male honor murder.

Four brothers, originally from Morocco, kidnapped another young Moroccan from the parking lot of his work place for conducting a relationship with their sister, which, they believed, harmed their family’s reputation. A police helicopter followed their car to the Spanish border where officials found an axe and chopping block in the car’s trunk. The brothers were taking the boyfriend, whom they had beaten, back to Morocco by ferry for “an explanation.” Two other sisters received jail sentences in this case for threatening their “dishonoured” sister with death and other forms of violence.

Until sectors of the Muslim community realizes there is much more involved to “honor” than a woman guarding her genitals, then the barbaric practice of both male and female honor murders will continue. Only when some Muslim men understand that honor involves respecting a woman’s dignity, her individuality, and her free will, that it denies the exploitation of women and girls by such practices as forced marriages, only then will these savage killings of both men and women finally stop.

But since words like human rights and freedom of choice have no meaning, and are even despised, among these men of “honor”, and some women too, the horror and tragedy of honor murders are, unfortunately, here in the West to stay.

These men are being true to their religion and to the traditions of their culture. And this is the problem. The West needs to understand that Islam was created within the Arab culture by a Dark Ages warlord and that it has not progressed beyond that. In fact it cannot progress because Islam in not just a religion but is a complete blueprint for worship, daily life and government. What Mohammad said and the example of what he did is seen as reflecting the perfect will of God and can never be improved upon.

So if Mohammad spread the faith by the sword then the faith must forever be spread by the sword. If Mohammad married a six-year-0ld girl and consummated the union when she was nine then such behavior must be forever acceptable. If Mohammad said that it was Islam's fate to rule the world then Islam MUST rule the world.

People have asked why if it is the idea of freedom that the Islamofascists hate, rather than US foreign policy, they do not attack European nations in the same way as they attack America. The answer is simple. When the enemy surrenders you stop making war upon them. Europe has all but surrendered.

Old Europe knows that within the next fifty years it will be majority Muslim and under sharia and is already adapting itself to that reality. During the run up to the Iraq war the nations of Western Europe (except for the UK) followed the Islamic party line and did all they could to derail America's plans. Muslims regard the welfare payments they receive from the European governments as an acceptable form of the jizra, the poll tax which Christians and Jews must pay for the privilege to living in Muslim nations, and they do regard the nations of Western Europe as "Muslim nations".

In theory Europe could save itself by kicking out Muslims now. However they will not do this for several reasons. One is that they need the labor of Muslim immigrants to supplement the labor of the ageing and diminishing native European population. Another is that they are heavily dependent upon Middle Eastern oil to fuel their economies and they would face boycott if they acted against their Muslim populations. Another reason is that their populations, which are aging, soft and cowardly, do not want to face the violence which would erupt if the governments began to round up Muslims.

Finally the sad fact is that having given up their own faith in God they have given up hope. They look at the Muslims in their midst so full of faith and certitude and they cannot but help feel, in their hearts of hearts, inferior. European culture and the European people are dying and there is no will to attempt to reverse the decline. Instead the Europeans are bowing before the new emerging and ascending culture which is replacing them.

If you are reading this in Europe and you love freedom then sell everything you have while you can still get a good price for it and come to America, with the dollar low you will even get a great exchange rate for your Euros. But don't take too long because before you know it the exodus will have begun and you won't be an immigrant but a refugee.

The YouTube video below shows large crowds of subhuman filth dancing with joy and passing out candy in celebration of the murder of some Jewish children in a religious school:

Any city which hosts such celebtations should be destroyed with air raids like those the US used against Japan in the closing days of WWII. The ones where we sent fleets of bombers over their cities and dropped napalm which turned them into oceans of flame.

From Front Page Magazine:

“Fifty-two. That’s not even breakfast for me.”

Those were the words of an Islamic preacher in Britain, Mohammed Hamid, who liked to call himself “Osama bin London.” Hamid was referring to the fifty-two people murdered by Islamic jihadists in the London bombings of July 2005, and was boasting that his own plots would lead to, presumably, lunch and dinner -- far more deaths. One police official, discussing surveillance tapes made of conversations inside Hamid’s home, said, “There was repeated talk of finding and killing nonbelievers.”

Hamid was a member of the “London 7,” a jihadist gang that established training camps in the British countryside, where they prepared for large-scale attacks on British non-Muslims -- and who even planned to open training camps in the U.S. as well. Two of the gang members pleaded guilty to terror charges Tuesday, but this case is far from over. Its implications ought to be studied closely by government and law enforcement officials.

The establishment of jihad training camps in the British hinterlands raises disquieting questions with no easy answers: How many more might be there? How can they be detected? Questions like these should lead to considerations of the wisdom of the current no-holds-barred immigration policy, and of the loyalty of the larger Muslim community in Britain – questions that have never been satisfactorily answered. Exposure to the jihadist, Islamic supremacist ideology, says the self-styled British “former Islamist” Ed Husain, “that radicalism, that extremism, that ‘them-and-us’ mind set -- starts here on our streets in Britain.”

Why does it start on the streets in Britain, and what can be done about that? According to the Associated Press, “Hamid, originally from Tanzania, hand-picked recruits from mainstream mosques, inviting them for radical meetings at his home and then selecting a smaller number to attend the camps, police said.” Yet whenever law enforcement officials have broached the topic of monitoring activity inside mosques, they meet a barrage of indignation and criticism. The core problem is that, for all their ballyhooed condemnations of terrorism, peaceful Muslims in Britain and America have not moved in any great numbers to expose those who hold jihadist sentiments, much less to separate themselves from them and expel them from their mosques. There is no wall of separation in the British or American Muslim community between Muslims who accept Western pluralism and just want to live ordinary lives and those who hold to the same ideology of jihad and the destruction or subjugation of infidels to which “Osama bin London” had dedicated his life. There is no easy or reliable way to distinguish a Muslim who may be working to top the death total of the July 2005 London bombings from one who abhors the very idea.

For the most part if any Muslim is forced to choose between Osama bin Laden and his jihadists or Western pluralist society they will pick Osama bin Laden. They may very well try to hedge their bets and enjoy Western style peace, security and prosperity for as long as they can but in the end if forced to choose one or the other they will go with jihad.

This is because if you take the Koran as authoritative the Muslim today who is most like Mohammed, the perfect example of how a Muslim should be, is bin Laden. Mohammed was a warrior who slaughtered the infidels and forced them to convert to Islam. He subdued Christians and Jews and made them pay the jizra. He began the bloody jihads which engulfed the Middle East, North Africa and threatened Europe.

He named the non-Islamic world the "House of War" because it was the destiny of the believers to war against the non-believers.

Tell me who in the world today better fits that description than bin Laden? The only one who could come close is a Hamas or Fatah leader murdering Jews in Israel.

For a Muslim to reject bin Laden is to reject true Koranic Islam. Some will, the same way that some people who call themselves "Christian" will reject the virgin birth or resurrection of Jesus Christ, but those who hold to faith in the Bible will denounce such as heretics. Just as those who hold to faith in the Koran will denounce those who renounce jihad as heretics.