The Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC) Forum
November 18, 2017, 06:19:12 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: SMF - Just Installed!
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 1 
 on: December 12, 2009, 06:55:44 PM 
Started by 1683AD - Last post by 1683AD
CONTINUATION OF THE PRECEDING

The points brought out in the preceding are summarized below.

1. The Western Coalition has consistently denounced neo-Nazis.

2. Any concurrent objection to Islamic Supremacism or Islamification by both the Western Coalition and neo-Nazis ("guilt by association") cannot be logically interpreted as meaning the Western Coalition members are Nazis.

3. If the immediately preceding point is disputed, then the rationale for such an outlook can be used to assign the Left with a Nazi label, due to their sharing with neo-Nazis a fervent opposition at least to Israel, if not Jews overall.

4. There has never been any mutually consensual association or work agreement between the Western Coalition and neo-Nazis.

5. No Western Coalition members have advocated Nazi-type violence (or any violence) as a way to address current Islamic-related issues of concern with the West.
6. Any solutions as urged by the Western Coalition have been legal and therefore not characteristic of Nazism.

7. No Western Coalition members have made negative statements regarding race or nationality; an approach contrary to Nazis.

8. Statements concerning Islam have focused almost exclusively on political/ideological matters imbued within the religion. This approach differs from the Nazi approach of maligning all aspects of a religion (particularly Judaism).

9. The Western Coalition is not acting like Nazis in voicing a desire to resist Islamic Supremacist behavior, when history and the political/ideological components of Islam give every indication that human rights as they currently exist will be eliminated with a Muslim majority.

10. The Western coalition has taken direct measures to exclude neo-Nazis from demonstrations and other activities they sponsor.

11. The Western Coalition has taken a position in support of Israel, which is contrary to the interests of Nazis (and their leftist allies).

12. There is copious evidence of Nazis and Islamic Supremacists seeking each other out for joint endeavors.

13. The Left uses a twisted "logic" to accuses the Western Coalition, which is against Islamic domination and Islamification, of being Nazis. Meanwhile, it is the self-proclaimed Nazis are the ones who actually curry favor with the Islamic world.

Articles concerning a contemporary relationship between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists

The following articles focus primarily on a contemporary relationship between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists. A few of the articles may also touch upon Nazism and Islamic Supremacists from the Hitler era, but that is not their main focus.

Al Qaeda's Neo-Nazi Connections http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/16053/
A description of efforts at cooperation between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists.

An ideological Axis of Evil: Islamism, Leftism, and neo-Nazism. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3588
An ideological affinity of neo-Nazis towards Islamic Supremacism

An unholy alliance: Aryan Nation leader reaches out to al Qaeda http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/29/schuster.column/
Desire of the Aryan Nation leader to coordinate with al Qaeda

An Unholy Alliance - Nazi Links with Arab http://static.toodoc.com/download.php?s=YTo0OntzOjM6InVybCI7czo3NDo...
A detailed examination of interactions between Muslims and Nazis from World War II onward. The main bond is stated as an antipathy towards Israel and the Jews.

Are Palestinian Leaders Preaching Nazi-like Hatred of Jews? http://www.hnn.us/articles/743.html
Examples of Nazi-style teachings within Palestine.

Between Friends: U.S. Holocaust deniers help unite neo-Nazis, Arab extremists http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=83
Cooperation between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists

CAIR Promotes and Hosts William W. Baker, Neo-Nazi http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/03/cair-promotes-and-hosts-wil...
Islamic organization features a neo-Nazi speaker.

Canada: Neo-Nazis Protest Alongside Pro-Hamas Muslims and Leftists http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/01/canada-neonazis-protest-a...
Self-explanatory.

Canadian Islamists host (William W. Baker) a Neo-Nazi http://www.danielpipes.org/1431/canadian-islamists-host-a-neo-nazi
Muslim organization hosts a neo-Nazi speaker.

Deciphering Ahmadinejad's Holocaust Revisionism http://www.meforum.org/1704/deciphering-ahmadinejads-holocaust-revi...
Neo-Nazi / White Supremacist cozying up to the Islamic world.

The Far Right & Jihadis in Alliance http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/03/the-far-right-jihadis-in-al...
Article presenting various aspects of neo-Nazi and Islamic Supremacist cooperation, with numerous supplemental links.

Far Right and Muslim Extremists Gather in Baltimore: The Conference http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/jamaat_baltimore_conference.htm...
Far Right and Muslim Extremists Gather in Baltimore: Speaker Backgrounds http://www.adl.org/main_Anti_Israel/jamaat_baltimore_conference.htm...
The two preceding links discuss a meeting held by Muslims and neo-Nazis

Fascist Muslims and neo-Nazis enjoying the day in Stockholm http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2009/09/convergence-of-fascist-an...
Muslims and neo-Nazis join together in a protest.

Florida Islamic Group under Scrutiny for neo-Nazi Ties http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/04/florida-islamic-group-under-scrut...
An Islamic group invites a neo-Nazi Speaker

German Neo-Nazis View Islamists as Allies http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/german-neo-nazis-view-islamists-as-all...
The Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Germany) describes the Neo-Nazi hostility to Anti-Islamification groups and also their claim to be allied with Islam against Jews.

Germans Fear neo-Nazi Links with Islamists http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/terrorism.afghanistan4
Explains neo-Nazis exhibiting joy over 9/11.

Iman who invited neo Nazi speaker to Muslim event says he "wants to enhance the reputation of Islam throughout the entire world". http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/603
An Iman invites a neo Nazi speaker.

Islamic Terrorists and Nazi Scum are One in the Same (Formerly: Radical Islam, Neo-Nazis are Seen Sharing Hate Rhetoric) http://www.jewishdefense.org/aryan.htm
Discussion of joint activities which have taken place between neo-Nazis and Muslims.

Israel Supporters Charge German Police with excessive force at rally http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1251804589870&pagena...
Reflects cooperation between the NPD (the neo-Nazi National Democratic Part of Germany), DVU (the neo-Nazi German People's Party) and Muslims in the Al-Quds Day march.

Jihad Watch: Aryan Nations Proclaim Solidarity With Islamofascists http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=2005-07-17&ID=124272
The neo-Nazi group gives a rationale for supporting Islamic Supremacists.

Keeping Up with William W. Baker and the Islamists http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2004/03/keeping-up-with-william-w-b...
Account regarding Muslim organizational sponsorship of a neo-Nazi speaker.

Links Between American, European Terrorist Groups http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/05/i_ins.01.html
Interactions between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists.

Myatt and Cooperation between Muslims and Neo-Nazis http://madmagemyatt.wordpress.com/myatt-and-cooperation-between-mus...
Efforts by a leading Neo-Nazi convert to Islam to develop cooperation between Muslims and neo-Nazis.

Neo-Nazi Al Qaeda http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=13929
Neo-Nazi affinity for Islamic causes and terrorism.

Neo-Nazis Arrested near Kosovo Demonstration http://www.thelocal.se/10210/20080302/
Neo-Nazis intended to disrupt a demonstrations by Serbs against the independence of Kosovo.

Neo-Nazis plan pro-Iran parade at World Cup: Report http://www.monstersandcritics.com/sport/worldcup2006/news/article_1...
Plans for a parade supporting President Ahmadinejad and his anti-Israel rhetoric.

Neo-Nazis in Sweden side with Kosovo Muslims http://tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2008/03/neo-nazis-in-sweden-side-...
Neo-Nazis intended to disrupt a demonstrations by Serbs against the independence of Kosovo.

Neo-Nazi William Baker to Speak at Assadiq Islamic Educational Foundation Banquet in Boca Raton - Mayors Express Outrage at Misuse of Their Names http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/538
An Islamic organization invites a neo-Nazi to speak to them.

The Peculiar Alliance http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/0...
Article which discusses cooperation between Muslims and neo-Nazis

The Swastika and the Crescent http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=241
A detailed article by a renowned anti-racism group on the connections between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists.

Terrorists may use neo-Nazis for attacks: Katzav http://www.expatica.com/de/news/local_news/terrorists-may-use-neo-n...
Speculation on the use of neo-Nazis in terrorist attacks for the interests of Islamic Supremacists

Unholy alliance: Jihadists, Nazis http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45618
Speculation on Nazis joining forces with Islamic Supremacists; links between Muslim Hizb ut-Tahir (Party of Liberation) and the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party

Unlikely Allies Bound by a Common Hatred: Neo-Nazis Find They Share Views of Militant Muslim Groups on U.S., Israel http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&conte...
Detailed article describing efforts at cooperation between neo-Nazis and Muslims.

What the neo-Nazi fanatic Did Next: Switched to Islam http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article708687.ece
Article about the conversion of neo-Nazi David Myatt to Islam, which he sees as the best way to fulfill his goal of fighting "Zionism".

Images of contemporary Muslims performing Nazi salutes

#1 http://www.ilyameyer.com/uploaded_images/Hezbollah_Nazi_salute-7201...

#2 http://earthhopenetwork.net/hezbollah_nazi_salute.jpg

#3 http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/uploads/cmimg_12600.jpg

#4 http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g129/kiloecho4/arab_nazis_cover.jpg

#5 http://thefirstorlast.com/PalestinianNaziSalute01.jpg

#6 http://freund.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/hizbullah_in_nazi_salute...

#7 http://www.jtfarchive.org/articles/israel/israel.israel.funds.hamas...

#8 http://spitfirelist.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/hezbollahnazi.jpg

#9 http://www.brucespeaks.com/myblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/pa-pol...

Video

Video of Palestinian supporters praising Hitler. http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3314

Hitler and the Islamic Mufti http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3076

War on the West - CNN http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1880

 2 
 on: December 12, 2009, 06:53:27 PM 
Started by 1683AD - Last post by 1683AD
Overview

Our opponents have consistently tried to paint our side with the Nazi label. The text in this narrative provides hard evidence that it is actually the Islamic Supremacists who are the ideal recipients of this epithet.

Comparison of Islamic texts with Mein Kampf

We begin our exploration with a look at a side-by-side comparison of Islamic texts and Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf. The following links are from the Prophet of Doom website. A careful examination will reveal considerable similarities between them. It is highly suggestive that the ideology and political aspects of both are compatible. With this in mind, it is difficult to understand how Leftists can accuse us as being "Nazis", since we are actually opposing the eventual establishment of a legal system in Western nations which has founding texts that are not dissimilar from Hitler's own Mein Kampf.

Mein Kampf - Hitler's Role Model http://prophetofdoom.net/Mein_Kampf.Islam

Mein Kampf - My Jihad http://prophetofdoom.net/Mein_Kampf_Mein_Kampf-My_Jihad.Islam

Islam's World War Test Case http://prophetofdoom.net/Mein_Kampf_Islams_World_War_Test_Case.Islam

Hitler - Satan's Articulate Prophet http://prophetofdoom.net/Mein_Kampf_Hitler-Satans_Articulate_Prophe...

Mein Kampf - Hitler and Muhammad Find Religion
http://prophetofdoom.net/Mein_Kampf_Hitler_and_Muhammad_Find_Religi...

This link provides video versions of the preceding

Truveo http://www.truveo.com/search?query=%22prophet%20of%20doom%22%20and%...

The following provides further comparisons between Nazis and Islam as ideologies.

Heil Islam! http://islammonitor.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&;...

The Qu'ran vs. Mein Kampf http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/quran-vs-mein-kampf.html

Mein Kampf & Quran http://theexposer-ted.blogspot.com/2009/08/video-mein-kampf-quran.html

Articles regarding Nazism and Islamic Supremacism in the Hitler era and beyond

The following articles focus on the relationship between Nazism and Islamic Supremacism in the Hitler era and the post-World War II era. Some may touch upon a contemporary relationship between neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacism, but that is not their main emphasis. This seals the argument in support of Nazism and Islamic Supremacism as being mutually compatible. It also confirms that the Islamic world took an active role in supporting Hitler's efforts.

Amin Al-Husseini http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/

The Arab/Muslim Nazi Connection http://christianactionforisrael.org/medigest/may00/arabnazi.html

Arabs and Nazism http://www.afsi.org/OUTPOST/96JAN/jan6.htm

Arafat's Hitler-loving Role Model http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35563

The Beginning of the Reckoning http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1121641999.php

Hitler's Mufti, Not Hitler's Pope http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=7665

The Influence of Islam on the Third Reich http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=artic...

Islam and Adolph Hitler http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1876162/posts

Islamic Antisemitism and Its Nazi Roots http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/islamic-antisemitism-and-it...

Islamic Influence on Hitler - Can it be True? http://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2006/01/islamic-influence-on-hitler-c...
The preceding is an amazing article which discusses an Islamic influence on Hitler's Nazi philosophy, through 'Inayay Allah Khan.

Islamism, Fascism and Terrorism (Part 1) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK05Ak01.html

Islamism, Fascism and Terrorism (Part 2) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DK08Ak03.html

Islamism, Fascism and Terrorism (Part 3) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL04Ak01.html

Islamism, Fascism and Terrorism (Part 4) http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/DL05Ak01.html

Islam's Nazi Connections http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20831

The Mufti and the Fuhrer http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

The Nazi Background of Saddam Hussein http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=19704

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terror http://97.74.65.51/Printable.aspx?ArtId=5204

Nazi Influence on the Middle East During WWII http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=10023

The Nazi origins of Modern Arab Terror http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/3/3/154714.shtml

The Nazification of the Palestinian Arabs: Arafat's, Saddam's Historical Ties to Hitler http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/851163/posts

National Socialism and Anti-Semitism in the Arab World http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-kuntzel-s05.htm

Photos and Documents http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/#hitler

Their Kampf: Hitler's Book in Arab Hands http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment071802a.asp

Ustashi Monsters proudly Display Their Deeds http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/gallery.html

Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini? http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php

Present-day Nazi cooperation with Islamic Supremacists

It has often been alleged by many in the Left/Media axis that all of those who are opposing the intentions and actions of Islamic Supremacists, as well as the overall Islamification of Europe and the West, are, without exception, "Nazis". The usual targets of these slurs are groups such as SIOE, EDL and various prominent spokespersons such as Geert Wilders, Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and so forth. Many others of like minds can be included in this list of targets. In actuality, all of the aforementioned entities (termed in this narrative as the "Western Coalition") have firmly denounced all aspects of Nazism, a point which is consistently dismissed or ignored by their critics.

Of course, it is evident from a casual investigation on the internet that many (not all) self-proclaimed neo-Nazi organizations and their individual members have also voiced positions which are in direct opposition to certain aspects of both Islamic Supremacism and Islamification. The Left/Media believes the mere existence of concurrent objections of any type or degree to any part of the Islamic agenda, by the Western Coalition and also the neo-Nazis, is sufficient enough "evidence" for them to claim a full and complete right to levy the "Nazi" label against the former. However, in doing so, they neglect to enlighten people to the fact that they are simply performing "guilt by association", a completely invalid form of argument. The thought of seeking out truly credible evidence to actually verify the use of such labels against the Western Coalition seems to have escaped them.

If the opposition cannot understand how they are being intellectually dishonest by "tarring us with the same brush" (as just described) with their Nazism allegations, then they should pause for a moment and reflect upon some interesting tidbits from history involving the making of associations. A prime example to which we can point involves the opposition to the Vietnam War. It cannot be denied that Marxists and Communists had at least a modest representation in the antiwar movement, including the street protests where Viet Cong flags were waved. Despite clearly visible evidence of a concurrent Communist presence, can anyone honestly assert that the majority of the people in the antiwar movement were fervent Communists or Marxists? Of course not! In this case, the media acted appropriately and did not label the vast majority of anti-war protesters as diehard Communists and Marxists and the anti-war movement as a Communist/Marxist controlled endeavor. In late 1941, the U.S. joined with other Western nations and the Communist USSR to fight Nazi Germany. No one placed a "Communist" label on any Western politicians or officials who advocated an alliance at the time, even though both groups were fighting the common enemy of Nazi Germany. And more recently, neo-Nazis have long opposed providing financial or military support to Israel. As have many of the established Leftists political parties in Europe. If we use the so-called "logic" of the Left/Media axis, where the Western Coalition can be freely labeled "Nazi" because many neo-Nazis also oppose Islamification and other elements of the Islamic Supremacist agenda, then it follow that these Leftist parties, too, should publicly be labeled as Nazis. Of course, such labeling will never happen because the tarring brush would have to be applied to the Israel-hating Left. It is therefore reasonable to conclude from the preceding that the Left/Media has a "selective morality" when it comes to who receives the Nazi label.

Besides the matter of "guilt by association", the Left also fails to acknowledge that there has never been any mutually consensual association or work agreement between the Western Coalition and self-described Nazis. Also, none of the Left/Media accusers can present evidence that any members of the Western Coalition have advocated specific proposals calling upon violence as the way to begin addressing Islamification. Statements of such a type, including the implementation of concentration camps and overall genocide, would clearly be expected from neo-Nazis. If any statements have by chance been made by the Western Coalition in support of a halting of immigration or a deportation of non-citizens, such actions would be well within any nation's established or traditional legal authority to implement and would not be a position unique to Nazism. As would the performance of any currently legal government action. None of the Western Coalition members have issued statements critical of any race or made blanket negative statements regarding people of different nationalities; statements which would be more readily associated with the Nazi propensity and enthusiasm for prejudice. If, by chance, statements of this type have indeed been made by the Western Coalition regarding nationalities, we are confident they would have been said in the interest of brevity, as the endless use of qualifiers and disclaimers is often an impediment to the expression of free-flowing thought. Further review of any such quoted documents or the author's overall writings would undoubtedly reveal a context which clarifies things and removes bias or broad generalizations as a likely possibility.

Statements regarding Islam, the main concern of the Western Coalition, have generally been couched with terms or disclaimers which avoid broad generalizations against all Muslims as a people and have focused almost exclusively on the political and ideological aspects of Islam and how they clearly deny many basic human rights; to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It would be highly unusual to come across any statements from Western Coalition members which consist primarily of objections to the matters in Islam which do not involve or touch upon the political / ideological components. This is quite different from the established Nazi approach to discussing a religion it does not like. Its objections to Judaism has been and remains all-encompassing. If any random statement regarding Islam appears as being suggestive of generalizations or bias against the non-political and non-ideological elements, again, look at the context with the same approach as described above. But such variances should be quite rare. Statements regarding Muslims as made by neo-Nazis have generally not been concerned with disclaimers. And it is obvious that neo-Nazi statements regarding Jews are pure vitriol.

Islam is unique among all major world religions in having explicit doctrines in its texts that are clearly legal or political in nature and, despite what Islamic Supremacists will assert, limit true human rights as traditionally defined in the West. These doctrines against freedom and liberty for all in society are buttressed by claims of textual inerrancy by Muslims and demands in the texts that such doctrines be followed completely and without exception. Furthermore, the vast majority of Muslims throughout the centuries have enthusiastically agreed with the validity of the political and ideological demands without question. And, most importantly, they have chosen to implement them to some degree or another whenever circumstances were most opportune. The Western Coalition cannot be faulted and termed "Nazis" if it makes references to such Islamic text quotations which clearly espouse violence and subjugation, or point out how the religion requires a firm commitment by all its members to follow every precept. Nor, if fairness is a consideration, can they be pilloried as Nazis if they simply present the words of violence being espoused by various current and historic Muslim leaders for the edification of a Western audience.

The Western Coalition sees a very real likelihood of an eventual Talibanized Europe, with Africa succumbing to the same fate, too. This is a future which no one can completely rule out. If any of our deluded Leftist friends concede that the West will indeed be under an Islamic majority in the decades ahead, they often voice a blind confidence that existing human rights legislation will protect them perpetually. They need to "get real". To bolster this regrettably pessimistic view, just try to find any large Muslim-dominated nation where current Western human rights can be exercised with abandon and without reprisal by the government and/or the surrounding devout Muslim populace. That's right; none exist. With this consideration in mind, any statements which a Western Coalition member might make which endorses the eventual use of force to defend against the establishment of Islamic Supremacist domination in order to enhance the preservation of basic freedoms and human rights for posterity in the West cannot be termed as being "Nazi"-like. Without exception, the Western Coalition's ultimate desire is for a peaceful solution. But as Thomas Jefferson said: "A people unwilling to use extreme violent force to preserve or obtain their liberty deserves the tyrants that rule them". And from Thomas Mann: "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil". If the reader cannot distinguish between what Jefferson and Mann said and the intentions of a neo-Nazi, then further reading of this presentation by them is pointless. Simply stated, our side can perceive, with great apprehension, the possible necessity at some point in time of advocating the taking of whatever means are necessary to defeat a political ideology and its advocates (not a race or nationality) which history has consistently shown will subvert basic human rights of all people if it attains a critical mass. We have already dealt with Nazism at a great cost of human life. We now need to address the rapidly encroaching political forces of Islam, while there is time, and avoid having to go through yet another period of devastating turmoil. We will not stand by to consign future generations of two whole continents, if not more, to perpetual slavery.

In our evaluation of this issue, we can't neglect to mention a favorite topic of the Left: the occasional appearance of a person at a demonstration giving a Nazi-salute or holding a sign with a Nazi symbol or message. The Left/Media axis immediately puts this forth as evidence that the organizers of the demonstration and the entire movement are Nazis. However, they conveniently neglect mentioning that the organizers have denounced Nazism and deliberately distance themselves from neo-Nazis at every opportunity. It's the same old "guilt by association" process as described above. They also never seem to entertain that possibly, just possibly, the Left could have sent their own members into the midst of the demonstration to act in such a manner. Let's contrast this with photographic evidence of Muslims in the modern world enthusiastically performing Nazi salutes (see below). The reader will note that some of the images depict Muslims performing Nazi salutes in a well-organized setting. And then we have the Muslim Nazis who served under Hitler. In light of this evidence, do you think we will see the Left/Media conceding an organized and well-accepted Nazi influence in the Muslim World? Of course not!

The whole idea of seeking confirmatory evidence for the use of a derogatory label just goes over the heads of the Left/Media. Instead, they have based their Nazi allegations against us on slander, innuendo, vague associations and inferences. They expect "evidence" in such baseless forms to be treated by others as ironclad truths, just because they say so and because of the unfortunate the fact that it keeps being repeated. They overlook all of the statements by the Western Coalition and their allies in which they directly condemn Nazi ideology and take active measures to exclude them from discussions and demonstrations. They turn a blind eye to statements which the Western Coalition have made in support of Israel and the Jewish people, a position which seems, to our best recollection, to be something which Nazis oppose.

None of the above stated exhortations for the Left/Media to exercise logic and reason when contemplating the Nazi label are expected to have any effect. Perhaps, however, the following will engender a reconsideration.

It is evident from the articles listed below the that many of the neo-Nazis have themselves made it known with whom they want to associate. The target of their affections is actually the Islamic Supremacists and the Muslim world as a whole. Further review will reveal that Islamic Supremacists have actually accepted many of the neo-Nazi entreaties or extended a hand on their own. Their cooperation has been primarily in matters where Jews are vilified or they are being placed in the cross-hairs.

Bear in mind that the links below indicate it is Islamic Supremacists who have actually given neo-Nazi's a receptive audience for their drivel. Meanwhile, our opposition will be very hard pressed to find any circumstances where the Western Coalition has ever agreed to cooperate with unrepentant neo-Nazis on any issue. They want nothing to do with them on any issue whatsoever.

So here we have significant evidence of intentional collusion and agreement between leading neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists on the matter of Jews and Israel. In light of this evidence, do we see the Left/Media labeling the Islamic Supremacists as Nazis? Of course not! That would violate their self-appointed right to use double-standards.

Who else can we throw into this mix of neo-Nazis and Islamic Supremacists? Why of course, the Left itself! After all, it, too condemns Israel instinctively and advocates many of the same points promoted by the neo-Nazi / Islamic Supremacist alliance. As for the Left's negative attitudes on the Jewish people, we will say at this point that much of it appears coded and subtle. Discussion on any blatant and overt language in this regard would have to come under some future investigation.
Summing this up, we essentially have the Left/Media axis labeling a group of people who are challenging the eventual permanent establishment in Western Society of an ideology which eliminates the exercise of human rights. Go figure.


 3 
 on: November 26, 2009, 10:08:56 PM 
Started by 1683AD - Last post by 1683AD
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever” – George Orwell

Despite all of the words we may write regarding the impending danger of rule by Islamic Supremacists in traditionally Western nations, none of it ever seems to strike home with some people, even if they acknowledge the trend of Islamification in these nations. Such people are easily lulled into complacency by statements from Islamic Supremacist public relations spokesmen about their having a "religion of peace". Similarly, they often fall for the reassurances from Western Quislings that we can all just get along if we alter our thinking and perspectives.

If these clueless, oblivious and misguided people among us have any degree of rationality left, perhaps videos which show how Islamic Supremacists treat their own people and non-Muslims will lead to a reassessment. After all, "a picture speaks a thousand words". It may be a long shot with some people, but an attempt should be made.

Further below the reader will find numerous videos from throughout the Islamic world which show unmitigated brutality and cruelty being exercised by self-professed Islamic Supremacists towards others. The scenes in the vast majority of these videos are so gruesome and appalling that it is difficult to perceive that the average Westerner could do anything but turn away as soon as the images come up. They are that revolting. If someone has the belief that the transition to a Muslim dominated society will be all sunshine and lollipops, these videos just might give them pause.

The videos are divided into various sections, depending on the type of "Islamic Justice" is being administered. It should be noted that some of these videos show the perpetrators as being terrorists in recent wars in Islamic lands, whereas others show the perpetrators as being government or religious officials.  The same listing can also be found here:  http://4freedoms.ning.com/group/actionsforindividualsintherealworld/forum/topics/islamic-justice-videos 

Let's briefly address a few points which the advocates of appeasement, surrender and "moral relatavism" may raise. First, they will say that executions (and punishments) in the form of beheadings, strangulation hangings and so forth have long-existed in Western society, meaning that we are not in a position to criticize anyone who currently practices them. The historical presence of such acts cannot be denied, but in almost every Western nation where executions persist (not many), the acts of beheadings, amputations, slow strangulations, stonings, etc. have been completely eliminated and the remaining forms of execution are now quick and relatively painless. Also, they are now done in private, with a proper decorum. And most importantly, they are the result of a truly fair legal process. Western society has trended this way for the past few centuries. Furthermore, there is no official approval for the torture or abuse of prisoners. If there are any exceptions to this, they are few and rare. In contrast, the aforementioned acts are the rule, not the exception, in Islamic nations throughout the world. If they are not officially approved, they are often performed by local citizens while officials look the other way.

Second, our opponents may assert that a large number of these videos concern executions which were performed during war and such acts are customary during war. Of course, they wouldn't be saying this if such acts were routinely performed by Western forces. They should be reminded that no free Western nation endorses beheadings, amputations and so forth during war. As for waterboarding, this is a tactic which has been performed on Western troops during training. On the rare occasions where mistreatment of captives in any form by Western military officials has been discovered, the perpetrators have been prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. Even if, just for the sake of argument, we were to concede that field executions were acceptable in war, we must acknowledge that the forms of execution shown in the videos below, usually beheading, is perceived by the Islamic Supremacist perpetrators as being dictated by the Islamic religion. They see their religion as directly encouraging and approving the specific use of a degrading and painful technique. There is no escaping this fact. Finally, one cannot deny the sense of glee which the perpetrator feel. They do this for pure enjoyment, not necessity. The fact that they quickly post the videos on the internet proves this even more. This is highly important, as it clearly reflects a broad and common pathological mindset among the Islamic Supremacists. A mindset which sees no limits or restrictions whatsoever on how to interact with "infidels"; particularly when there is no force around to restrain them. Those of you in Europe should keep this in mind when contemplating Europe's Islamification.

Third, the opposition may claim that most of these acts were perpetrated by "lone wolves" or a small minority, not by established governments. For one thing, this does not address the acts which are sanctioned by governments. As for the rest of the excuse, it neglects the fact that Islamic Supremacists perform these acts with an accurate belief that most in the Muslim world will cheer and applaud them; these acts are deemed in large quarters of the Islamic community as being quite acceptable and praiseworthy. Has anyone ever seen the "Islamic street" protest against them? That's right, never. Of course, a representative of CAIR or some Muslim scholar may be trotted out to condemn such acts for PR reasons. Yet they can never explain why thousands can protest over a cartoon, but no people from the Islamic community ever gathers en masse to vocally object to these acts. This should be quite revealing, even to a blind person.

Fourth, our appeaser friends may claim that wartime acts, as well as stonings, amputations, hangings, floggings and so forth are simply a custom of Islamic nations and us "oppressor" Westerners are not in a position to judge them or claim that our perspective is better (our "moral relativism"). We must learn to be "accepting" and "tolerant" to the "diversity" of societal perspectives throughout the Islamic world. Bullshit! Such directives for cruelty and violence are clearly dictated by Islamic law (not a "culture") and are an outright insult to the concept of human rights and dignity. They belong in the wastebin of history. If you are a human being truly capable of empathy and understanding, there is no negotiation on this point. None at all.

Westerners who fail to see the onrushing Islamification of their respective nations are going to awaken one day and find their world heavily immersed in Islamic law, with actions like those in the following videos being meted out on a regular basis to their fellow citizens, if not themselves. By then, it will be too late to object. They will have already made their bed of complacency and will need to lie in it. "Oh, but our Constitution (or other framework espousing rights) will protect us!" In an Islamic dominated society? Yeah, right.

There is one video in this collection which sums up the fate of the West if nothing changes. It is the first one. It shows an elderly French woman being accosted and beaten to death by an Islamic Supremacist, or as they say in France, a "youth". The old woman is Europe's aging and dwindling native population; the Islamic Supremacist "youth" is the future ruler of Europe.

Wake up!

The near future of Western society

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2020

Stonings

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2994
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1325
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=599
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=517
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2111
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1210

Amputations and similar

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3018
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3074
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3061
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2124
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2084
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2505
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1994
8 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1214

Floggings, lashings and beatings

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3011
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3211
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2650
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2648
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1290
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1999
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2491

Wife abuse and child abuse

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2751
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3312
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2675
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2376
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1223
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2081
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1354

Hangings

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3012
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2748
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3250
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2614
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2550
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2201
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2225
8 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2197
9 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2226
10 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2196

Explosions (includes strapped on explosives)

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2922
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3206
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2661
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2210
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2151

Aftermath of various attacks and brutalities

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3209
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2921
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2779
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3082
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3072
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2198
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1499
8 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2116
9 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2205
10 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2370
11 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1501
12 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2179
13 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2583
14 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1362

Death by guns

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3097
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2796
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3205
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3182
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3025
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2870
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3073
8 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2790
9 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2806
10 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2767
11 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3071
12 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2800
13 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2830
14 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2747
15 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2745
16 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2613
17 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1106
18 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2223
19 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2105
20 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2011
21 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2202
22 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2152
23 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2113
24 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2504
25 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2211
26 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2134
27 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2212
28 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2607
29 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2115
30 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2538
31 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2097
32 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2209
33 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2101
34 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2213
35 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2227
36 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2543
37 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2228
38 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2366
39 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2369
40 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2103
41 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2354
42 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2378
43 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2599
44 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2007
45 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2110
46 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2474
47 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1694

Miscellaneous (impalement, burial, organ display, burning alive, etc.)

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3185
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3014
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2774
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3079
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2908
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3311
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2743
8 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2696
9 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2654
10 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2096
11 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2199
12 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1861
13 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1289
14 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2547
15 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2083
16 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1999
17 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2004
18 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3066
19 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2003

Beheadings (non-war setting)

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2795
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2495
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2025
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1255
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2504
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2021
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2360

Beheadings (war locale, includes large number of civilians)

1 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2794
2 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2986
3 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3213
4 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2789
5 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2871
6 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2776
7 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2848
8 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2717
9 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=3124
10 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2760
11 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2746
12 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2715
13 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2705
14 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2702
15 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2680
16 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2501
17 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2178
18 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2059
19 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1987
20 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=349
21 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2203
22 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2104
23 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2027
24 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2099
25 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2206
26 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1862
27 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2604
28 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2098
29 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1927
30 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1982
31 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2437
32 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2561
33 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2502
34 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2591
35 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1778
36 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1985
37 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2006
38 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2551
39 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2008
40 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2120
41 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1847
42 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2100
43 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2154
44 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2133
45 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=2354
46 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=1996
47 http://www.truthtube.tv/play.php?vid=177

 4 
 on: November 09, 2009, 09:02:16 PM 
Started by 1683AD - Last post by 1683AD
I must emphasize at the outset that the approach which is set forth below is intended as a memorial and is not to be interpreted as any form of political communication. The reason for this will become clear.  When others pick up this approach and hopefully disseminate it through blogs and websites, it is hoped that they would keep this key point in mind.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed into the ground in a field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001 at 10:03:11 AM. Substantial evidence exists that the crash was preceded by a revolt among the passengers against the Islamic Supremacist hijackers who had earlier taken over the airliner. This was the first time in recent history in which the intended victims of an Islamic Supremacist assault have been able to resist and thwart their plans.

The people who took part in this act of resistance and died deserve to be memorialized. Therefore, Iencourage everyone to set their watches to alarm at 10:03 AM, on a daily basis, as an audible form of memorial and a reminder to reflect upon the sacrifice which was made by the Flight 93 crew members and passengers. Of course, we realize that the crash took place at 10:03 AM (Eastern Standard Time), meaning that some people in other time zones might view a more appropriate time to memorialize would be in their own respective times which would correspond with 10:03 AM. However, a pursuit of such an option would confuse things. Therefore, let's keep the time at 10:03 AM, irrespective of the time zone.

Now let's examine the potential effect of a watch alarm going off at 10:03 AM. First and foremost, most people at this time would be out in the real world. Most likely they would be at work. Other options include being in a bus, subway, train or airliner. They could be at a movie, sports event or religious activity. The possibilities are numerous. In each of these instances it is highly probable that the person wearing the alarming watch is accompanied by someone whom they already know. It is reasonable to presume that this person will ask the wearer of the watch why the alarm went off. This would, in turn, give the watch wearer the perfect opportunity to explain the purpose of the alarm. If the explanation inspires the listener, they, too, may begin to set their own watch at 10:03 AM. And so on.

It is conceivable that many people who hear the alarm (as in a work meeting) and are unaware of its meaning may quickly view it as an insignificant interruption. Two alarms going off at the same time in the same setting changes the picture entirely. This will cause everyone to realize that something is going on. It will also show each respective wearer of the alarming watches that they are not alone. Depending on the type of setting, such a situation may lead to an exponential increase in the number of watches alarming at 10:03 AM.

Multiple watches alarming in most non-work settings would not seem to pose a problem. If some people object, so be it. This now brings us to the thorny question of work environments which are "politically correct" (quite prevalent in Europe). Supervisors or Human Resources personnel may say that the watch alarm is "offensive" political speech and cannot be tolerated. As stated above (and hopefully in any distributions by others of this concept), this is simply a way in which a person can cope with their grieving over this specific incident on September 11th, 2001. As such, an employee in such a situation could argue that the company is trying to interfere with their psychological health and well being. They could point out that no employer would be disrepectful of the coping mechanisms of an employee who recently lost a family member. With this in mind, what basis would they have to interfere here? Who defines the limits of mourning? Who can say how long it takes to recover? In fact, it is possible that some of those who alarm their watches will actually be personal friends or family members (distant or close) of the non-Islamic Supremacist individuals on Flight 93 (see list below). A quick internet search can reveal details regarding their respective lives.

Of course, a politically correct employer who provides time for fellow Islamic Supremacist employees (if any) to take time out of the work day for multiple prayers would seem to stand on flimsy grounds in objecting to the watch alarms. The watch wearer could invoke similar claims of religious rights. After all, the border between mourning and religious beliefs is quite porous.

There is also the possibility that, quite coincidentially, some people at work who have their watches set at 10:03 AM could be doing so to remind them to perform some medically necessary task, such as taking a vitamin or checking their pulse. The performance of this task could have actually been prescribed by an understanding physician or even an itinerant natural healer. An employer's interference in this,or any other health matter, could be viewed as highly questionable.

Regarding an employer's objection to alarms based on their "interfering with work", the question could be raised to them as to whether they are willing to stop an even worse interference: the ringing of employee cell phones. It would be interesting to see how employees would react to a cell phone prohibition, particulary when considering that so mamy people are dependent on them for making family arrangements and so forth.

The key thing to do when considering potential employer resistance to watch alarms is to check your employee handbook first. Then, consider the above text and contemplate a suitable response in advance of being questioned. Effective mourning need not require that an alarm run continuously; even one or two "beeps" could have the same effect.

The ultimate effect of all of this is that individual members of the general public will gradually become aware of a considerable amount of sympathy among their fellow citizens for the passengers and crew of United Flight 93; people who successfully thwarted the henious plans of Islamic Supremacist hijackers. At some point, this level of sympathy will be impressed upon the media and government officials who unfortunately control and limit much of our public discourse.

It is regretable that some would view the watch alarms as a political tactic. Again, it must be emphasized that our intent is solely to memorialize. If this idea is incorrectly promulgated as a political action, employers would have ammunition to ban it.

 5 
 on: October 12, 2009, 11:54:26 PM 
Started by Benyamin B - Last post by Benyamin B
http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=43

The Militia Misconception
Posted on October 12, 2009 at 23:53:25 EST
by Christopher Hodges.

Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.

If you don't care for Barack Obama, his policies and so on, you are a right-wing extremist. If you don't like the federal government breathing down your neck, you are a domestic terrorist. Really? Since when? Last time I checked, disliking your leaders and their policies was nothing more than freedom of speech and wanting the government to leave you alone was called privacy. And isn't dissent supposed to be "patriotic", according to the leftists? But what do I know? I’m just an American.

The feds, in their latest scare tactic, are telling us that militias are popping up all over the place and that "all it’s lacking is a spark," to set off a number of extremist attacks on the United States.

Do these people (and I’m talking about both sides here) even know what a militia is? You know, I think that while we’re on the subject that we should look at what exactly a militia is and does.

Militia – A body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Ok, so we know what a militia is. Now what does it do? Well, ever heard of the National Guard? That is what militias are. Now, these days the National Guard is both state and federally recognized, but essentially stays one and the same. That means that the National Guard is first and foremost a militia force made up of different units that resides in each of the 50 states, meaning that it’s a state militia. If deemed necessary, units from all 50 states can be called to active duty and be integrated into already active military units, thus leaving them in the control of the federal government. Essentially, a state militia becomes a military force controlled by the federal government of the United States. (The 2003 Invasion of Iraq is one example of the integration of the National Guard with regular military units.)

With that kind of explanation, how can anyone in their right mind compare a militia with the extremists that have been unifying to commit acts of terror? Some of these extremist groups call themselves militias, but really it is a horrible misuse of the word.

The feds are saying that because we are on the brink of economic collapse (I myself am still a skeptic of this), and because a black man is President, right-wing extremist groups (a.k.a. these so-called militias) are recruiting and plotting more frequently than they have in over a decade.

In June, an 88-year old neo-Nazi shot and killed a Holocaust Museum guard. This seems to be one of several instances that the federal government wants to pin to the "militia movement."

Now, I understand that there are groups out there who are plotting and training and organizing acts of violence that could put American lives at risk. However, that being said, I believe that the government and the media should be more careful in their selection of words used to describe these people. I also strongly believe that they should stop adding fuel to the fire and blowing things out of proportion (I guarantee you they are doing exactly that to fuel their own agendas. It’s happened many times throughout the course of the past century all over the world and in our own government). Also, if the government would stop sticking its nose in every bit of business that people have, maybe people wouldn’t feel the need to take up arms just to defend their beliefs and freedoms.

Am I saying these people are right in what they do? Absolutely not. The use of force against one’s own people to prove a point or to achieve political gain is nothing short of terrorism and should be treated as such. However, do not go labeling the rest of us as right-wing extremists just because we disagree with the Obama administration or the rest of the government.

The actions of few should not reflect the beliefs of many. Now, I know that this statement can seem void in other articles on this site, but rest assured, we keep that statement in the forefronts of our minds at all times while writing these pieces and we have come to the conclusion (by way of countless hours of research) that in certain other topics we write about, that statement truly is void, and for good reason. This instance, however, is not the case. At the moment, the federal government is judging a mass of right-of-center citizens by the actions of a select number of insane, racist, or brainwashed individuals. To do that is a huge mistake that may cause that "spark" that certain officials are talking about.

*Now, what if the government was looking for a covert way to cause that spark? What then? Do we let them declare martial law and take away our gun rights? Do we let them rule over us in a totalitarian sense of the word government? What do we do?

It seems that the more a particular group speaks out against the liberal-dominated government, the more they are labeled as "right-wing extremists" or "domestic terrorists." You can’t indirectly accuse people of doing wrong and expect them to not become agitated.*

*Please note that the above does not necessarily reflect the views of the author or the ATC, but is merely a "what if" scenario presented to provoke thought. The ATC does not sanction the use of force without justified means in any situation and is a law-abiding organization.

 6 
 on: October 11, 2009, 09:54:33 PM 
Started by Benyamin B - Last post by Benyamin B
http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=42


ATC Being Impersonated, Possible Attack Coming

Posted on October 11, 2009 at 19:26:35 EST
by the ATC.

Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.

The Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC), which is located at http://www.atcoalition.com is now the target of an impersonation attempt.

The website at http://www.atcoalition.net is an exact copy of the ATC Website, with the exception of the following:

    * It does not always display the most up to date ATC articles.
    * Its email addresses end with ".net", instead of ".com". For example, the real main ATC email is webmaster@atcoalition.com. Yet, the website at atcoalition.net lists the main ATC email as webmaster@atcoalition.net!
    * Likewise, the ATC Banner links provided on atcoalition.net point to atcoalition.net, NOT atcoalition.com.

All of this comes several months after unknown individuals launched a spam campaign against the ATC, in which they both spammed the ATC's email addresses and impersonated ATC email addresses, making spam emails appear as if they came from an ATC email address. The ATC reported this to its domain registrar and web host.

Now, in light of a general crackdown on rightists all over the internet (most recently, in the case of the ATC and its allies, on Facebook, where the ATC and its ally the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) were attacked by the popular social networking site in two separate instances: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=35 and http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=41, respectively) and an overall global push against freedom of speech, there is reason to believe that this fake carbon copy of the ATC website is part of an attempt to wipe the ATC off the internet and to replace it with a fake one.

The ATC has a long history of surviving terrorist attacks, most notably the 1-11 Terrorist Attacks of January 11, 2005. Terrorists launched an attack against the ATC and services which the ATC used for hosting. Among the casualties were hundreds of other websites, including the Facts About Islam (FAI) website.

A likely scenario behind the impersonation of the ATC would involve actions by powerful people to force either its domain registrar or host to ban the real ATC website, at which point the fake ATC website (at atcoalition.net) would purport itself to be the "real" ATC website (perhaps even claiming that it has been a mirror of the ATC this entire time).

Another scenario would involve a hacker or DDOS attack that would take the ATC website offline for a few days or even a few weeks, during which the fake ATC Website at (at atcoalition.net) would also purport itself to be the "real" ATC website (perhaps even claiming that it has been a mirror of the ATC this entire time).

What makes this situation even more complicated is the fact that the ATC once owned atcoalition.net. It was relinquished in mid-2007, in light of a temporary ATC shut down, partly brought on by an active membership shortage. Additionally, atcoalition.net was the original ATC domain name – purchased by the ATC in early 2005 -, while atcoalition.com (the current domain name of the ATC) was only acquired in 2006.

We, the ATC, ask everyone to be vigilant and if the REAL ATC WEBSITE – http://www.atcoalition.com – goes down, DO NOT TRUST any website at atcoalition.net! We will attempt to reach the public through our allies in the event of any such attack.

 7 
 on: October 07, 2009, 09:37:43 PM 
Started by Benyamin B - Last post by Benyamin B
http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=41

Facebook Launches War Against Jews on Yom Kippur, JIDF Leader Banned

Posted on October 7, 2009 at 20:11:34 EST
by the ATC & Benyamin B.

Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.

On Yom Kippur – Monday, September 28, 2009 -, Facebook sent Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) leader David Appletree a warning, stating that unless he provided a "government-issued identification" to "prove" that he was using his real name (or in the case that he was not using his real name, to begin doing so thereafter), his account would be deactivated within 48 hours. The following day, news broke that countless Jewish websites, organizations and individuals (including many Rabbis, the IDF, Arutz Sheva and AISH) on Facebook received similar warnings, which in some cases also demanded that they remove any "religious title" as well.

This is the latest addition to Facebook’s long list of double standards, blatant hypocrisy, tolerance of anti-Semitism, anti-rightist bias, appeasement of terrorists and "big brotherly" love.

Just this past July, Facebook launched a war against anti-terrorists, specifically zeroing in on the Anti-Terrorism Coalition (ATC), American Infidels (AI) and Infidel Forces (IF). At the time, all three organizations were involved in a crackdown on terrorists, pro-terrorist and other hostile groups on Facebook. The popular networking website, which had already targeted these groups and other anti-terrorists in the past, sided with the terrorists once again and banned members of the three organizations. The organizations lost well over 150 Facebook groups, which they had been in control of prior to Facebook’s initial attacks.

The ATC then led an effort to secure more than 150 of those groups, but Facebook struck again, banning allied operatives on their new accounts, as they attempted to retake control of their groups. Meanwhile, Facebook ignored efforts by terrorists and their supporters to take control of those groups. Subsequent attempts to retake the groups were likewise repelled by Facebook, resulting in a majority of those groups falling into enemy hands. Some of the allied operatives have to this day not returned to Facebook and the ability of individual anti-terrorists and certain anti-terrorist organizations to communicate with each other remains impaired to this day.

Likewise, David Appletree was in control of over one hundred groups and had thousands of friends. He used his account to communicate directly with thousands – if not tens of thousands – of people via Facebook and alert them to anti-Semitic and terrorist groups on Facebook. This is not the first time he has been banned – in fact, he has been banned dozens of times! Only after major outcries by at least tens of thousands of Facebook users was his account returned, and even then, it had strange "bugs" and other problems.

Now; however, not only has David Appletree been targeted, but well over one hundred Jews and Jewish organizations have, as well. It has now been over a week since Mr. Appletree has been banned. That’s four days that the JIDF leader cannot communicate with JIDF members and supporters directly via Facebook!

Furthermore, this brings Facebook to a new low on privacy issues. As exposed in the ATC’s "Facebook Authoritarianism" article, Facebook has a very long history of demanding private information people.

Additionally, Facebook has a long history of working with Barack Hussein Obama and his camp. Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes worked for the Obama Campaign and played a key (and apparently decisive) role in its entire internet strategy. Hughes was involved in the creation of the Facebook-like Obama Campaign website "MyBO", where Obama supporters and campaign workers could come together, organize and strategize. That website was later renamed to "Organizing for America" and is now being used to get Americans to organize in support of Obama and his policies. Facebook also gave the Obama Campaign access (or at least some sizable amount of prior knowledge) to the Facebook Platform before it was released. For more on this, see the ATC’s "Facebook Authoritarianism" article.

At the end of the very same article, there was speculation that Facebook may very well be sharing its giant database of users (most of whom use their real information) with the Obama administration. After all, given all the connections with the Obama camp, the leftist views of Facebook’s owners, clear and strong bias against rightist users and Facebook’s blatant disrespect for privacy, this would be only logical.

Now Facebook is demanding that its users provide it with government IDs? What’s the real reason: making sure every field of Obama’s database of enemies is complete?

Indeed, with the Obama administration firmly in power, Facebook launched its war against the ATC and other anti-terrorists in July of this year. And now, it has sunk even lower when it launched an all out attack on Jews – in particular, proud, pro-Israel and freedom-loving Jews – on Yom Kippur!

Thirty six years ago, Syria and Egypt launched a surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur. Their intent was – as always – to exterminate all Jews in Israel and to take control of all of Israel.

Yet, this time around, the Jewish people are faced with an attack from within a supposedly friendly nation – the United States – on what purports itself to be a neutral website – Facebook – which is owned by a fellow Jew – the self-hating Mark Zuckerberg, who has sold himself out to Barack Hussein Obama and other terrorist appeasers – defacto enemies of the State of Israel and the Jewish people as a whole.

This is nothing short of a declaration of war on upright, proud, pro-Israel, freedom-loving Jews – true Jews – by Facebook. This is a cyber war against the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF)) and on all Jews, as a whole. This is the Yom Kippur Cyber War.



The ATC stands with its ally, Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF), as well as with all Jews! We consider Facebook to be a hostile website, barely different from an Al-Qaeda networking site or a Socialist International networking site.

As of October 7, 2009, we urge all professional organizations – especially anti-terrorist organizations – to cease depending on Facebook! Henceforth, we will be using Facebook only to gain new supporters and recruits, all of whom will be redirected to other websites.

As a start, we are activating a forum on our website, which we open to all. We furthermore want to let the victims of Facebook’s surprise Yom Kippur attack that they are more than welcome to testify on the ATC Website about exactly what has happened to them – we will publish any such testimonies.

Contact us here: webmaster@atcoalition.com.

Our new forum: http://www.atcoalition.com/forum/.




More on Facebook's Belligerent Appeasement of the Enemy:

The press release that broke the news of the attacks: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=28

Infidel Forces Leader Provides First Hand Account of Facebook Attacks: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=29

Cyber Terrorists Don't Delay in Taking Over IF's Groups: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=30

Facebook Conducting Surveillance of Anti-Terror Groups: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=31

Benyamin B's exclusive piece for Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas....ter-terror.html

Facebook Launches Second Round of Attacks Against Allied Forces: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=32

Facebook Launches Third Round of Attacks Against Allied Forces: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=34

Facebook Authoritarianism: http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=35

 8 
 on: October 07, 2009, 09:37:14 PM 
Started by Benyamin B - Last post by Benyamin B
http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=40


The Government and the 47 Million Uninsured

Posted on October 7, 2009 at 20:10:42 EST
by Christopher Hodges.

Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.
 



Please laugh at that picture with me so I don't lose what little faith for the human race I still have. It gets worse little by little with each passing day it seems. People get lazier and lazier and a good majority become simply brain dead. It's pathetic.

Anyway, let's get down to business:

Ok, so, as some of you may know by now, we're supposed to be in come critical crisis regarding healthcare. Well, I'm going to expand on that a little and give a bit of my own opinion here and there, so try to keep up, please.

The latest piece of data to come through the poverty sector this week is a bit of a doozy. It's said that some 47 million people in the United States are lacking the proper medical insurance. Ok... that's a new record I guess, but not a social disaster like everyone is saying.

According to a number of self-appointed intellectuals, the great tragedy of our healthcare system is that so many people go uncovered. A passing glance at the data would make it appear for that to be the case. Mind you, that's at a passing glance. If they actually took the time to stop and process the data, these people would realize that it's nowhere near crisis level.

That passing glance might be why a broad spectrum of politicians, ranging from Sen. Hillary Clinton on the left to Mitt Romney on the right, advocate universal health care as key to health reform. Even Wal-Mart has joined with its nemesis, the Service Employees International Union, to call for universal health care.

That being what it is, this case is no different than any other issue you hear about that's being spun around every which way by the media. In fact, most of the steaming crap you're fed each night on network news regarding the uninsured is wrong.

The Census Bureau reported this week on the issue of poverty and healthcare in the U.S. that so many well-to-do people can easily afford health care but choose to go without it.

The median household income, according to the data released this week, is $48,200. You might be surprised to discover that 38% of all the uninsured (that’s almost 18 million people) have incomes higher than $50,000 a year. An astounding 20% of all uninsured have incomes over $75,000. These are people who can afford coverage.

Is it really a smart idea to tax the working people of this country to cover those who refuse to pay for a necessity they could easily afford to buy? The obvious answer would be a resounding no.

One other breakdown of the data is instructive. By far the group with highest share of uninsured is Hispanics. Some 34.1% of all Hispanics lack coverage.

That latter piece of data is alarming. Drilling even deeper, one finds that fully 27% of all the uninsured in the U.S. (that’s 12.6 million people) aren’t even citizens.

Not coincidentally, the government also estimates that about 12 million illegals now reside in the U.S., though some think tanks put the number as high as 20 million.

Putting the two together, this suggests that (big surprise) a major reason for the uninsured "problem" is our failure to enforce our border.

Some estimate that a good 20% of people are uninsured for only a few months out of the year. Recently, TV journalist John Stossel noted that as many as a third of all people eligible for public health programs don't even bother to apply.

Once you break it down bit by bit, you start to see that the real number of hardcore uninsured (because they really can't afford it) is quite small – possibly half the reported 47 million, or maybe even less. Crisis? Disaster? I think not.

Yet it’s not clear that shrinking the 47 million to zero would help all that much. Because the uninsured still get health care. They get it through Medicaid, the state-run, federally funded program for the indigent. They get care, by law, in any emergency room in the country.

Now I know what some of you might be thinking, and let me just start by saying, no, that may not be the right way to care for people, BUT, saying that millions of people have absolutely "no access to healthcare" as is constantly thrown at us day by day is a damn lie.

Moreover, it’s not clear that those who go the emergency care route are worse off. A study by health economists Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago found "no evidence" that boosting coverage for all would be a cost-effective solution to improve overall health.

If there is a real problem here it is a tax code that encourages third-party payment of our health care bills, thus driving up costs. An estimated 86% of all health care purchases go through third parties. As anyone with a credit card understands, letting someone else buy something for you without any controls is an invitation to financial disaster.

Making consumers responsible for spending their own health care dollars (and letting them benefit when they control costs) is the real answer to our "uninsured problem."

It would lead to lower costs and wider coverage (something universal care advocates promise, but can’t deliver).

Oh, and you know what else would help? People not being so damned lazy all the time. One way to ensure you don't have to be in and out of hospitals all the time would be to take care of yourself. Exercise, eat right and don't smoke. Those three things alone can improve your health dramatically.

One huge problem with healthcare is that a ridiculous number of people in this country are overweight hypochondriacs. Universal healthcare is a dream come true for them. Free healthcare coverage for every little problem they might think up to have. You know what that is for the rest of us? A nightmare.

Think about that for a bit before you get into your next conversation about why free healthcare would be a good thing...

 9 
 on: October 07, 2009, 09:36:35 PM 
Started by Benyamin B - Last post by Benyamin B
http://www.atcoalition.com/news/viewarticle.php?id=39

Who do you think you are?

Posted on September 30, 2009 at 02:35:27 EST
by Benyamin B.

Copyright © 2003-2009 The Anti-Terrorism Coalition. All rights reserved.

This past spring, the Israeli government finally decided to bulldoze eighty "Palestinian" homes illegally constructed on Jewish owned land. However, before Israel could do so, intense American pressure forced it to abandon this decision (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=94265). At the same time, the American government has also supported the Israeli government’s demolition of certain Israeli settlements and has demanded that no additional settlements be built anywhere.

One member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration stated: "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"

Then, in late June, news broke that "the Obama administration told the PA that the 'golden era' of Israeli construction in sections of Jerusalem and the strategic West Bank will soon come to an end". Indeed, not long afterwards, the Obama administration demanded that Israel stop building new homes for Jews in eastern Jerusalem.

The Obama regime now joins the long list of governments, nations, organizations, groups and individuals that have dictated to Jews where they can live. For the last two thousand years, everyone from the Roman Empire to countless Islamic nations to Germany to Britain to Russia has dictated to Jews where they can live, where they can build homes and of course, forced them to relocate countless times. However, now, Jews are being told where they can live in their own nation!

All of this raises a greater question: What right does one sovereign nation have to force another sovereign nation where it can build homes and where it can demolish homes on its own land?

Who are Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, George W. Bush (yes, the Bush administration also pressured Israel in this manner, though to a lesser extent than the Obama administration) or anyone in the American government to tell Israel where it can build and demolish homes? Why shouldn’t Israel be able to tell the American government to demolish some homes in Texas, for example? Or how about in Chicago, Illinois?

Israel is a sovereign nation and the Israeli government is elected by the Israeli people to represent them and to protect them. When the property rights of Israeli citizens are violated, it is the Israeli government’s job to protect them. It doesn’t matter what reason people who don’t own the property built homes on it for. What matters is that it was not their property and the owners of the property never consented to any homes being built there. Thus, the Israeli government has every right to demolish those homes. There is not one law or moral standard that doesn’t uphold this action.

Yet, a foreign government – in this case, the American government – seems to think that it has a right to dictate to the Israeli government that it does not have the right to protect the property rights of its citizens. Even though the US has no jurisdiction and no right whatsoever to take this kind of action, it still does. It claims that it is doing so in the interest of promoting peace between Israel and the "Palestinians".

Let’s examine that for a second: The US is promoting peace between Israel and the "Palestinians" by tolerating illegal "Palestinian" occupation of Israeli land and forcing Israel to demolish settlements in the West Bank (built on empty land or land bought from Muslims)? In other words, demolishing Jewish homes is okay, but demolishing Muslim homes is not okay?

Of course, this is all part of a greater campaign of Islamic terrorist appeasement going back to the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. During the Yom Kippur War, America sent emergency shipments of weapons to Israel. Shortly after the end of the war, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) instituted an oil embargo against the West. Since then, the US has been more eager to "mediate" between Israel and Islamic countries. The first notable example of this was the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, for which Israel ceded the Sinai Peninsula (which it had conquered in the Six Day War) along with its oil fields back to Egypt, in exchange for Egyptian recognition of Israel and peace between the two nations. However, what is less known is that the Islamic world saw this as a symbolic victory and a huge amount of American aid (including weapons) has been pouring into Egypt ever since. To this day, there is strong anti-Israel sentiment in the nation, including among government-run or pro-government media. Worst of all, Egypt is now stronger than ever before. Finally, the biggest consequence of this "peace treaty" is that Israel has been giving up land ever since.

Every single time the US has stepped in as a mediator between Israel and the "Palestinians", Israel has only been forced to retreat, give goodwill gestures and so on, while the "Palestinians" have been given more land, more control over the West Bank and Gaza, hundreds of millions of American and Israeli taxpayer dollars (it’s well into the billions by now), American weapons and so on. The result: more terrorist attacks against Jews.

When former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat all of Gaza and most of the West Bank, he and other "Palestinian" leaders responded with the Second Intifada – a major terrorist campaign against Israel. Even when former Prime Minister Olmert offered the "Palestinians" all of Gaza, 93% of the West Bank, 5.5% of Israeli land to make up for the remaining 7% of the West Bank and parts of Jerusalem, the "Palestinians" refused.

Of course, American appeasement of Islamic terrorists to the point where it has involved meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations does not only apply to Israel. When Serbia (then Yugoslavia), along with Serbian forces in breakaway republics of Yugoslavia, tried to defend themselves from Islamic terrorism, the US, along with NATO and some other nations, not only supported the Islamic terrorists, but enforced no fly zones and took part in bombing missions over certain areas of Bosnia and Serbia. The first of these actions occurred in Bosnia during the Yugoslav Wars of the mid-1990s. The second action, which was not even authorized by the UN, was a massive NATO bombing campaign of all of Serbia due to Serbia's actions in Kosovo.

In the case of Bosnia, Serbian paramilitary groups aligned to Yugoslavia and opposed to Bosnia and Croatia breaking away from Yugoslavia were accused of committing genocide, displacement of non-Serbs and other war crimes; while Yugoslavia was accused of supporting the Serbian paramilitary groups. The UN imposed sanctions on Yugoslavia in 1992. In reality, hundreds of thousands of Serbs were deported from Croatia and some were even killed. Similarly, in Bosnia, countless war crimes were committed by Muslim Bosnians (Bosniaks) against Serbs. Yet, the West accused only Serbian paramilitaries of committing war crimes and sided with the Croatians and Bosniak terrorists.

In the case of Kosovo, there had been a massive influx of illegal Albanian aliens for several decades. In 1998, when the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and other Islamic terrorist groups (including Al-Qaeda) began to commit frequent terrorist attacks there, the Serbs decided to deport the several hundred thousand illegal aliens back to Albania. However, once again, the West sided with the Islamic terrorists and blamed the Serbs for everything.

On a side note, the idea of stealing Kosovo away from Serbia and handing it over to Albania goes back to WWII, when Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy created the "Greater Albania" plan. The NATO Bombing of Kosovo was the first time that the German Luftwaffe was involved in military action since WWII.

It is interesting to note that a massive propaganda campaign was conducted against Serbia. Western media went even as far as fabricating facts and evidence. During both conflicts, when Serbian forces would kill terrorists, there were cases when Western journalists would take away their weapons and then take pictures of them. Later, they would claim that "innocent civilians" had been killed and use these pictures as evidence. There were also reports of Albanian terrorist groups ordering hundreds of thousands of Albanians to run away to Albania, after which they would claim that these people had been forcibly deported by the Serbs.

Yet, where was the West when the Rwanda Genocide happened? Why isn’t the West currently doing anything about the Islamic genocide against Christians and other non-Muslims in southern Sudan or even about the Muslim on Muslim genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region? In each of these conflicts, one million people have died – and the conflicts in Sudan are still ongoing. On the other hand, even Islamic terrorist estimates of Bosniak deaths place the figures at 100,000, while in reality, no more than 20,000 – 30,000 Bosniak civilians are believed to have died, many of which died as a result of the war and not a deliberately organized campaign directed at them.

Thus, there is no doubt that the West clearly had an agenda when it went into Bosnia and Serbia and it was not there to stop "genocide" and other "war crimes". So on what grounds did the West have a right to meddle in the affairs of foreign nations?

Furthermore, supposing the West did have a right to intervene in the case of genocide or other war crimes, who decides whether or not war crimes are being committed? As we can see in the case of the Yugoslav Wars, Serbian atrocities against non-Serbs were greatly exaggerated – perhaps almost entirely fabricated – by Western media and governments, while atrocities against Serbs by Bosniaks and Croatians were almost entirely ignored by the very same media and governments. Thus, the minute we okay foreign intervention in other nations – even if only in the case of war crimes – we often depend upon biased parties with agendas of their own to decide whether war crimes are indeed being committed there.

In addition to that, these so-called world police forces often do not know enough about the conflicts they are attempting to police. For example, how many people actually know the history of the country or region they want to police in enough detail to be able to properly understand the current conflict? How many people know the roots of the current conflict? In the case of Serbia, if one knows the history, they will see that it is the victim; as what is now Bosnia and the Serbian province of Kosovo were both part of Serbia, until it was invaded, terrorized and occupied by the Ottoman Turks. The Bosniaks are mostly descended from Serbs who chose conversion to Islam over death. In the case of Kosovo, it was the medieval heartland of Serbia and most of its population was Serbian until the Ottoman Empire and its Albanian allies squatted and murdered the Serbs out; so how can anyone say that Kosovo is not an integral part of Serbia?

What role should nations, with no connection to a specific conflict, have in that conflict? Who gives them the right to get involved? Who do they think they are?

What we are seeing today is nothing short of imperialism and/or appeasement, for if the West was even truly concerned about policing the world and stopping genocide, it would have sent troops to Rwanda and Sudan. It would’ve taken on Maoist China while those socialist terrorists were sending 100 million of their own people to their deaths – and continues to do so. It would’ve liberated North Korea, which has killed millions of its own people – and continues to do so. It would’ve liberated Cuba. And it would not have joined forces with Islamic terrorists – the very same terrorists who attacked American on 9/11 – as Serbs were bravely defending themselves from the latest battle against Islamic terrorism in a war that has lasted for over 600 years; neither would it have supported Croatia over Serbia, as it is a nation that collaborated with Nazi Germany during WWII and exterminated 800,000 Serbs and tens of thousands of Jews and Gypsies, and in the 1990s, under fascist dictator Franjo Tudjman, it proceeded to finish what it started.

The idea of policing other nations means that there must be a power above other nations. This means that either certain nations will have more "rights" or there should be some sort of world governing body that does so. Of course, this means that national sovereignty would lose its significance. Is this really the road we want to take?

Imagine if a warrant for the arrest of an American citizen could be issued in some country for crimes he or she did not commit there. In fact, there is no need to imagine this because it has already happened. The most recent case actually involves high ranking members of the Bush Administration, who have been indicted by a Spanish court for "torture" – in other words, some leftist judge in Spain is angry that Bush authorized the water boarding and sleep deprivation of a couple hardcore terrorists. What right does Spain have to meddle in American affairs?

What if someone half way around the world fabricated accusations against regular Americans and demanded their prosecution in some "international court"? Most Americans would certainly be outraged. After all, what right do foreigners have in telling America what to do, and especially prosecuting its citizens for crimes they did not even commit in those nations – or in some cases, crimes they did not even commit at all?

This isn’t about justice. This is about the destruction of national sovereignty. The incidents of foreign meddling in sovereign nations in the past sixty years has set precedents that have brought about international courts; all of which will lead to the institution of an organized world court system; followed by a world governing body; followed by a one world government.

Over two hundred and thirty years ago, American colonists grew sick and tired of being governed by a tyrannical regime on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean and they launched a revolution against it. Then, they built a nation – a constitutional republic – which protected individual rights and freedoms, guaranteed security and allowed for the people to be represented in their government. In order to truly protect individual rights, strict limits on the role of federal government were imposed and states were given considerable rights.

Today, not only has America denied the citizens of other harmless nations – in some cases, even friendly nations – the right to self-determination and self-governance, but it is on the verge of allowing foreign nations to deny the American people these very same rights.

 10 
 on: October 07, 2009, 09:33:16 PM 
Started by Stalfos Conner (Сталфос Коннер) - Last post by Benyamin B
Note: This forum is now open to everyone.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!