Kort voor Pasen gaf de leider van de PVV, Geert Wilders, een gloednieuw boek cadeau aan de leden van de Tweede Kamer. Het was in het Engels geschreven door twee islamexperts. De titel luidde: ’Al-Hijra’ met als ondertitel ’Islamitische doctrine van immigratie’. Dit lijkt voor de gemiddelde Nederlander geen tekst om wakker van te liggen. Maar de inhoud is uiterst onrustbarend.
De schrijvers heten Sam Solomon en E. Al Maqdisi. Ze zijn vooraanstaande schrijvers en wetenschappers op het gebied van mensenrechten en de relaties tussen de joods-christelijke wereld en de islam. Vermoedelijk zal het grootste deel van onze politici het boek (Pilcrow Press 2009) ongelezen op de stapel ’ongewenste literatuur’ leggen. Want de tekst, voorzien van talrijke Arabische begrippen, is wat moeilijk te lezen. Maar bij nader inzien blijkt het fascinerende literatuur.
Vandaar dat het belangrijk is de essenties van het boek wat ruimer bekend te maken.
Lees de rest van deze Telegraaf-column van Professor Bob Smalhout hier.
Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? (Paperback)
by Sam Solomon (Author), E Al Maqdisi (Author)
Paperback: 160 pages
Publisher: ANM Press (29 Jan 2009)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0979492955
ISBN-13: 978-0979492952
Posts tonen met het label appeasement. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label appeasement. Alle posts tonen
woensdag 17 augustus 2016
zondag 15 september 2013
maandag 29 oktober 2012
Why Our Forces Were Told to ‘Stand Down’ in Benghazi
By Daniel Greenfield
To understand what went wrong in the Benghazi mission, it’s important to begin by looking at what was so unique about it.
When the Islamist mobs began their September 11 rampage, they found embassies with high walls, heavy security and police protection. Even in Tunis and Cairo, where the Arab Spring Islamist regimes have been accused of collaborating with their fellow Salafists, there were credible military and police forces capable of preventing the kind of full scale assault that took place in Benghazi.
The mission in Benghazi, however, was an American diplomatic facility with few defenses in a city where the police were virtually helpless against the Islamist militias and where the national government had announced that it would allow the Salafists to destroy Sufi tombs rather than intervene.
On September 1, I wrote that the real implication of these remarks was that the Libyan government had given the Islamists a free hand and would take no action no matter what they did. And bloodshed was sure to follow. Ten days later it did.
Read more at: Frontpage Magazine
To understand what went wrong in the Benghazi mission, it’s important to begin by looking at what was so unique about it.
When the Islamist mobs began their September 11 rampage, they found embassies with high walls, heavy security and police protection. Even in Tunis and Cairo, where the Arab Spring Islamist regimes have been accused of collaborating with their fellow Salafists, there were credible military and police forces capable of preventing the kind of full scale assault that took place in Benghazi.
The mission in Benghazi, however, was an American diplomatic facility with few defenses in a city where the police were virtually helpless against the Islamist militias and where the national government had announced that it would allow the Salafists to destroy Sufi tombs rather than intervene.
On September 1, I wrote that the real implication of these remarks was that the Libyan government had given the Islamists a free hand and would take no action no matter what they did. And bloodshed was sure to follow. Ten days later it did.
Read more at: Frontpage Magazine
donderdag 25 maart 2010
Is it Muslim Rage or its Causes that Threatens Us?

The debate over how to handle Islamic terrorism essentially comes down to those who advocate managing Islam in order to control its propensity for violence, and those who believe that instead we should be managing anything and everything that might provoke Muslim rage.
While controlling violence by managing Islam is the logical and direct approach, the weight of the establishment in numerous countries has come down on the side of suppressing all things that might provoke Muslim rage. This disturbing position expresses itself in numerous ways, whether it was the censorship of the Mohammed cartoons, the ongoing attempt to blame Israel for attacks on US troops, or the entire grand theory of the left which blames all Muslim violence on the domestic and foreign policies of their targets.
Given the choice between blaming the criminal for his crimes, or his victims for having provoked him-- the political and cultural elites of the very countries targeted for terror have chosen to turn the blame inward. They have placed their sordid faith in the belief that the best way to manage Islamic rage, is by relentlessly appeasing and avoiding any provocations that might cause it to flare up.
This phenomenon is often seen in abuse victims who have to cope with their abuser's enraged violence. By accepting responsibility for being the cause of his anger, they make it seem controllable and predictable. Their coping mechanism is to blame themselves, rather than face the real problem, which is that they live together with a violent and dangerous individual, who will sooner or later kill them. This is the relationship between the West and Islam.
Sultan Knish
donderdag 29 oktober 2009
All Falling Down . . .
by Victor Davis Hanson
Money
Obama’s mega-borrowing is predicated on a rather thin margin of safety. We can service nearly $2 trillion in additional debt this year—on top of the existing $11 trillion—only because interest rates are so low.
But as a veteran of the near usury of the 1970s and early 1980s, I see no reason why interest rates won’t shoot up to 10% once the economy recovers and the U.S. has to convince lenders to buy our paper in an inflationary spiral. In other words, we could fork out each year about $150-200 billion in interest costs on our annual red ink, in addition to paying annually another trillion dollars to service the existing debt. (We forget that many of us young people in the 1970s and 1980s simply never bought anything new due to high interest: my first new car was not purchased until 1989 when interest was only 7.2% on it; my parents bought a small condo in 1980 for the unbelievably low rate of 8.8%, due only to redevelopment incentives in a bad neighborhood of Fresno. Inflation will be back, even in this quite different age of globalized competition and low wages.)
Works and Days
Money
Obama’s mega-borrowing is predicated on a rather thin margin of safety. We can service nearly $2 trillion in additional debt this year—on top of the existing $11 trillion—only because interest rates are so low.
But as a veteran of the near usury of the 1970s and early 1980s, I see no reason why interest rates won’t shoot up to 10% once the economy recovers and the U.S. has to convince lenders to buy our paper in an inflationary spiral. In other words, we could fork out each year about $150-200 billion in interest costs on our annual red ink, in addition to paying annually another trillion dollars to service the existing debt. (We forget that many of us young people in the 1970s and 1980s simply never bought anything new due to high interest: my first new car was not purchased until 1989 when interest was only 7.2% on it; my parents bought a small condo in 1980 for the unbelievably low rate of 8.8%, due only to redevelopment incentives in a bad neighborhood of Fresno. Inflation will be back, even in this quite different age of globalized competition and low wages.)
Works and Days
Labels:
appeasement,
Barack Hussein Obama,
economy,
interest,
national debt
vrijdag 24 april 2009
Het voeden van een krokodil

Kort voor Pasen gaf de leider van de PVV, Geert Wilders, een gloednieuw boek cadeau aan de leden van de Tweede Kamer. Het was in het Engels geschreven door twee islamexperts. De titel luidde: ’Al-Hijra’ met als ondertitel ’Islamitische doctrine van immigratie’. Dit lijkt voor de gemiddelde Nederlander geen tekst om wakker van te liggen. Maar de inhoud is uiterst onrustbarend.
De schrijvers heten Sam Solomon en E. Al Maqdisi. Ze zijn vooraanstaande schrijvers en wetenschappers op het gebied van mensenrechten en de relaties tussen de joods-christelijke wereld en de islam. Vermoedelijk zal het grootste deel van onze politici het boek (Pilcrow Press 2009) ongelezen op de stapel ’ongewenste literatuur’ leggen. Want de tekst, voorzien van talrijke Arabische begrippen, is wat moeilijk te lezen. Maar bij nader inzien blijkt het fascinerende literatuur.
Vandaar dat het belangrijk is de essenties van het boek wat ruimer bekend te maken.
Lees de rest van deze Telegraaf-column van Professor Bob Smalhout hier.
Modern Day Trojan Horse: Al-Hijra, The Islamic Doctrine of Immigration, Accepting Freedom or Imposing Islam? (Paperback)
by Sam Solomon (Author), E Al Maqdisi (Author)
Paperback: 160 pages
Publisher: ANM Press (29 Jan 2009)
Language English
ISBN-10: 0979492955
ISBN-13: 978-0979492952
zaterdag 14 februari 2009
ISLAMOFOBIE EN WAAR ZE VANDAAN KOMT

Dat een groot deel van de Vlaamse kiezers bang is voor moslims, heeft volgens WIM VAN ROOY ook zijn oorzaken bij de islam zelf. Een gefundeerd debat over islamofobie kan daar onmogelijk aan voorbijgaan.
Een Tunesisch denker noemde zijn boek 'La maladie de l'Islam', een Amerikaans arabist, peetvader van de arabistiek, schreef een werk met de omineuze titel 'What went wrong with islam?', een Nederlands hoogleraar en publicist schreef over 'Het drama van de multiculturaliteit', een ander sprak in verband hiermee over 'een arena', nog weer iemand anders gewaagde van een vergelijking tussen islam(isme) en nazisme, een Egyptisch-Amerikaanse vrouwelijke psychiater noemt de islam gewoon 'achterlijk', een Somalische vrouw die liefhebbert in Spinoza waarschuwde voor het expliciet vrouwonvriendelijk en djihadistisch karakter van de koran, en zij kon het beslist weten.
Lees de rest van dit uitstekende artikel hier
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)
