Archive for Islamo-fascism

Biased Press Doesn’t Question Muslim Assertion that Women who don’t wear the hijab are inviting rape

This is OUTRAGEOUS. Hidden in this little “fashion” piece is the statement (which was NOT challenged by the reporter) that a woman who does not wear Muslim hijab is possibly inviting RAPE! Here’s the statement:

“There are more and more women wearing Muslim fashion to parties. It can provide comfort since it is loose and it can also protect women from perverted men if they walk alone at night.”

Some designers and models said modest Muslim clothing was appropriate to prevent crimes against women such as rape, touting an argument often used by clerics to convince women to cover up.

“To cover our head with a veil is a must. The veil must cover the forbidden parts. Women are priceless things, the more priceless she is, the more protection is given,” said Samira Mochammad Bafagih, a 25-year-old fashion journalist.

“Men are not likely to seduce women in veils. Thus I feel more comfortable if I walk alone at night. I agree that women without veils are more likely to be seduced. There are quite many rape cases, aren’t there?”

Do you know what makes me feel more comfortable if I walk alone at night– my Smith & Wesson 642 with Crimson Trace Laser Sights

Where is the outcry from the feminists about the AP bias in writing this story and letting that assertion go unchallenged? Where is the statistical evidence that women in hijab are less likely to be attacked? Where is the information on hate crimes against women who chose not to wear the hijab in Muslim areas? Where is the information on the percentage of women who are FORCED to wear the hijab vs. the women who chose to wear the hijab?

There is no statistical evidence that wearing a hijab makes a woman less likely to be raped. Instead this assertion is an excuse to coerce and intimidate women into wearing the hijab.  We should be very concerned because it shows that– in the minds of Muslim extremists– women who dress according to Western Standards are somehow inviting rape and deserve to be raped.  This is extremely threatening to women’s rights.  By not challenging the assumptions and statements of these “Muslim fashion designers,” the Defeatocratic media is helping spread a dangerous ideology.

 

Comments (1)

Flying Imans Stunt Designed to Enable Democrats to Weaken Airport Security

Bloggers at California Conservative commenting on the flying imans case question whether it was “a stunt designed to give political cover to Democrats who want to weaken airport security.” He observes that:

Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

Giving Muslims special civil-rights protections– especially in regards to airport security– is akin to making the school bully a hall monitor in the hope that will make him stop beating up the other kids.

California Conservative notes that Democratic attempts to give Muslims special protection could backfire in 2008:

I hope that Conyers’ legislation gets extensive coverage on CNN, FNC and conservative talk radio. I pray that the NY Times makes this legislation its next major cause. I’d be positively giddy if there’s a recorded vote on this so we can use it in commercial after commercial in 2008. Giving “Muslims special civil-rights protections” would tell Americans that (a) Democrats are in the back pockets of radical Muslim ‘civil rights organizations’; (b)Democrats care more about appeasing a fringe group than about maintaining tight airline safety and (c)Democrats will neither be tough nor smart in the GWOT. In fact, this debate will show them to be the appeasers that they’ve always been.

Giving “Muslims special civil-rights protections” is code for Democrats’ caving on this important issue, which will cement in peoples’ minds that they’re more worried about not hurting someone’s feelings than they are about protecting Americans.

It does seem that Democrats oppose practically every measure designed to thwart the terrorists– wiretapping, the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of known terrorists, and even airport security checks of Muslims. Whose side are they on?

Comments

Excellent Article in the Wall Street Journal on the Flying Imans

Debra Burlingame, the sister of Charles F. “Chic” Burlingame III, the pilot of American Airlines flight 77, which was crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001,  had an excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal.  She made an excellent point about the questionable motives of the imans:

Ultimately, the most despicable aspect about the imams’ behavior is that when they pierced the normally quiet hum of a passenger waiting area with shouts of “Allahu Akbar”and deliberately engaged in terrorist-associated behavior that was sure to trigger suspicion, they exploited the fear that began with the Sept. 11 attacks. The imams, experienced travelers all, counted on the security system established after 9/11 to kick in, and now they plan not only to benefit financially from the proper operation of that system but to substantially weaken it–with help from the Saudi-endowed attorneys at CAIR.

US Airways is right to stand by its flight crew. It will be both dangerous and disgraceful if the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation and, ultimately, our federal courts allow aviation security measures put in place after 9/11 to be cynically manipulated in the name of civil rights.

As Americans, it is important that we counter the false claims of the flying Imans and their extremist allies at CAIR by letting US Airways, the DOT and Department of Homeland Security know that we do not want our aviation security weakened in the name of civil rights. The Islamofascists are attempting to manipulate us into making it easier for them to kill us. We must stand firm and let them know we recognize this.

Comments

Ejected Iman has been linked to Hamas and Bin Laden

WorldNetDaily reports that one of the ejected Imans was linked to Hamas and Bin Laden:

One of six Muslim imams pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis last night by federal authorities is affiliated with a Hamas-linked organization and acknowledged a connection to Osama bin Laden in the 1990s.

Isn’t it curious that CAIR and the mainstream media forgot to mention this?

Comments

New Information on the “Flying Imans”- Possible Terrorism Dry-Run

It’s important that you read this article by Pajamas Media in full:

By Richard Miniter, PJM Washington Editor

The case of U.S. Airways flight 300 gets stranger by the minute. When six traveling Muslim clerics were asked to deplane last week, it looked like another civil rights controversy against post-9-11 airport security.

Now new information is emerging that suggests it was all a stunt designed to weaken security….

Yesterday I spoke with a passenger on that flight, who asked that she be only identified as “Pauline.” A copy of airport police report, which I also obtained, supports Pauline’s account - and includes shocking revelations of its own. In addition, U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader also confirmed much of what Pauline revealed…..

The passenger, who asked that she only be identified as “Pauline,” said she is afraid to give her full name or hometown. She is spending the night at “another location” because she does not feel safe at home. She credits reports that one imam is apparently linked to Hamas. “It is scary because these men could be dangerous.”

Pauline said she never wanted media attention. She wrote an email to U.S. Airways and cc:ed her daughter, who unexpectedly emailed it to her friends. As the letter took on an internet life of its own, it made its way to the inbox of a retired CNN executive producer. Then, to her dismay, the feeding frenzy began.

Pauline revealed to Pajamas Media that the six imams were doing things far more suspicious than praying - an Arabic-speaking passenger heard them repeatedly invoke “bin Laden,” and “terrorism,” a gate attendant told the captain that she did not want to fly with them, and that bomb-sniffing dogs were brought aboard. Other Muslim passengers were left undisturbed and later joined in a round of applause for the U.S. Airways crew. “It wasn’t that they were Muslim. It was all of the suspicious things they did,” Pauline said.

Here is her story, along with corroborating quotes from the U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader and the official report, another Pajamas Media exclusive.

Sitting in Minneapolis-St. Paul’s Airport Gate C9, she noticed one of the imams immediately. “He was pacing nervously, talking in Arabic,” she said.

She quickly noticed the others. “They didn’t look like holy men to me. They looked like guys heading out of town for a Vikings game.”

Pauline said she did not see or hear the imams pray at the gate (she was at dinner in a nearby airport eatery), but heard about the pre-flight prayers from other passengers hours later.

As the plane boarded, she said, no one refused to fly. The public prayers and Arabic phone call did not trigger any alarms - so much for the p.c. allegations that people were disturbed by Muslim prayers.

But a note from a passenger about suspicious movements of the imams got the crew’s attention. A copy of the passenger’s note appears in the police report.

To Pauline everything seemed normal. Then the captain - in classic laconic pilot-style - announced there had been a “mix up in our paperwork” and that the flight would be delayed.

In reality, the air crew was waiting for the FBI and local police to arrive.

Ninety minutes after the flight’s scheduled 5:15 p.m. departure, the captain announced yet another delay. Still, Pauline said, there was no sense of alarm.

Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies.

The situation in cockpit was far more intense, according to a U.S. Airways spokeswoman and police reports.

Contrary to press accounts that a single note from a passenger triggered the imams’ removal, Captain John Howard Wood was weighing multiple factors - factors that have largely been ignored by the press.

Another passenger, not the note writer, was an Arabic speaker sitting near two of the imams in the plane’s tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside, and in a whisper, translated what the men were saying. They were invoking “bin Laden” and condemning America for “killing Saddam,” according to police reports.

Meanwhile an imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extension, even though according to both an on-duty flight attendant and another deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. Hours later, when the passengers were being evacuated, the seat-belt extension was found on the floor near the imam’s seat, police reports confirm. The U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said she did not dispute the report, but said the airline’s internal investigation cannot yet account for the seat-belt extension request or its subsequent use.

A seat-belt extension can easily be used as a weapon, by wrapping the open-end of the belt around your fist and swinging the heavy metal buckle.

Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies. Days after the incident, the imam would claim that the steward helped him attach the device. Pauline said he is lying. Hours later, when the police was being evacuated, the steward asked Pauline to hand him the seat-belt extension, which the imam did not attach, but placed on the floor. “I know he is lying,” Pauline said, “I had it [seat belt extension] in my hand.”

A passenger in the third row of first class, Pauline said, told a member of the crew: “I don’t have a good feeling about this guy,” about the imam who wanted the seat-belt extension.

A married couple one row behind first-class, tried to strike up a conversation with the imam seated near them. He refused to talk or even look at the woman in the eye, according to Pauline. Instead, he stood up and moved to join the other imams in the back of the plane. Why would he leave the luxury end of the aircraft? Pauline wondered. The account of the married couple does not appear in the police report.

Finally, a gate attendant told the captain she thought the imams were acting suspiciously, according to police reports.

So the captain apparently made his decision to delay the flight based on many complaints, not one. And he consulted a federal air marshal, a U.S. Airways ground security coordinator and the airline’s security office in Phoenix. All thought the imams were acting suspiciously, Rader told me.

Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.

And, Pauline said, they spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section. Pauline’s account is confirmed by the police report. The airline spokeswoman added that some seemed to be sitting in seats not assigned to them.

One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.

“It was almost as if they were intentionally trying to get kicked off the flight,” Pauline said.

A lone plain clothes FBI agent boarded the plane and briefly spoke to the imams. Later, uniformed police escorted them off.

Some press reports said the men were led off in handcuffs, which Pauline disputes. “I saw them. They were not handcuffed.”

Later, each imam was individually brought back on the aircraft to reclaim his belongings. They were still not handcuffed. They may have been handcuffed later.

At this point, the passengers became alarmed. “How do we know they got all their stuff off?” Pauline heard one man ask.

While the imams were soon released, Pauline is fuming: “We are the victims of these people. They need to be more sensitive to us. They were totally insensitive to us and then accused us of being insensitive to them. I mean, we were a lot more inconvenienced than them.”

The plane was delayed for some three and one-half hours.

Bomb-sniffing dogs were used to sweep the plane and every passenger was re-screened, the airline spokeswoman confirmed. Another detail omitted from press reports.

The reaction of the remaining passengers has also gone unreported. “We applauded and cheered for the crew,” she said.

“I think it was either a foiled attempt to take over the plane or it was a publicity stunt to accuse us of being insensitive,” Pauline said. “It had to be to intimidate U.S. Airways to ease up on security.”

So far, U.S. Airways refuses to be intimidated, even though the feds have launched an investigation. “We are absolutely backing this crew,” Rader said.

Tucked away in the police report is this little gem: one of the imams had complained to a passenger that some nations did not follow shariah law and his job in Bakersfield, Calif. was a cover for “representing Muslims here in the U.S.”

So what are the imams really up to? Something more than praying it seems.

Comments

Islamic Civil Rights Group Tries to Censor Columnist

The Washington Post reports that CAIR, an Islamic Civil Rights group, has demanded that Dennis Prager be removed from the U.S. Holocaust Museum Council. The reason?

CAIR is offended that Prager wrote an article criticizing newly elected Congressmen Keith Ellison for insisting on using the Koran instead of the Bible at his swearing-in ceremony. Prager pointed out that Mormons don’t insist on swearing in using a Book of Mormon and that atheists don’t insist on swearing in using a non-religious book. Yet Ellison wants special treatment that no other congressman has demanded in our nation’s history.

Here are CAIR’s comments:

The Council on American-Islamic Relations said Monday that comments by Dennis Prager, a columnist and conservative talk radio host, displayed an intolerance toward Islam that makes him inappropriate to serve on the council, which oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

You can read the full article and the supposedly offensive statements by Prager at Townhall.com.

Prager also responds in a new column to CAIR’s attack on him:

Accusation: My column and/or I are racist, bigoted and Islamophobic.

Response: “Racist”: It is impossible to fully respond to absurdity. How is race possibly involved in my wanting the Bible to be present at swearings-in of American politicians? I wrote in my column that I apply the same standard to Jews, Scientologists and everyone else. Those who make this charge merely cheapen the word racism and therefore weaken the fight against it.

“Islamophobic”: I wrote not a word against Islam or the Koran and made it clear at the beginning of my column that nothing I write is specific to Islam or the Koran. All those who write that I “compared” the Koran to “Mein Kampf” are lying — deliberately lying to defame me rather than respond to my arguments. I simply offered a slippery slope argument that if we let everyone choose their own text at swearings-in, what will happen one day should a racist decide to use “Mein Kampf”? A slippery slope argument is not an equivalence argument. The Left regularly argues that vouchers to support Catholic schools can one day be used to support religious extremists’ schools. Are they comparing Catholicism to religious extremism? Of course not. And no one on the Right has ever stooped so low as to make such a charge. Moreover, I not only mentioned “Mein Kampf,” I mentioned “Dianetics,” Scientology’s most revered work, the works of Voltaire (for secularists) and other works.

“Bigoted”: Bigoted against whom? Against non-Christians? I am a non-Christian. Am I bigoted against myself as a Jew? I happen to be one of the most active individuals in American Jewish life and co-author of probably the most widely used English-language introduction to Judaism of the last 30 years.

In fact, it is as a Jew that I am so aware of the fragility of all civilizations, including ours. I am therefore aware of how uniquely good America has been for all its citizens, including and especially its Jews. This uniqueness does not stem from secularism alone, but from an extraordinary Judeo-Christian value system that has been our civic religion. Europe is secular and is a failing civilization; one that is also increasingly judenrein [empty of Jews] because of its anti-Semitism.

I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in. It is not I, but Keith Ellison, who has engaged in disuniting the country.

My two cents: Prager’s article was not racist/bigoted/etc. He made legitimate points about Ellison’s divisive decision to insist on swearing-in on a Koran instead of the Bible.  Why does CAIR want to censor his comments? And how on earth does CAIR think it is qualified to preach about who should or should not be on the council of the US Holocaust Museum.

Prager, who is Jewish, has written about the dangers of anti-Semitism before and about the Holocaust. CAIR, on the other hand, maintains a militantly anti-Israel (some might even say anti-Semitic) policy and has never publicly criticized the violence of the Palestinians against the Israelis nor rebuked Islamic fundamentalists for their intense hatred of the Jewish people. This makes CAIR’s comments on this issue hypocritical as well as unfair to Prager.

Comments