I Am A Proud Member of Vets For Freedom

For up to date progress in the War In Iraq, please visit Vets For Freedom, an organization I am proud to be a member in good standing of.

Veteran's Suicide Hot Line Number!

1-800-273-TALK (8255) Call this number if you need help!!

A Vast Collection Of Buzzings At Memeorandum

If you wish to catch a buzz without the usual after affects, CLICK TO MEMEORANDUM. (It will not disturb the current page) That will be all. We now return to regular programming.

This Blog Is Moving

Greetings. After this weekend, this Take Our Country Back Blog will be moving to the new web site. Too many conservatives are getting zapped by the intolerant dweebs of the Obama Goons and seeing that this editing platform is a free site, Blogger can do pretty much what it feels like doing. Hence, I now have a paid site and will be migrating the last 1400+ posts shortly.

So, one day, you just may click this page somewhere and it will show up as "private". It has been fun but the intolerant Czarbie Goon Squads are brain dead idiots. They can come play at the new site which I OWN outright.

Monday, October 4, 2010

OIC Withdraws Draft Res. Condemning Qur'an Burning

Pakistan suddenly withdrew the OIC's Draft Resolution  Condemning a Call to 'Burn a Qur'an Day'. Beyond the usual boiler plate references, the draft had five main points.


  • Condemnation of
    • 'Burn a Koran Day'
    • advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
      • hatred
      • discrimination
      • hostility
      • violence
  • Calls
    • upon international community to stand against such events which
      • undermine peaceful coexistence
      • create an environment conducive to violence; reprisal
    • upon all states to condemn & oppose advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to
      • hatred
      • discrimination
      • hostility
      • violence
  • Urges the international community to support all international and regional initiatives to promote cross-cultural and interfaith harmony.
    In lieu of the draft resolution, the Council President issued a Presidential statement expressing the consensus of the council.

Statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council
SIHUASAK PHUANKETKEOW, President of the Council, said in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating a religion with terrorism, or desecrating or destroying holy books, religious sites or shrines, he had been empowered by the agreement of all Council members to make the following statement on behalf of the Human Rights Council:
“The Council condemns recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The international community should stand united against all forms of religious intolerance and should engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. The Council encourages efforts to establish collaborative networks to build mutual understanding and promote dialogue. The Council stresses that these efforts should be taken to protect individuals of all religions and beliefs in a non-discriminatory way, and should apply to promote understanding among them. The Council also recognises that open, constructive and respectful debate, as well as interfaith dialogue, could have a positive effect. The Council reiterates the call by the United Nations Secretary-General on the necessity for the voices of moderation to be heard and mutual respect to prevail.”
That breaks down to:
  • Condemns:
    • instances of
      • religious intolerance
      • prejudice
      • related:
        • discrimination
        • violence
  • Unite against & take practical steps to end : 
    • religious intolerance
  • Encourages
    • efforts to
      • establish collaboration to build
        • mutual understanding
        • dialogue
  • Stresses that it should be done to
    • protect individuals of all religions
    • promote understanding
  • Recognizes Secy. General's call for moderation & mutual respect.

    The major differences I spot are the Presidential statement's lack of direct reference to 'Burn a Koran Day' & advocacy of hatred  and the addition of  condemnation of  intolerance.

    The draft had plenty of support; the E.U. had condemned the event, so it is probable that the draft would have won a unanimous ballot. Why was it withdrawn at the last moment, without debate and a vote?

    Why does the Presidential statement omit mention of the event which inspired the resolution & its substitute?   If they seek to prevent future incidents of Qur'an burning, they should be open about it, and specify the  act which offends them.   Why does the statement omit condemnation of advocacy of religious hatred?
   
    Terry Jones  abandoned his project, but Muslims continued to riot. They burned churches, Bibles and flags.  Could it be that the Human Rigths Council was caught in a dilemma between condemning Muslim rioters or demonstrating their bias?

    Did the statement omit advocacy of religious hatred because the Qur'an is full of it?

    The Secretary General of the OIC welcomed the  statement and  used the occasion to push the OIC agenda.

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Prof Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu welcomed the adoption of a statement regarding condemnation of recent instances of religious intolerance, prejudice and related discrimination and violence, which continued to occur in all parts of the world. The consensual statement was read out, on Council’s behalf, by its President towards the end of the 15th Session in Geneva. ...more

...The Secretary General emphasized that the statement was particularly timely in view of the growing number of instances of religious intolerance such as discrimination, conflating religion with terrorism, desecrating or destroying holy books and religious sites or shrines. The Secretary General particularly welcomed the call by the Council - being the human rights conscience of the world— upon the international community to stand against all forms of religious intolerance and engage in practical steps to end such intolerance. ...

...He urged the international community to build upon the momentum generated by the consensual statement at the Council, in joining hands with the OIC towards evolving a normative approach to deal with growing instances of religious intolerance that continued to pose a clear and present danger to international community’s efforts and desire for global peace, security and stability.


Lets  examine the elements added by Ihsanoglu.
  • conflating religion with terrorism
  • desecrating or destroying holy books
    • religious sites or shrines
  • normative approach
  • clear and present danger to... global peace, security and stability.
    "Conflating Islam with terrorism" is standard boiler plate from the combating defamation resolutions.  It appears that I am the only one pointing out the fact that Allah & Moe established the nexus nearly 1400 years ago.  Allah said that he would cast terror, in 3:151 and 8:12. He said that he cast terror and described the results in 33:26 and 59:2. Moe said that he was made victorious by terror in Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220. In more modern times, Brig. S.K. Malik exposed the strategic use of terror in "The Qur'anic Concept of War"[A training manual for Pakistan's army.].

The Quranic strategy comes into play from the preparation stage, and aims at imposing a direct decision upon the enemy.  Other things remaining the same, our preparation for war is the true index of our performance during war. We must aim at creating a wholesome respect for our Cause and our will and determination to attain it, in the minds of the enemies, well before facing them on the field of battle. So spirited, zealous, complete and thorough should be our preparation for war that we should enter upon the ‘war of muscles' having already won the ‘war of will'. Only a strategy that aims at striking tenor into the hearts of the enemies from the preparation stage can produce direct results and turn Liddell Hart‘s dream into a reality....

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.
[Emphasis added.]

    If the Arabic Qur'an might be holy (which I deny, it is unholy), the translations which were to be burned and those which were torn  and burned were English translations, not considered sacred to Islam.   The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia shreds bibles and crucifixes carried into the Kingdom.  Will the Human Rights Council and the OIC condemn their policy?

    When the PLO invaded & occupied the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, they defecated on the Altar and performed istijia with pages torn from the Bible.  Did the Human Rights Commission or the OIC condemn their acts of desecration?

    "Normative approach" is a code phrase for legislation.  The OIC is behind the HRC's Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary International Standards, whose mission is to use a protocol to insert the defamation resolutions into ICERD  so as to give them the force of law.  This issue is flying below the radar, very few people know about it, and those who know ain't telling. Nobody is doing anything effective to stop the travesty of justice.  But I will share what I know with you.
    "Clear and present danger to... global peace, security and stability". Did the Motoons incite Danes to riot, burn Mosques and kill Muslims?  Who rioted, burned embassies and killed people?  Did clear and present danger arise from the Motoons?  

    Did International Burn a Qur'an Day" incite Americans to riot, burn property & kill people?  What incited riots other than rabid kutbah in the Mosques of Pakistan, Afghanistan & Indonesia and incendiary news coverage?

    How can there be religious tolerance when Islam is intolerant and intolerable?  Has no one read the Qur'an?  3:85 says that no religion but Islam will be tolerated. 9:33 says that Islam must be made dominant.  Ibn Kathir's Tafsir has some instructive titles and topics each of which contains relevant ayat & ahadith.
    Discrimination?  Yeah, right. Islamic law says that kuffar can not testify in court.

Legal testimony is only acceptable from a witness who:
(a) is free;
(b) is fully legally responsible (mukallaf, def: c8.1) (O: as testimony is not accepted from a child or insane person, even when the child's testimony regards injuries among children that occurred at play);
(c) is able to speak;
(d) it mentally awake;
(e) is religious (O: meaning upright (o24.4) (A: and Muslim), for Allah Most High says,
"Let those of rectitude among you testify" (Koran 65:2),
and unbelief is the vilest form of corruption, as goes without saying); [Emphasis added.]

But wait, there's more!  Under Islamic law, the blood money for killing a kaffir is significantly discounted.

(A: For the rulings below, one multiplies the fraction named by the indemnity appropriate to the death or injury's type of intentionality and other relevant circumstances that determine the amount of a male Muslim's indemnity (def: o4.2-6 and o4.13). )
The indemnity for the death or injury of a woman is one-half the indemnity paid for a man.
The indemnity paid for a Jew or Christian is one-third of the indemnity paid for a Muslim. The indemnity paid of a Zoroastrian is one-fifteenth of that a Muslim. [Emphasis added.]
    Don't hand me a turd and say its sausage, I know the difference. Islam is not tolerable and I will not tolerate it.  Islam is not respectable and I will not respect it.