Obama the bomber

Posted on

US president Barak Obama condemned the killing of 43 people as “outrageous” after a female bomber attacked on a large crowd receiving food aid in Khar in the region of Bajaur, North-west of Pakistan.

Well at least the feminists will be happy that the bombing was carried out by female and this brings equality in the ranks of the so called ‘terrorists’.

However Obama went to state that he strongly condemns “the outrageous terrorist attack in Khar,” and that “Killing innocent civilians outside a World Food Programme distribution point is an affront to the people of Pakistan, and to all humanity,” he said.

“The United States stands with the people of Pakistan in this difficult time, and will strongly support Pakistan’s efforts to ensure greater peace, security and justice for its people.”

Mr Obama if you’re so concerned about the killing and murder of innocent civilians why have you not condemned and stopped Drone attacks by your own army in Pakistan. To date Drone attacks in Pakistan has murdered over 2000 innocent women, children and elderly people.

U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan are killing Pakistani civilians, turning public opinion against the government, and U.S. experts say the airstrikes are destabilizing the Pakistani government. Please have the decency to value life for life and halt U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan.

I call Obama a bomber cause those are your bombs.



How do I start?

Posted on

Why is life not for life in the western media? When a solider is killed in the line of duty, he/she is named and given a face and the human touch in reporting. However when the ‘other’ is killed/murded they are just numbers that just keep going up and up. So how do I start this? I am not sure but here goes.

I have been coming in and out of Pakistan over the years to visit family and friends. I have decided to document my thoughts, my travels and the politics of Pakistan on this blog. I thought about starting with my thoughts about Pakistan and it’s people but when I read the following news article about how Obama has come into power he has banned the term ‘war on terror’ but increased the drone attacks on Pakistani soil to an average 3 times a week, killing innocent children, women and men.

Read the full article here.


All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t

Posted on

Europol releases an annual study of terrorism; the results do not support claims that “(nearly) all Muslims are terrorists”

Islamophobes have been popularizing the claim that “not all Muslims are terrorists, but (nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”  Despite this idea becoming axiomatic in some circles, it is quite simply not factual.  In my previous article entitled “All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t”, I usedofficial FBI records to show that only 6% of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil from 1980 to 2005 were carried out by Islamic extremists.  The remaining 94% were from other groups (42% from Latinos, 24% from extreme left wing groups, 7% from extremist Jews, 5% from communists, and 16% from all other groups).

But what about across the pond?  The data gathered by Europol strengthens my argument even further. (hat tip: Koppe)  Europol publishes an annual report entitled EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report.  On their official website, you can access the reports from 20072008, and 2009.  (If anyone can find the reports from earlier than that, please let me know so we can include those as well.)

The results are stark, and prove decisively that not all terrorists are Muslims.  In fact, a whopping 99.6% of terrorist attacks in Europe were by non-Muslim groups; a good 84.8% of attacks were from separatist groups completely unrelated to Islam.  Leftist groups accounted for over sixteen times as much terrorism as radical Islamic groups.  Only a measly 0.4% of terrorist attacks from 2007 to 2009 could be attributed to extremist Muslims.

Here are the official tables provided in the reports…

For 2006:


For 2007:


For 2008:


(According to the report, there was 1 “Islamist attack” in the UK in 2008, which was omitted in the table above.  It has been included in the bar graph below.)

Just glancing at those tables is enough to know how absurd it is to claim that “all terrorists are Muslims.”  That statement is nowhere near the truth.  If we compile the data, it comes out to this:



On p.7, the 2009 Europol report concludes:

Islamist terrorism is still perceived as being the biggest threat worldwide, despite the fact that the EU only faced one Islamist terrorist attack in 2008.  This bomb attack took place in the UK…Separatist terrorism remains the terrorism area which affects the EU most. This includes Basque separatist terrorism in Spain and France, and Corsican terrorism in France…Past contacts between ETA and the FARC illustrate the fact that also separatist terrorist organizations seek cooperation partners outside the EU on the basis of common interests.  In the UK, dissident Irish republican groups, principally the RIRA and the CIRA, and other paramilitary groups may continue to engage in crime and violence.

Perception is not reality.  Due to the right wing’s influence and propaganda, people mistakenly think that Islamic terrorism is the greatest threat to the Western world.  It is even a commonly held belief that Islamic terrorism poses an existential threat–that the very survival of the Western world is at stake.  Of course, the reality is that there are other groups that engage in terrorism on a much larger scale, yet these terrorist incidents are minimized.  Acts of terrorism committed by Muslims are purposefully sensationalized and focused upon, culminating in the idea that “(nearly) all terrorists are Muslims.”

Terrorism from Islamic extremists is certainly a cause for concern, but it need not be an issue that creates mass hysteria.  Nor should it be allowed to be such a critical issue that we are willing to sacrifice our ideals or civil rights for fear of it.  Neither should we be reduced to a status of absolute sissitude.  We have analyzed data from America and Europe (a good portion of the entire Western world), and the threat from Islamic terrorism is much more minimal than commonly assumed; in the U.S., it accounts for 6% of terrorist attacks, and in Europe not even half of a percent.

It is only through sensationalism and fear mongering that the topic of Islamic terrorism is allowed to be used to demonize a religious community that happens to be a minority in the West.  When confronted by such lunacy, we ought to respond with the facts and the truth.

In a future article, we shall analyze the data for terrorism on the world stage in order to further strengthen our argument…

Source: LoonWatch


Zionists kill innocent family

Video Posted on Updated on

This is an adventure

A video about a girl, who went with her family to make a picknick. After she swam alone, she sees her Familiy, which were scruplesless killed…

There’s absolute free speech when it comes to attacking Islam and Muslims, but not when it comes to the President’s son

Posted on Updated on

Charlie Hebdo, the French magazine, the first to reprint the Danish cartoons, has fired one its senior journalists, for alleged anti-semitism in a cartoon attacking the son of Nicholas Sarkozy. Below is the article.

A Scooter, a Sarkozy and Rancor Collide

PARIS — Deep in the muggy Parisian summer, when it seems the only people left in the city are tourists and those who serve them, there is a fine little scandal involving the president’s son, his wealthy fiancée, a much-beloved and scabrous magazine, a crusty cartoonist and humid charges of racism and anti-Semitism.

Like all French intellectual fusses, this one has roots in the past — as far back as the Dreyfus affair, not to mention Algeria. But it also touches directly on the reputation and power of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, and his efforts to intimidate the press.

The result has been the firing of a radical left-wing cartoonist, Maurice Sinet, known as Siné, 79, from one of France‘s best (and most vulgar) satirical magazines, Charlie Hebdo, after allegations that he had indulged in anti-Semitic stereotypes while taking a shot at Jean, Mr. Sarkozy’s ambitious second son from his first marriage, who is now 21.

Much attention has been paid to Mr. Sarkozy’s third wife, Carla, her new album of love songs and the tranquilizing effect she has had on the hyperactive French president. But the French have also been following the career of Jean Sarkozy and his recent engagement to Jessica Sebaoun, daughter of Isabelle Maruani (née Darty) and Marc-André Sebaoun. Isabelle Maruani is an heir to the large electronics and technology company, the Darty group, a kind of French Best Buy.

Jean Sarkozy has risen fast. A taller, blond version of his father, the young Sarkozy has some of the sullen, sultry look of the actor Jean-Paul Belmondo, and though still a law student, he has already become the leader of his father’s party in his father’s old constituency, Neuilly-sur-Seine.

In some ways, his rise has been in the face of his father, who wanted to put a former spokesman in the mayoralty of Neuilly-sur-Seine. But the aide, David Martinon, proved unpopular, and Jean Sarkozy led a party putsch to replace him.

Jean Sarkozy has also been a beneficiary of his father’s power, it seems. When his motor scooter was stolen last year, the police recovered it quickly, even going to the extraordinary length of taking a DNA sample from his helmet. In 2005, he ran his scooter into the back of a BMW, according to a complaint brought by the car’s owner, M’Hamed Bellouti, who managed to catch the license plate number as the scooter sped away. The police failed to find the scooter, but the car owner’s insurance company did. Nevertheless, in a December 2007 trial, the complaint against Jean Sarkozy was dismissed.

Mr. Bellouti asked then: “Why is there a two-speed justice system? When they steal his scooter, they are full of zeal. When it hits my car, there is less zeal.”

All this was on the mind of the cartoonist Siné, who last month decided to write about Jean Sarkozy, whom he called “a worthy son of his father.” After Jean Sarkozy left his trial for fleeing the scene of the scooter accident “almost to applause,” Siné noted, “it’s necessary to state that the complainant is Arab!”

“And that’s not all,” the cartoonist continued. Jean Sarkozy “has just said that he wants to convert to Judaism before marrying his fiancée, a Jew and heiress of the founders of Darty. He will go far in this life, the little one!”

The column woke up a somnolent Paris, with the journalist Claude Askolovitch of Le Nouvel Observateur telling RTL radio that Siné’s piece was anti-Semitic for its conflation of Jews, politics and wealth.

The editor of the weekly, Philippe Val, 55, asked Siné to retract. The cartoonist — who was an anticolonial critic of the Algerian war, supports a Palestinian state, is a fierce atheist and spends a good part of the day on a respirator — said he would rather castrate himself.

Mr. Val fired him, then wrote a long explanation of why, asserting that Mr. Askolovitch was acting on behalf of “the entourage of Jean Sarkozy,” and that “a close collaborator of Jean Sarkozy contacted me to tell me that the families of Jean Sarkozy and his fiancée had been outraged and were contemplating a lawsuit.”

Nicolas Sarkozy has in the past had editors fired when their coverage has displeased him, and he is being criticized for trying to bring French public television more under his control. The family also denied that Jean Sarkozy was contemplating conversion.

Mr. Val, who had previously won much praise (and incurred Muslim wrath) for reprinting the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, ended his editorial by quoting Siné as telling a radio station in 1982, “I am anti-Semitic, and I have no fear of saying so.” Siné filed a defamation suit.

Siné has many defenders who deny the passage is anti-Semitic. Gisèle Halimi, a prominent lawyer, said a charge of anti-Semitism would not stand up in court, adding, “This operation is part of the ever more numerous witch hunts aimed at maintaining the psychosis of the persecuted Jew.” The magazine, she said, citing the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, “always posed as a champion of freedom of expression.” Now, she said, “I no longer want to read you or hear you.”

The cartoonist Plantu, in L’Express last month, depicted Mr. Val in a fascist uniform kicking Siné under a headline saying that Charlie Hebdo was the magazine “where everything is permitted — including firing a cartoonist.”

Luc Mandret, a well-known blogger, wrote that in June, in Charlie Hebdo, Siné had defamed Muslims more coarsely than he had insulted Jews, but those comments had produced no similar reaction. “Siné is a provocateur,” Mr. Mandret wrote.

There was heavier artillery used to support Mr. Val: a letter in Le Monde signed by 20 politicians and public intellectuals, including Elie Weisel, Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alexandre Adler, Claude Lanzmann and Bertrand Delanoë, mayor of Paris. Siné “has broken the barrier that separates humor from insult and caricature from hate,” they said. Mr. Lévy wrote further, “Behind these words, a French ear is unable not to hear the echo of the most rancid anti-Semitism.”

Jacques Attali, a former government minister writing in L’Express, summarized the complaint. “One can also read there, and not for the first time for this cartoonist, the return of the old anti-Semitic hymn: ‘The Jews are rich, so to convert to Judaism allows one to get rich.’ ”

As for Siné, he is entirely unrepentant. In a letter to Libération, he wrote: “Sorry to disappoint, but I am the author neither of ‘Mein Kampf’ nor of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ I am only, for the last 60 years, an anti-imbecile of the first order (a euphemism destined to pre-empt any eventual refusal to publish this).”

Killing innocent people

Quote Posted on Updated on

What is the difference between a bomb attack killing six innocent people and an air strike killing 11 innocent soldiers? Both in my opinion are wrong. What’s the difference between killing innocent civilians in a city or targeting an embassy because of insults or killing innocent soldiers who are only there to protect?

Wrong is wrong, blood is blood and dead bodies are dead bodies no matter what the motive of the attack was.

As Mahatma Gandhi said “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?”