Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    June 2020
    S M T W T F S
    « Jan    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘muslim outrage’

First lady is clueless about national security, too

Posted by Richard on September 13, 2012

New York banned large soft drinks today as part of what the AP calls the “war on obesity.” First Lady Michelle Obama is totally on board. On today’s Dr. Oz show, she reiterated her contention that obesity is our nation’s biggest national security threat.

You know, that statement was just plain stupid when she first said it in 2010. Two days after al Qaeda-orchestrated attacks on our consulate in Benghazi and our embassy in Cairo, the deaths of four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, and while al Qaeda-inspired mobs are threatening US embassies and citizens throughout the Muslim world, such a statement is not just stupid, it’s offensive. And insane.

Ms. Obama, why don’t you ask the families of J. Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, and Tyrone Woods if they think obesity is our nation’s biggest national security threat?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Obama administration ignored warning about attacks

Posted by Richard on September 12, 2012

The Obama administration and their media lapdogs are more interested in condemning Mitt Romney than in condemning the 7th-century barbarian jihadists who attacked a US embassy and consulate, killing a US ambassador and three of his staff. They’re no doubt also making sure that their media lapdogs divert attention away from their shameful disinterest in national security leading up to these attacks, including their failure to heed a clear warning that such attacks could be expected (emphasis added):

Islamic mobs that stormed the U.S. Embassy in Egypt and the U.S. consulate in Libya on the eleventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, murdering the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, said they were doing so because they were enraged by an obscure, Internet movie that mocked Muhammed.

But a closer examination of the evidence indicates al-Qaeda orchestrated these attacks, and the movie was just a bogus excuse used to trigger the widespread violence. Even worse, it seems al-Qaeda telegraphed these attacks, and the Obama administration still got caught flat-footed, unaware of the terror group’s strength in the region, missing key signals and clues that were out in the open.

One day before September 11, al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahri posted a 42-minute video on Jihadist forums urging Libyans to attack Americans to avenge the death of Abu Yahya al-Libi, the terror organization’s second-in-command, whom U.S. drones killed in June of 2012 in Pakistan.

In the video, al-Zawahri said al-Libi’s “blood is calling, urging and inciting you to fight and kill the Crusaders,” leading up to a date heralded and celebrated by radical Islamists.

Another version of the video was actually posted on YouTube on September 9 and yet, President Barack Obama, who has not attended an intelligence briefing since September 5, and his administration did not beef up security at the embassy and consulate on September 11. There were no Marines present to protect Americans abroad, as the Islamic mobs overwhelmed what little security presence there was.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Sign the petition to defund radical Islamists

Posted by Richard on September 12, 2012

From Steve Elliot, Grassfire Nation (via email; emphasis in original):

This is a sad and disturbing day. On the anniversary of 9/11, America is once again under assault by the Muslim jihad. U.S. embassies were attacked and our citizens killed by radical Islamic extremists while our own Embassy in Egypt apologized for any offense a private movie may have caused to Muslims.

Let’s be clear — these despicable attacks amount to acts of war against our nation. These coordinated attacks by radical Islamic extremists on U.S. Embassies resulted in the invasion of U.S. soil, the desecration of U.S. property including our flag, and the murder of U.S. citizens. 

Yet for hours, Obama was silent. Instead, he left it to Hillary Clinton to condemn the attacks. But even Hillary couldn’t condemn without also apologizing! She essentially re-stated the apology issued by the Embassy in Egypt that the Obama administration later disavowed!

Even in Obama’s statement today, he included a thinly-veiled apology.

But that’s not the worst of it….

+ + Our Tax Dollars Are Funding Our Attackers!

Perhaps most offensive of all is that OUR TAX DOLLARS are directly and indirectly funding these attacks on our nation.

For too many years, the U.S. government has pumped billions of dollars into countries whose leaders and people are openly hostile to our way of life. For example, this Spring the Obama regime waived “democracy requirements” to free up $1.5 BILLION in aid to the Muslim Brotherhood-led Egyptian government.

THIS WEEK’S ATTACKS ARE A “TIPPING POINT.” WE MUST DRAW A LINE. ANY AND ALL FUNDING TO EGYPT AND SYRIA (AND ANY NATION WHOSE GOVERNMENT OR PEOPLE OPENLY OPPOSE AND ATTACK THE U.S.) MUST BE STOPPED!

+ + Emergency Petition To Stop Funding For Egypt And Syria

Grassfire Nation is launching an EMERGENCY PETITION calling for Congress and the President to CEASE AND DESIST any and all funding to Egypt or Syria. PLEASE GO HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION:

http://www.grassfire.com/277/petition.asp

We expect key votes in Congress THIS WEEK so we must have your petition immediately.

Again…. this is an OUTRAGE. We are funding countries led by radical Islamic extremists whose people are openly attacking U.S. embassies and killing U.S. citizens. And our Secretary of State is apologizing!

As a first step, we must demand that Congress STOP sending our tax dollars to Egypt and Syria.

Please sign the petition and then alert your friends.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Colorado Christians outraged by Jesus art

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2010

An exhibit at the Loveland Museum/Gallery in Loveland, CO, includes a twelve-panel lithograph by Enrique Chagoya. One of the panels apparently depicts Jesus engaged in oral sex with a man, and it's sparked outrage among Colorado's Christian community.

On Sunday, police used tear gas to disperse a violent mob of Christians attempting to storm the museum. One man was killed and seven injured, including three police officers. In nearby Boulder, roving gangs of Christian youths vandalized storefronts, defaced a mosque and a Buddhist ashram, blocked streets, and torched at least a dozen vehicles. Riots have broken out in several other Front Range cities with large Christian populations.

The Loveland City Council is expected to address the issue at its Tuesday meeting, and more violence is feared if the artwork isn't ordered removed. Museum employees, city council members, and their families are under 24-hour police protection due to numerous threats. 

… 

Of course, none of that's true (except the part about the lithograph). The outraged Christians are peacefully protesting with signs outside the museum — signs like "Would you portray Mohamad this way?"

I made up the part about rioting Christians. But you already knew that, didn't you? Because you know that Christians — at least modern Christians who come from a culture that, thanks to the Enlightenment, has largely embraced reason and tolerance — simply don't behave like that. Oh, maybe an isolated nut-case — but large, violent mobs of Christians? It just doesn't happen.  

Just as a reminder, here are the Mohammed cartoons that sparked massive riots throughout the world in which many people were killed. Not a sex act depicted among them.

Mohammed cartoons

BTW, I'm an atheist, so I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just calling 'em as I see 'em.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Draw Mohammed Day

Posted by Richard on May 21, 2010

In support of South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, today is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day. I like the idea of depicting him doing mundane things like grocery shopping. But since I have essentially zero artistic ability, I'll just repost the twelve Jyllands-Posten cartoons that caused a world-wide frenzy of radical Muslim outrage in 2006.

 Jyllands-Posten cartoons

Check Reason Hit & Run, the Stranger, or this Facebook page later today for some of the drawings. Unless you're in Pakistan, which has blocked large portions of the internet to protect you from being offended.

UPDATE: Reason has chosen three winners from among the nearly 200 submissions they received. All three are quite clever. I think I like the second-place entry, Where's Mohammed, best. But I see why the winner won — it's at once clever, amusing, and a challenge to the viewer. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Veiled threat, part 2

Posted by Richard on January 3, 2007

Remember a couple of weeks ago when we learned that the burqa is the preferred dress for wanted murderers who’d like to sail through British airport security? Well, now it turns out that the burqa is also popular with jewel thieves in India. And, of course, the jewelry store owners had to apologize for being so insensitive as to suggest that they didn’t want people completely concealed in burqas snatching up jewelry and running off:

Jewelers in western India have apologized to Muslims for proposing to ban women wearing burqas from their shops following a series of thefts by burqa-clad customers.

British radio (BBC) reports that the jewelers association in the city of Pune withdrew its request Friday for a ban on serving women who wear face veils or burqas. The association says it decided not to pursue the ban for fear of offending religious sentiments.

Jewelers asked police for the ban after surveillance cameras showed veiled thieves stealing. Shopkeepers and police say they cannot identify them because their faces are covered.

The jewelers say the request was a security measure and was not targeted at minority Muslims in Pune.

The request sparked tensions among local Muslim leaders who said the ban discriminated against Muslim women.

I’ve got a couple of questions. First, why are women who aren’t supposed to show any portion of their body in public or experience any pleasure so interested in jewelry anyway? Second, when will someone have the stones to tell outraged Muslims, "We’ll tolerate your burqas and niqabs in our jewelry stores and airports as soon as you tolerate our bikinis and beer in Riyadh."
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Veiled threat

Posted by Richard on December 20, 2006

A couple of months ago, many Muslims were outraged when British MP Jack Straw politely suggested that Muslim women uncover at least their noses and mouths when meeting with him:

Jack Straw, the ex-foreign secretary, has angered Muslim groups by suggesting women who wear veils over their face can make community relations harder.

The Blackburn MP says the veil is a "visible statement of separation and of difference" and he asks women visiting his surgery to consider removing it.

The remarks attracted an angry response from some organisations representing Muslims.

It was "astonishing" that Mr Straw chose to "selectively discriminate on the basis of religion", said Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission.

Rajnaara Akhtar, who chairs the organisation Protect-Hijab, suggested the "appalling" comments showed "a deep lack of understanding".

Mr Straw was putting women "into a very awkward position by compromising the faith they believe in and that is ill-placed", Council of Lancashire Mosques chairman Hamid Kureshi told BBC Radio Five Live.

Well, now we know at least one reason why radical Muslims stridently defend the wearing of the burqa and niqab: it makes it so much easier for terrorists wanted for murder to travel freely in and out of countries that value political correctness and multi-culturalism above security, common sense, and equality before the law:

Only here in the UK could this happen, Mustaf Jama wanted over the murder of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, assumed his sister’s identity — wearing the niqab and using her passport — to evade supposedly stringent checks at Heathrow, according to police sources.

The use of the niqab, which leaves only a narrow slit for the eyes, highlights flaws in British airport security. At the time, Jama was Britain’s most wanted man, while Heathrow was on a heightened state of alert after the 7/7 terrorist atrocities in London five months previously. Not so much a secure state as an episode of the Keystone Cops.

Detectives believe that Jama, 26, was allowed to board an international flight from Heathrow because no attempt was made to uncover his face.

A good libertarian argument can be made against requiring airline passengers to identify themselves. But this is simply absurd: They require IDs — and demand that the name on the ID exactly match the name on the ticket. They check those IDs against a terrorist watch list. But if you say, "I’m a Muslim woman and I don’t believe in showing my face," (actually, you don’t have to say anything, so your voice won’t give you away), they just wave you right through.

It’s reverse profiling — taking the least precaution with the highest-risk passengers. Welcome to Bizarro World.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The next Rushdie?

Posted by Richard on December 15, 2006

Abbas Sadeghian is a clinical neuropsychologist and Assistant Professor of Psychology at Northeastern Ohio University College of Medicine. A few years ago, while studying seizure disorders, he encountered a 19th-century book on the subject that suggested Muhammad may have had a seizure disorder. Sadeghian eventually researched the matter in depth and presented a paper on the subject. Encouraged by colleagues, he’s now expanded that work into a book that seems destined to cause trouble:

Religious prophet Muhammad suffered from epileptic seizures, according to a book recently released by a Tehran- native and Muslim-raised neuropsychologist. Abbas Sadeghian delivers these findings in the book Sword & Seizure, which is based on historical text, including the Koran.

Sadeghian was inspired by a comparable paper he presented in 2001 at New York University’s Fielding Institute. He says Muhammad had suffered from "complex partial seizures," which are displayed through "excessive sweating and light trembling, olfactory, auditory and visual hallucinations, epigastric sensations (bad taste), excessive perspiration and hyper-religiosity." He says evidence of these is recounted throughout the Koran.

Epilepsy-induced hallucinations might explain some of the events Muhammad described that we non-believers dismiss as fantasy, such as his flight on a winged horse from Mecca to Jerusalem. That story, by the way, is the sole basis for Islam’s claim that Jerusalem is a holy site to Muslims. According to Muhammad, one night a winged horse flew him to Jerusalem. He climbed atop the Temple Mount, and from there, ascended into heaven for a visit with Allah and the earlier prophets. Based on that story, the Jews must be driven out of the city that King David made the capital of Israel over 3000 years ago, and it must become solely Muslim.

Sadeghian’s book is available from Amazon, and there’s an excerpt (apparently from the preface or introduction) at OpEdNews.com. I did some cursory searching and haven’t turned up any fatwahs, death threats, or demonstrations of Muslim outrage against him. But the cartoon riots didn’t occur until six months after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons, and Khomeini waited five months after the publication of Satanic Verses to issue a fatwah calling for the killing of Salman Rushdie.

I suspect Dr. Sadeghian’s book will eventually draw the wrath of the more excitable elements of Islam, much as Rushdie’s did. I hope he’s beginning to take security precautions now.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Defending our laws against slavery

Posted by Richard on November 24, 2006

Remember Homaidan Al-Turki, the Saudi slaveholder in Colorado who was convicted this past summer? At the time, I mentioned a source that said he had ties to the Saudi royal family, and that’s apparently true. The Al-Turkis seem to be a prominent family, either related or closely connected to the house of Saud, which was quite angry about Al-Turki’s conviction and sentencing. In fact, they apparently demanded an explanation. And, naturally, the State Department did what it could to accommodate our good friends, the Saudis.

The State Department pressured Colorado’s Attorney General, John Suthers, into going to Saudi Arabia, and they paid for the trip. He was summoned before King Abdullah, Crown Prince Sultan, and members of the Al-Turki family. He had to defend our legal system, our quaint prohibition against treating women as domestic animals and sex slaves, and our "harsh" sentencing.

That’s rich — Saudis accusing us of punishing someone too harshly.

Suthers recently returned from Riyadh, and had enough sense to insist he stood his ground and didn’t pander or grovel:

"I was not there to be apologetic about anything that’s transpired, but I was there to talk about some of the cultural differences. It’s ultimately the cultural differences that lead to the concerns the Saudis have about the case," said Suthers.

According to Suthers he does not think any minds were changed, but says his mission, answering all questions about the case, was accomplished.

My guess is that State Department personnel did the pandering and groveling for him.

Your tax dollars at work, folks. Trying to soothe the ruffled feathers of 7th-century barbarians. I’m appalled.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

Religion of peace?

Posted by Richard on September 19, 2006

One thing’s become quite clear in the last few days: large portions of the worldwide Muslim community simply have no sense of irony.

The Pope quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor regarding Mohammed’s "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," suggesting that Islam is not a very peaceful religion. Muslims the world over reacted by rioting, murdering a nun, calling for the Pope to be killed, burning churches, and demanding in outraged tones, "How dare you claim Islam is violent! For that, you must die!"

Events like these clearly call for a careful blend of thoughtful analysis and humor. Fortunately, Dean Barnett provided just the right mix in a post entitled FAQ – Islam Edition! Here are the first three of the twenty questions Barnett tackled:

1) Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

Well, um…No, not really.

2) So all Muslims are violent and bent on war. That’s a hateful and bigoted thing to say. You sicken me. And you’ll never carry Michigan.

That’s not what I said. You asked about Islam – I answered. You then erroneously inferred that I was speaking about all Muslims. I wasn’t. You misunderstood.

3) I don’t understand.

I know you don’t, and it’s not your fault. You’ve been poisoned by the forces of political correctness. You’re the product of a school system that valued sensitivity and self-esteem more than it valued truth and rational inquiry. As a consequence, truths which may be hurtful and disquieting will often flummox you. But you, and the legions of those like you, have to grow up.

Go read the rest. It’s a nice blend of truth and humor — not backslapping, yuck-it-up humor, mind you … it’s more grim than that. But it’s humor nonetheless, amidst some thoughtful observations.
 
UPDATE: Anne Applebaum at WaPo simply nails it:

Clearly, a handful of apologies and some random public debate — should the pope have said X, should the Danish prime minister have done Y — are ineffective and irrelevant: None of the radical clerics accepts Western apologies, and none of their radical followers reads the Western press. Instead, Western politicians, writers, thinkers and speakers should stop apologizing — and start uniting.

By this, I don’t mean that we all need to rush to defend or to analyze this particular sermon; I leave that to experts on Byzantine theology. But we can all unite in our support for freedom of speech — surely the pope is allowed to quote from medieval texts — and of the press. And we can also unite, loudly, in our condemnation of violent, unprovoked attacks on churches, embassies and elderly nuns. By "we" I mean here the White House, the Vatican, the German Greens, the French Foreign Ministry, NATO, Greenpeace, Le Monde and Fox News — Western institutions of the left, the right and everything in between. True, these principles sound pretty elementary — "we’re pro-free speech and anti-gratuitous violence" — but in the days since the pope’s sermon, I don’t feel that I’ve heard them defended in anything like a unanimous chorus. A lot more time has been spent analyzing what the pontiff meant to say, or should have said, or might have said if he had been given better advice.

All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it’s time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn’t the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain’s chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them — simultaneously?

Indeed, why shouldn’t they? Why haven’t they? Bravo, Anne! Thank you!
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »