A new report out of Australia indicates that radical Muslim extremists aren’t motivated by the cause of jihad. Rather, they are driven to terrorism by Islamophobia and a high unemployment rate. The report raises one inescapable question: Just what the hell are they putting in the water down under?
A new report paints a devastating picture of Muslim unemployment in Australia and links workplace discrimination to terrorist attacks such as the Bali bombings.
The report says that reducing the deep-seated hostility toward Muslims by a minority of Australians was hard to achieve in an atmosphere created by an open-ended war on terror.
The Newcastle University report was completed last year and quietly released on the Immigration Department’s website.
Using Census data, it found that the jobless rate for Muslim men was more than double the national average and that only 57 per cent of Muslim males aged 15 and older had jobs compared with 68 per cent of all working-age men.
Suburbs with high Muslim concentrations such as Broadmeadows and Dallas had jobless rates of more than 15 per cent in 2006, said the report.
“In total, 58 per cent of Muslims earned less than $400 per week compared to 41 per cent of the Australian population,” it said.
The seven-person research team, led by Prof Terry Lovat, said that Muslims faced workplace barriers including poor English proficiency, difficulty having overseas qualifications recognised and cultural and religious issues.
Apparently, a higher-than-average unemployment rate can lead to a bombing that kills over 200 people. I’m sorry, but the unemployment rate here in the States is double for the African-American community, and nearly double for the Hispanic community. It is also quite high for women. And yet none of these groups – African-Americans, Hispanics, or women – have taken to strapping 1,000 kg. bombs into the backseat of their minivan in an attempt to blow up buildings and people.
Oddly enough, Osama Bin Laden put out an audio tape shortly after the Bali bombings which stated that the attack was a direct retaliation for support of the United States’ war on terror, and not due to the frustration in finding a good 9-5 job with quality health insurance, and a decent coffee club.
Bombshell: Administration Knew Attacks That Killed Ambassador Stevens Were the Work of Terrorists Within 24 Hours
Even yesterday, the President himself was lying to the world in front of the United Nations, refusing to call the attacks in Libya ‘terrorist’ in nature, and instead spending several minutes talking about a video that nobody in their right mind believes caused the violence.
Five days after the attack on the Benghazi consulate that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, the Obama administration sent UN Ambassador Susan Rice onto five Sunday talk shows to insist that the sacking of the consulate was the result of a protest over a YouTube video that “spun out of control.” The government of Libya was already scoffing at that story, and by the end of the next week the White House began reluctantly admitting that terrorists had attacked the diplomatic mission. Today, however, Eli Lake reports for the Daily Beast that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the attack had not been a spontaneous event, but a well-planned terrorist attack:Within 24 hours of the 9-11 anniversary attack on the United States consulate in Benghazi, U.S. intelligence agencies had strong indications al Qaeda–affiliated operatives were behind the attack, and had even pinpointed the location of one of those attackers. Three separate U.S. intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast said the early information was enough to show that the attack was planned and the work of al Qaeda affiliates operating in Eastern Libya. …The intelligence officials who spoke to The Daily Beast did so anonymously because they weren’t authorized to speak to the press. They said U.S. intelligence agencies developed leads on four of the participants of the attacks within 24 hours of the fire fight that took place mainly at an annex near the Benghazi consulate. For one of those individuals, the U.S. agencies were able to find his location after his use of social media. “We had two kinds of intelligence on one guy,” this official said. “We believe we had enough to target him.”Another U.S. intelligence official said, “There was very good information on this in the first 24 hours. These guys have a return address. There are camps of people and a wide variety of things we could do.”A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment for the story. But another U.S. intelligence official said, “I can’t get into specific numbers but soon after the attack we had a pretty good bead on some individuals involved in the attack.”In other words, either Susan Rice lied to the press, or was lied to by the Obama administration and sent out to the press deliberately. That leaves the national media in a quandry. Clearly, with only a couple of exceptions, the media hasn’t wanted to address the implications of a successful terrorist attack on an American diplomatic installation … at least not during the Barack Obama presidency. Now it’s becoming very clear that the administration didn’t just tell them to “f*** off,” the White House actively lied about the attack in order to deflect further questions from the media.
This is huge, huge news, and is a clear demonstration that the Obama administration will jump first to protect the terrorists and radical Islam, well before they will act to protect the lives of innocent Americans.
This week we learned what really gets the liberal media in a … well … rage. It isn’t the act of perpetrating violence upon the innocent. No, it’s calling out that rage for everyone to see. In Liberal Land, words speak louder than actions.
The media on the left side of the aisle took more umbrage with a Newsweek article titled, Muslim Rage, than they did with the incidents that demonstrated that rage – the killing of four Americans in Libya, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, and the hoisting of Islamist flags on sovereign U.S. soil.
Outlets like Think Progress called the Newsweek cover, which featured an image of a group of obviously agitated Muslims, Islamophobic.
Newsweek for their part did not apologize for their portrayal of events in the Middle East saying:
“This weeks Newsweek cover accurately depicts the events of the past week as violent protests have erupted in the Middle East (including Morocco where the cover image was taken).”
Rather than focusing on the real issues here, the liberal media is doing everything in its power to avoid pointing the finger at radical Islamists. They point it at Mitt Romney for his statements, they point it at Newsweek, at the author, Ayaan Ali Hirsi, and they point it at an obscure film heretofore unknown to the general public.
None of these are justification for the scene currently spreading throughout the Middle East. And most assuredly, the rage is not a response to an anti-Mohammad film, despite what the White House would have you believe.
The rage has been consistent and perpetual, and it has long been evident prior to any version of any anti-Mohammad film. During the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. At the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. At the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. With the USS Cole bombing in 2000. At the Fort Hood massacre in 2009. And of course, September 11th.
This to name a few.
The rage is tangible, and it is very closely associated with radical Islam.
Giving terrorists built-in excuses such as an obscure film only serves to add fuel to their fire. Appeasement does not work.
What the left clearly needs are more people of reason, more people like Kirsten Powers who wrote:
“… our leaders shouldn’t let our enemies know that when they kill our people and attack our embassies that the US Government will act like a battered wife making excuses for her psychotic husband. Wake up: we weren’t attacked because of a movie made by an American. We were attacked because there are crazy religious fanatics who hate the United States. We didn’t ask for it.”
Say it along with her – Crazy. Religious. Fanatics.
Do not fear it. Fearing words only serves to embolden the enemy, and they know it.
While we continue to fight over those words, extremists continue to point their RPG’s at our foreign diplomats, storm our embassy walls, burn American flags, call for beheadings and public hangings, and on and on. All the while, the media criminally continues to whistle through the graveyard.
That said, I would like to propose a change in how the media labels things of this nature. I’d like to redefine the term Islamophobia. The phrase, much like the race card, has been overused by the left and has been played out. It has outlived its usefulness. It no longer sticks as a term of bigotry or intolerance toward radical Muslims.
To quote the classic line from The Princess Bride – I do not think it means what you think it means.
Instead, the meaning should revert to a more literal translation. Islam-phobia.
The phobia involves those in the media continually capitulating to the radicals and terrorists killing in the name of their religion. The phobia involves Democrats who continually bow down to the unreasonable demands of terror-linked domestic organizations such as CAIR, or the ICNA, and are willing to release known terrorists in a foolish attempt to establish peace.
The phobia equates to fear. That is why liberals refuse to stand up to radical Islam, and it is why the media refuses to accurately portray the level of rage being executed in the name of the tenets of radical Islam. They are afraid.
Journalism is a profession. Stop acting like amateurs. Stop being Islamophobes.
At some point, you will have to grow a spine when it comes to the threat of radical Muslim rage.
At some point, you will have to stop pussyfooting and tiptoeing your way around the subject matter.
In the end, at some point you will have to address reality, and not continue to long for some fantasy world that exists only in your minds.
Cross-posted at NewsBusters
The world works in mysterious ways…
Several Muslim parties and a Christian group held rallies on Sunday to protest against a movie released in America.
Around 10,000 people participated in the main rally organized on The Mall by the Tehreek Hurmat-i-Rasool (THR). The participants marched from Nila Gumbad to Masjid-i-Shuhada on The Mall. Despite a ban on rallies on The Mall, the road remained blocked for vehicular traffic from noon to 6pm.
The rally was addressed by Jamatud Dawa chief Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, THR head Ameer Hamza, JD leader Hafiz Abdul Rehman Makki, Pakistan Muslim League (Zia) head Ijazul Haq, Jamaat Ulema Islam-Sami (JUI-S) leader Asim Makhdoom and Jamaat Ahle Hadith ameer Hafiz Abdul Ghaffar Ropari.
One of the participants of the rally, Abdullah Ismail, passed away after he was taken to Mayo Hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling unwell from the smoke from US flags burnt at the rally.
And it wasn’t just your run of the mill flag-burning rallies either. The protest, held in Pakistan, featured radicals demanding that the U.S. make laws criminalizing free speech, and insisting that those involved with the movie be hanged publicly.
Meanwhile, the scoreboard reads:
American Flag – 1
Wannabe Jihadi – 0
Libyan President: U.S. Assertions that Attacks Were Spontaneous Reaction to a Film Are ‘Unfounded and Preposterous’
Honestly, is there anyone in America who believes the attacks in Libya, Cairo, and throughout the Arab world have anything to do with this anti-Mohammad film?
Yet the Obama administration is still trying to pass it off as fact.
First Press Secretary Jay Carney, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, lies about it, and then Ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, swears to it.
From Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
WALLACE: This week, there have been anti-American protests in two dozen countries across the Islamic world. The white house says it has nothing to do with the president’s policies. Let’s watch.”
JAY CARNEY: This is not a case of protests directed at the United States writ large or at U.S. policy. This is in response to a video that is offensive.”
WALLACE: “You don’t really believe that?”
AMBASSADOR RICE: “Chris, absolutely I believe that, because in fact, it is the case. We have had the evolution of the Arab Spring over the last many months but what sparked the recent violence was the airing on the internet of a very hateful very offensive, very hateful video that has offended many people around the world. Now, our strong view is that there is no excuse for violence. It is reprehensible and never justified but in fact there have been those in various parts of the world who have reacted with violence. Their governments have increasingly and effectively responded and protected our facilities and condemned the violence and this outrageous response to what is an offensive video. There is no question what we have seen in the past with satanic verses and the cartoon of the prophet Muhammad there have been such things that have sparked outrage and anger and this has been the proximate cause of what we’ve seen.”
I’d like to share this image (via Mike Adams) which indicates why this is a preposterous assertion.
President Barack Obama jets off to campaign events Monday in the critical swing state of Ohio, even as Libyan officials and locals have shredded his defensive claim that a spontaneous protest against a Californian’s anti-Islam video caused the Sept. 11 killing of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.
“The idea that this criminal and cowardly act was a spontaneous protest that just spun out of control is completely unfounded and preposterous,” Libyan President Mohammed el-Megarif told the liberal National Public Radio network.
Instead, the killing was a military-style attack, he said.
The attacks were pre-meditated, designed to be carried out on the anniversary of 9/11. You simply can’t scale embassy walls or American territory without somebody on the inside letting you in. That part of the plan seems to be supported by one of the diplomats who was killed having stated that the so-called ‘Libyan police’ were caught taking suspicious pictures the night before.
The American people have the evidence in front of them, and the Obama administration is trying to tell them ‘no, no, what you’re seeing isn’t actually real’.
Mark Steyn is right – “Every American should be ashamed of their President”.
The same Egyptian protesters that President Obama was more than willing to support during the so-called Arab Spring, mounted an unprecedented attack on an American Embassy in Cairo yesterday.
Angry protesters climbed the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on Tuesday and hauled down its American flags, replacing them with black flags with Islamic emblems.
The incident prompted U.S. security guards to fire off a volley of warning shots as a large crowd gathered outside, apparently upset about the production of a Dutch film thought to insult the Prophet Mohammed, said CNN producer Mohammed Fahmy, who was on the scene.
An embassy operator told CNN that the facility had been cleared of diplomatic personnel earlier Tuesday, ahead of the apparent threat, while Egyptian riot police were called to help secure the embassy walls.
An embassy in Libya was also attacked.
Protesters angry over an amateurish American-made video denouncing Islam attacked the United States Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, on Tuesday, killing a State Department officer, while Egyptian demonstrators stormed over the fortified walls of the United States Embassy here.
On the 11th anniversary of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the assaults were a violent reminder that the changes sweeping the region have hardly dispelled the rage against the United States that still smolders in pockets around the Arab world.
The results? Multiple Americans were shot, while others were the victims of a rocket attack that killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya.
The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other embassy staff were killed in a rocket attack on their car, a Libyan official said, as they were rushed from a consular building stormed by militants denouncing a U.S.-made film insulting the Prophet Mohammad.
Gunmen had attacked and burned the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi, a center of last year’s uprising against Muammar Gaddafi, late on Tuesday evening, killing one U.S. consular official. The building was evacuated.
The Libyan official said the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, was being driven from the consulate building to a safer location when gunmen opened fire.
Believe it or not, the response coming from the U.S. Embassy in Cairo included an apology to the extremists who had carried out the attack.
I’m going to say that again.
The Obama administration apologized to terrorists who had burned down sovereign American buildings and killed an American citizen.
The statement from the Embassy in Cairo actually apologized for “religious incitement” and for “hurting the religious feelings of Muslims”.
I wish I was making that up. Here is the statement:
Have you ever in your life thought, after two U.S. embassies were attacked and seized by radical Islamists, in which multiple Americans were shot – one fatally – and an embassy was nearly burned to the ground, exactly 11 years to the day after the worst terrorist attack in American history perpetrated by similar radical Islamists, that you would ever see an administration actually issue an apology for ‘hurting the religious feelings of Muslims’?
Oh I know they’re trying to walk it back now, but weakness has already been shown. This will go down as the single most cowardly and disgraceful response to an attack on the fundamental American right of free speech in modern history.
Worse, it crossed the bounds of a mere protest when an American was shot and killed. It is a terrorist attack. And we apologized.
President ‘Gutsy Call’ is now officially operating under a foreign policy platform in which we as a nation are subservient to terrorism and slaves to appeasement.
Indeed, the administration is working fervently to backpedal on the apology, 17 hours after the fact. But the damage is done.
The Obama administration is disavowing a statement from its own Cairo embassy that seemed to apologize for anti-Muslim activity in the United States.
“The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government,” an administration official told POLITICO.
The embassy came under widespread criticism for failing to defend free speech in the face of threats of violence. Egyptian protesters rioted anyway, breaching the embassy walls and tearing down the American flag.
The criticism has been warranted. This may go down as one of the most embarrassing days in foreign policy history, and proves that having ‘we killed Osama bin laden’ as your biggest foreign policy platform isn’t enough. Amateur hour in the White House needs to end in November.
Exactly who the hell is asking these people for their opinion on this anyway?
The Miami Herald is reporting that September 11th mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammad, and four other defendants, would like to postpone their August hearing at Guantanamo because it falls toward the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
The trial judge, Army Col. James Pohl, set the date for the hearing in May and specifically ruled out an extension on grounds that it coincided with Islam’s fasting month. He noted in his order then that no defense lawyer at that point had raised objection to a hearing that coincided with Ramadan.
But the attorneys do just that in a June 21 filing currently under seal on the Pentagon’s war court website entitled “Joint Defense Motion for the Military Commission to Respect the Religious Observances of Enemy Prisoners under Common Article 3.”
Pohl is hearing motions in another Guantánamo case next week. But that hearing ends by July 19, before Ramadan starts. The 9/11 case pre-trial motions would be heard toward the end of Ramadan.
“The last 10 days of Ramadan commemorate the night God —Allah— revealed the Holy Quran to the Prophet Mohammed,” said James Connell III, the Pentagon-paid defense counsel for Mohammed’s nephew, Ammar al Baluchi. “These 10 days are the most holy period of the Muslim calendar and are typically observed by fasting, prayer, and seclusion.”
Pamela Geller writes:
Let me get this straight. We are supposed to postpone the 911 tribunals out of respect and deference to the very ideology that inspired the mass murderous Islamic attacks of 9/11. Someone pinch me. This is a nightmare.
Ramadan is exactly when these jihadist savages should be put on trial and sentenced to death.
I’ll go one step further. Their deaths should be televised live on Pay-Per-View, with the proceeds going to the victims families … it should be televised on the first day of Ramadan, and rerun every day until the end of Ramadan.
The video below, courtesy of United West, is stunning…
It appears as though a group of Christians staged a protest outside the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival, and that protest turned ugly. Those holding signs are seen being physically assaulted with bottles, eggs, stones, crates and several other objects. The police, rather than diffusing the situation, turned the other way as things escalated.
The video is over 22 minutes long, and a majority of the swearing and violence seems to come from younger American Muslims. While the video is shorter, the editors claim the assault took roughly 30 minutes before the police stepped in – to exchange words with the Christian group. After the exchange, the hostile group continued their assault.
After the second barrage, the police instruct the Christian group to leave despite their assertion that they have a right to be there.
First Amendment anyone? What is the police and media reaction if this were a group of Occupiers being assaulted?
If this extremely disturbing video does not result in a Federal investigation into the human rights violations of those Christians physically attacked at the 2012 Dearborn Arab Festival then we are watching the beginning of a new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA.
In this new America, a MUSLIM AMERICA, shariah-compliant Muslims have succeeded in striking fear into the hearts of the infidels. In the case of the Dearborn Arab Festival, you will see that the infidels are NOT the few, brave Christians who withstood the physical attacks by the blood-thirsty Muslims, but the fearful are those who have taken an oath to protect Americans. The fearful, are the Dearborn Sheriff and Police. Sadly, you will see the Police fearful of confronting the criminals and enforcing the law as they stand by watching “Muslims Gone Wild,” attack the helpless Christians.
The United West predicts that success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt combined with the mounting fury of the “Arab Spring,” coupled with the support of President Obama will result in an expansive, “strong-horse” onslaught of Muslim physical aggression, similar to this Dearborn disaster, all across the new, MUSLIM AMERICA.
Shareholder to New York Times: “You’re Willing to Offend the Catholics Because They’re Not Going to Come and Kill You”
|New York Times Chairman, Arthur Sulzberger|
Last month, the New York Times accepted and ran an advertisement which bashed religion, and asked Catholic readers to consider leaving the church. Such an advertisement in itself does not show the Times religious bias. What does however, is the fact that the same newspaper refused to run a similar ad that asked practicing Muslims to do the same.
Via Fox News:
The New York Times is being accused of having a double standard when it comes to questioning religion, after it ran an ad calling on Catholics to leave their church, but nixed an ad making the same plea to Muslims.
The newspaper published an ad from Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation on March 9 which asked Catholics, “why send your children to parochial schools to be indoctrinated into the next generation of obedient donors and voters?” The ad went on to call loyalty to the faith misplaced “after two decades of sex scandals involving preying priests, church complicity, collusion and cover-up going all the way to the top.”
But in a story first reported by The Daily Caller, when Pamela Geller, a blogger and executive director of Stop Islamization of America, offered the same $39,000 for the Old Gray Lady to run an ad making a similar appeal to Muslims, the newspaper passed.
“This shows the hypocrisy of The New York Times, the “gold standard” in journalism, and its willingness to kowtow to violent Islamic supremacist intimidation,” Geller told FoxNews.com.
Responding to the heat brought on by the blatant hypocrisy, the New York Times claimed that they opposed the anti-Muslim ad because it could jeopardize the safety of American troops.
Fox News host Trace Gallagher reached out to the Times for comment, receiving the following explanation:
“The fallout from running this ad now could put U.S. troops and/or civilians in the [Afghan] region in danger.”
Now however, one shareholder at the New York Times has openly criticized their double-standard operation by suggesting that it is the company’s own safety they are looking out for.
Cliff Kincaid, Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and a shareholder in the company, confronted a group of executives at the Times annual shareholders meeting, accusing them of running the anti-Catholic ad because:
“You’re willing to offend the Catholics because they’re not going to come and kill you.”
That’s it in nutshell, is it not? The media is willing to report negatively about other religions, but refuse to cast a negative shadow on Islam. And fear is the overwhelming factor.
What the media should be doing is an introspection, asking themselves why they are afraid of offending Muslims. When they find that answer, maybe they can more accurately report on the events involving Islamic extremists.
Here is a larger excerpt from Kincaid’s report:
And herein lies the reason London is slowly turning into Londonistan…
Via the Express Tribune:
Atlas Shrugs adds the details:
Once again, devout Muslims us whose side they are on in the war on the West. Lord Nazir Ahmed has announced a reward for the captor of US President Barack Obama and his predecessor George W Bush…
Atlas readers know this lord of the Nazis well. He is the jihadi who threatened the House of Lords with protests and demonstrations if they did not cancel their invitation to Geert Wilders to screen FITNA. Lord of the nazis called for the arrest of British Jews who fought in the IDF.
A Labour peer was suspended last night after allegedly claiming he would put up a £10million bounty for the capture of Barack Obama.Lord Ahmed of Rotherham is reported to have made the gesture after the U.S. announced a $10million bounty for Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, whom it blames for orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.He is said to have described the bounty on Mr Saeed, who founded banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as an ‘insult to all Muslims’.
How long until this suspension is decried as Islamophobic?