If you haven’t heard the story, check any website (CNN, LA Times, etc).

What do we think? To me this just proves how dangerous and prevalent the threat of homegrown terrorism really is.

Or could you just say it is a step forward for women, giving them the same opportunity to terrorize as men?

I think the lesson that needs to be learned here is that we have a problem when a random American women decides to join forces with radical Muslims.

Did he cross the line in what he said? Clearly he is not acting in a politically correct way, but is this okay? Is Geert Wilders on to something?

The rise of Islamic extremism is putting increasing pressure on Christians in Muslim countries, who are the victims of murder, violence and discrimination. Christians are now considered the most persecuted religious group around the world.

…

In many countries through the Muslim world, religion has gained influence over governmental policy in the last two decades. The militant Islamist group Hamas controls the Gaza Strip, while Islamist militias are fighting the governments of Nigeria and the Philippines. Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen have fallen to a large extent into the hands of Islamists. And where Islamists are not yet in power, secular governing parties are trying to outstrip the more religious groups in a rush to the right.

While there are both Muslim and non-Muslim countries on the list of offenders, a review of the report shows that a majority of the countries where Christians are persecuted are member states of the Organization of the Islamic conference (OIC).

According the OIC website, “The Organization is the collective voice of the Muslim world and ensuring [sic] to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world.” [italics added] The contradiction between this claim and the facts on the ground is straightforward.

Against this backdrop: In October, the Christian Science Monitor reported on the OIC’s push in the UN for a legally binding international treaty against blasphemy. This is in addition to the resolutions they regularly pass—successfully—on the issue. In 2006, the IHEU noted that another OIC anti-blasphemy proposal would have given justification for Muslim violence—as in the Mohammed cartoon riots several years back—without actually promoting human rights.

The recent study shows that there are a number of OIC states who support inter-religious reconciliation. However, against the backdrop of the anti-blasphemy measures in the UN—along with years of persecution of religious minorities—it’s apparent that the majority are less interested in “peace and harmony” than in promoting an Islamist agenda which could ultimately impact our free speech at home, while the plight of religious minorities worsens around the world.

Its own internal politics don’t seem to bear this out. Speaking on the recent opposition movement, a representative of Iran’s supreme leader said recently that it would be worth it to kill 75,000 Iranians for the regime to survive. This is grim, but unsurprising. The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, himself said, “Those who say Islam should not kill don’t understand [it]. Killing is a great [divine] gift that appears [to man]. A religion that does not include [provisions for] killing and massacre is incomplete.”

In light of this, it should come as little surprise that in the early ‘80s Tehran hosted a fountain of faux blood, ostensibly as a way of intimidating its enemies. Radio Free Europe recently translated an Iranian blog about this infamous fountain.

In the early years of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, a pond with several sections was built near an area dedicated to martyrs at the Beheshte Zahra graveyard in Tehran. Its fountain spurted blood. It became known as the “Pond of Blood.” Obviously, it was not actual blood but only red coloring mixed in the water.

The fame of this pond even reached overseas, to the point that foreign journalists would strive to take pictures of it.

Once, the Iranian daily “Etelaat” published a special issue about the war with a picture of the fountain on the cover, with a caption consisting of a saying by Imam Khomeini: “All in all, our revolution was a blessing.”

The publication of that picture with that caption provoked the rage of the Hizbullahi fellows and protests began. The forces of the Revolutionary Guards were sent to the newspaper’s offices to arrest and punish those behind the publication. In the end, the matter was solved by the dismissal of a few “Etelaat” employees and an apology from the head of the newspaper.

The construction of the pond, which had a symbolic and propaganda value, proved to be more painful to the families of the martyrs than to Iran’s enemies. Hence, the bloody water was removed and now normal water flows in it.

There may still be peaceful avenues available to resolve this crisis, including sanctions against the regime’s primary supports and support for the opposition movement. But, it may not be reasonable to assume that a regime which considers it rational to kill thousands of its own people, and which celebrates death, would be quick to compromise with a West it may view with even greater enmity than an opposition movement.

Blog translation copyright (c) 2009. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036.  You can view the article here.

It often starts with groups like the Muslim Students Association (MSA) which was highlighted in the film The Third Jihad that features anti-Semitic speakers on campus. On this site, we have also highlighted Code Pink, whose activities are often questionable. Code Pink is a big supporter of Israel Apartheid Week as is the MSA and other organizations. These organizations might wear masks and appear “safe” but underneath many of them have roots that are connected to radical Islam.

Is this because they disagree with the death penalty? NO! It is because they don’t want to appear racist! However, don’t they realize that they are treating him differently because he IS a Muslim?

“The decision not to seek the death penalty comes after Almaleki’s attorney, Billy Little, a public defender, asked a judge to take special precautions to ensure the County Attorney’s Office wouldn’t wrongly seek the death penalty because Almaleki is a Muslim. “An open process provides some level of assurance that there is no appearance that a Christian is seeking to execute a Muslim for racial, political, religious or cultural beliefs,” Little wrote, referring to County Attorney Andrew Thomas’ Christian faith….”

He admitted that he killed his daughter because she had disgraced his family. So why is he not pleading guilty. We need to find out what would have happened to a man who killed his daughter in cold blood who was not a Muslim. If Arizona would have granted him the death penalty than this murderer deserves equal punishment!

Learn more about the threat that radical Islam poses to women’s rights here.

Put this widget on your own page and get the message out about The Third Jihad!

U.N. nuclear inspectors, citing evidence of an apparently ongoing effort by Iran to obtain new technologies, publicly suggested for the first time Thursday that the country is actively seeking to develop a weapons capability.

According to the IAEA report, experiments related to nuclear explosives continued beyond 2004—which contradicts U.S. intelligence claims that such activities ceased in 2003.

Iran has amassed upwards of two tons of enriched uranium—sufficient for an atomic bomb. Using centrifuges at the Natanz facility, the material could be enriched to weapons grade quality within a year and a half.

You can read the Washington Post story here.

The IAEA report can be viewed here.

The New York Times reports that Mr. Muhammed—née Carlos Bledsoe–was born a Baptist. Shortly after beginning college, he converted to Sunni Islam and dropped out of school. He became increasingly devout, and was active in Nashville’s Somali community where he began wearing Arab-style clothing, gave up alcohol, and changed his name.

He eventually went to Yemen to study Arabic. He overstayed his visa, was deported, and ended up in a U.S. prison.

Mr. Muhammad told his father that while in prison he met Islamic radicals who told him that the American government had forsaken him. “We are your real brothers,” they said…

Among the trends present in this case is the threat of homegrown terrorism. It’s one thing to keep suspected radicals from entering the U.S. It’s another thing altogether when they are citizens and can travel freely within American borders. As David Schanzer, director of the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland on Security, explained on Newshour

It would be a gem for al-Qaida to have a Caucasian recruit with a U.S. passport. First of all, they could get a tremendous amount of information to al-Qaida about the way we live, about the railroad stations we go in, things like that. And then they can get into the country much more easily than others.

Additionally, what Mr. Muhammed told his father raises the specter of prison radicalization. While chaplaincy in American prisons can be of tremendous benefit to the inmates, there have been cases of Islamist extremists—both chaplains and fellow inmates—who used religion to recruit prisoners to extremist viewpoints.

Mr. Muhammed’s Somali links should also raise an eyebrow, given the challenges of the Somali community with jihadist recruitment in their mosques. There have been a number of cases of American-raised Somali youth who have gone to Somalia to fight in the jihad. One concerned community leader—Osman Ahmed—testified last year at a Congressional hearing that his nephew—who was killed in the jihad—had been brainwashed at his mosque.

Mr. Ahmed’s testimony provides a number of options on how to prevent future recruitment, including encouraging cooperation with law enforcement—something not necessarily promoted by every American Muslim organization. As we deal with the threat, this may be among one of the more difficult obstacles to overcome. As Mr. Ahmed said in his testimony

We have been projected as pariah within the community by these mosque leaders. We are tormented by the fact that our children are missing and imperil. These members are scaring us so that we stop talking to law enforcement.

We should not view Mr. Muhammed as an isolated case. According to his father, “It is owed to the American people to know what happened. If it can happen to my son, it can happen to anyone’s son.”

You can read the New York Times story here.

One customer stated “I don’t understand, why can’t they sell halal burgers and bacon burgers at the same time?” asked Delphine, 26.

Is this move a move of respect, an interest to make more money or is it conforming out of fear? It is possible it is a move out of respect for the majority of inhabitants of the local communities, but it is an important sign of the growing population changes of France.

Learn more about the population threat of radical Islam here.