Thursday, 16 June 2016

Blowback Forecasting – An Emerging Science

From Prof. Maximovsky’s research notebooks:  

5 April
Hypothesis B:
Blowback magnitude at a certain place -- measured in kilovolts per second -- is a function of the GTR (Gravity of the Triggering Rumor), of the density and alienation of the local Muslim population, and of the seasonally adjusted Mohammedan Horse-Shit Factor (MHF) applicable for that place and time.
Check for robustness against standard specimen panel. Kurtosis likely. Check with Fatso. 



Tuesday, 14 June 2016

Media Matters Bootlicker of Islamic Imperialism


Comment on Zombie Lie: Right Still Clinging To Decade-Old Fabrication About Radicalized Mosques
Media Matters, February 2, 2011, by Justin Berrier, Julie Millican & Eric Schroeck

This is a comprehensive chronicle of news items relating to the often-repeated claim that some 80% of US  mosques are dominated by extremist Wahhabi Islam.

Media Matters brusquely rejects the claim in the crudest terms, calling it a “zombie lie”, a “debunked” and “unsubstantiated” “fabrication” with “absolutely no evidence” to back it up.

The cumulative effect of such a plethora of harsh epithets is jarring. So much so, indeed, that my suspicions were aroused. And sure enough, the actual content of the press clippings gathered under that dismissive title, totaling 10 thousand words,  did little to confirm such a harsh judgment.

The  Media Matters chronicle quotes the words of a Soofy Moose-leem preacher, xxx Kabbani: “In a December 2004 interview with Singapore's Straits Times, Kabbani noted that

‘[b]ack in 1990, arriving for his first Friday prayers in an American mosque in Jersey City, he was shocked to hear Wahhabism being preached. 'What I heard there, I had never heard in my native Lebanon. I asked myself: Is Wahhabism active in America? So I started my research. Whichever mosque I went to, it was Wahhabi, Wahhabi, Wahhabi, Wahhabi.' "

In view of Kabbani’s  outwardly plausible account, Media Matters seems to be stretching the meaning of the term “evidence” when it denies the existence  of any “evidence”. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., “evidence”, among other things, means: “3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.”

According to this definition, an “oral statement”, e.g. an eyewitness account given by an undisputed authority on the relevant subject matter, as in Kabbani’s case, is ITSELF evidence.  Since when must a witness giving testimony quote a third party in support of his own statement? In trials, do lawyers ever ask witnesses “Well, yes, so you claim, but do you have any EVIDENCE that what you saw with your own eyes actually happened?”  After all, Media Matters itself records that Kabbani had personally visited 114 US mosques.   

If Kabbani’s claim is a “zombie lie”, as Media Matters proclaims, then Kabbani must be a zombie liar. However  Media Matters refrains from actually calling him that.

On the other hand, Media Matters actually cites evidence that contradicts Kabbani‘s claim.

“Other American Muslim leaders say Kabbani's estimate of Wahhabi influence in U.S. mosques is exaggerated. ‘I don't know where he came up with that,’ says Ingrid Mattson, a Hartford Seminary professor and vice president of the Islamic Society of North America. ‘African-Americans alone account for a third of the mosques', she notes, 'and they clearly are not Wahhabis.’ Mattson thus adroitly changes the subject matter from how many American MOSQUES are run by Wahhabi imams (at least 230) to how many MUSLIMS are Wahhabi. The CAIR-Hartford study found that about 20 percent of mosques say they interpret the Koran literally, but 7 in 10 follow a more nuanced, non-fundamentalist approach.”  [U.S. News & World Report, October 29, 2001, accessed via Nexis]
Ingrid Mattson is a prolific liar. She once claimed in an interview with a journalist that Islam permits apostasy, if only grudgingly. That is a colossal lie, since all schools of Islamic law agree that the only fit punishment for an apostate is the death penalty. She is a Wahhabi apparatchik, a tool of Riyadh´s foreign policy.  

The CAIR-Hartford study is here cited by Prof. Mattson as evidence to rebut Kabbani’s account. However, if it is considered  “evidence”, it turns out to be of the hearsay variety, unlike Kabbani’s eyewitness account. For according to the report itself, officially named The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, “The telephone interviews of a mosque representative (usually an Imam, board member or President) were conducted from March to September, 2000.”[1]

From this we can fairly conclude firstly, that this supposedly authoritative report is merely the transcript of unverified telephone palavers with faceless strangers; and secondly that  it is almost as ancient as what Media Matters calls a “decade-old fabrication“, namely Imam Kabbani’s testimony at the State Department, which he had uttered only one year before, in January 1999.

In its “Zombie Liechronicle, Media Matters cites Robert Spencer, of the Jihad Watch blog, who wrote a note in Human Events on March 3, 2005, in which  Robert Spencer announced a study by  Freedom House according to which “American mosques are filled with jihadist material”.[2]

The Freedom House report provides some choice insights into the Saudi concept of jihad, taken from a book for third-year high school students published by the Saudi Ministry of Education that was collected from the Islamic Center of Oakland in California:

“To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah’s way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government. The military education is glued to faith and its meaning, and the duty to follow it.”[3]

Later on it gets more nitty-gritty:

“Preparing the weapons for war and possessing them; even better than that is building special factories for manufacturing military vehicles, tanks, rockets, planes, and other things needed in modern warfare.”

Wahhabi thirst for world domination is poignantly expressed:

"Until the nations of the world have functionally Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.”  

“Functionally Islamic governments” presumably means that they needn’t call themselves Muslims, it suffices for them to pursue Islamic goals.  For example, try to discourage criticism of Islam, support Islamist takeovers in the Middle East, portray Islam as a harmless, peaceful religion, etc.

But Media Matters makes no effort to read Saudi publications on hate ideology, which  confirm Kabbani’s claim, i.e. confirms the so-called “zombie lie”. In  2011, six years after the report was published, Media Matters continues to proclaim that Kabbani’s claim is a “zombie lie” and that there is absolutely “no evidence” to support it.   

In the interim, several additional studies were published that reached astonishingly similar conclusions.  On 10 August 2012 Robert Spencer wrote in Jihad Watch: “… four separate studies conducted in 1998, 2004, 2007 and 2011 all found that 80% of U.S. mosques were teaching jihad, Islamic supremacism, and hatred and contempt for Jews and Christians. … “

I am not claiming that they are accurate evidence, merely that they are evidence that should be taken into account and evaluated, which Media Matters flatly refuses to do.

These are the studies:

  1. Kabbani’s testimony before a State Department Open Forum in January 1999
  2. Center for Religious Freedom's 2005 study
  3. Mapping Sharia Project's 2008 sfighting imperialism includes fighting islamis imperialismtudy
  4. In the summer of 2011 another study Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques, showing that only 19% of mosques in U.S. DON'T teach jihad violence and/or Islamic supremacism.  http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/mordechai-kedar-and-david-yerushalmi-new-study-shows-that-only-19-of-mosques-in-us-dont-teach-jihad.html
fighting islamic imperialism





[1] The Mosque in America: A National Portrait, p. 1.
[2] Saudi publications on hate ideology invade American mosques, Freedom House, Center for Religious Freedom, Washington, DC,  2005. Website: www.freedomhouse.org/religion
[3]  Saudi publications on hate ideology, p. 57 [pdf p. 62]

Alex Kane Pimping for Jihad


Making Big Bucks Keeping America Terrified

Alex Kane, AlterNet Aug 2013             
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/5-companies-make-money-keeping-americans-terrified-terror-attacks    

This letter was deleted from the comments to Kane’s article.  
Alex Kane vigorously denounces the money-grubbing Islamophobia industry. For example he writes ·       that so-and-so “has a financial stake in keeping Americans scared and on a permanent war footing against Islamist militants”.
·       “For a 30-person class titled “Dying to Kill Us: Understanding the Mindset of Suicide Operations,” the cost is $7,856.”
So what? If Alex Kane thinks that these Islamophobes are lying, why does he choose the long and ultimately inconclusive argument of pointing out how much they have to gain by lying? Why doesn’t he just disprove their claims? That would be much simpler and far more conclusive than exploring their financial interests.
Alex Kane conflates the issue of privatisation of government, a long-term trend that started with the Reagan administration in 1981, with Islamophobia, an issue that has been topical only since 1996 or so. He seeks to discredit Islamophobic discourse by pointing out that it is being produced for gain by private contractors. He could use the same argument to denounce all government contractors.
If what the Islamophobes are saying is as ridiculous as Alex Kane claims, it shouldn’t be hard to prove that they are lying.
Why doesn’t Alex Kane simply take some statement by one of those Islamophobes and disprove it? That would be a convincing way of refuting their claims.
As a matter of fact, Kane DOES cite a number of statements that he apparently doubts, but he NEVER ACTUALLY SAYS that these statements ARE FALSE, let alone attempting to disprove any of them. Examples:
·       So-and-so “posits radical Islam as a new global ideological menace on the order of the old communist threat from the Soviet Union…” The only comment Kane provides is the lame and irrelevant remark that “Staff members include former FBI, CIA and Defense Department personnel”.
·       So-and-so writes “..how many Muslim Brotherhood front organizations there are and that the government doesn’t get it.” Kane seems to doubt, but NEVER ACTUALLY DENIES, the presence of Muslim Brotherhood front organizations in the US.
·       “The training pushes anti-Muslim ideology.” Apparently Kane thinks that any statement criticising Islam must be inherently false. However he doesn’t bother to provide any examples of the training content, to show how false it is.
What kind of journalism is this, that operates through innuendo, vaguely implying that certain people are liars but never actually calling them liars or disproving their statements?
What’s your game, Alex?

Wednesday, 1 June 2016

Critical Nakbology

Consequences of Palestinians’ failure to proclaim an Arab state in 1948
... statelessness ... applies to millions of Palestinians .... an additional four and a half million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Jerusalem are effectively under Israeli control, but as stateless people, they are neither citizens of Israel nor of any other state. ... These people are routinely subjected to restrictions on their movement, unequal access to basic services such as water and electricity, imprisonment without charges, collective punishment ...

I.Slamoff: Yeh, yeh, bitchin’ and whinin’ to the bitter end!

War of Words: Israel and the Semantics of Oppression
Palestine Center, November 18, 2015, by Mohamed Mohamed*
"The violence of the Israeli army is an outcome of Israel's convenient feeling that no one will restrict her"
Haneen Zoabi, Arab Member of the Knesset

I.Slamoff: How astute!
Did it take them that long to figure out that they should have proclaimed a Palestinian state in 1948 at the same time as Israel?
The Palestinians fucked up big time by refusing to declare independence in 1948.
What grounds do they furnish for this omission?
How come they never talk about that blunder they made?
Why do they demand our help to get them out of the hole they dug for themselves?
It’s the only case I can think of where a country stubbornly refused independence because they were feeling peevish.
The main thing going for the Palestinians is brand recognition. Everyone knows about the Palestinians by now. They’ve been at it for almost a century now. Palestine is to anti-imperialist insurgencies what Quaker Oats is to breakfast cereals. The leading brand.

So no matter how badly the Palestinians fuck up, they continue to be sustained by their legend.  


In Palestinian narratives, the Nakba plays the same role as the Big Bang plays in cosmology – the beginning. As far as Palestinians are concerned, nothing existed before the Nakba, just as nothing existed before the Big Bang.  
Accordingly the Nakba, like the Big Bang, had no cause. It just happened.
How long can they keep this charade going?
As long as we let them jerk us around.

Palestinian  history started in 1948 because the Palestinians have so many skeletons in their closet that if we start tracing back the conflict, many things will come to light that are most inconvenient for the Palestinian case.

Palestinians should have followed the proponents of moderation and negotiating with the Zionists, trying to get the best deal they could at the time. Once Palestine was a sovereign state and a member of the UN, Israel wasn’t going to be able to simply march in and take over. There would have been serious trouble for Israel internationally. With their own state, the Palestinians would have been able to negotiate with Israel from a secure position and try to get the best deal they could on any dispute. As a sovereign state Palestine would have been able to bring cases to the International Court of Justice in the Hague. Its foreign offices would have had diplomatic immunity, etc. etc.