Saturday, February 13, 2010


We* GAVE them the oil. Not only the Saudis, but wherever oil was found under Moslem lands, WE made that possible.

We explored for it, discovered it, developed it, produced it, marketed it.

Sure, today they can do the last two processes by themselves, but had we not paid for the first two, they would be as they were before OIL: nomads, roaming over sterile sand ("kings" and "princes" my foot!).
*When I say "we" about finding the oil and developing the extraction and marketing, the "we" includes "me--I." I worked for and with oil companies exploring for petroleum outside of the United States. L.W.

Indiana_jones says in the "Comments" at Jihad Watch:


The only treasure Muslims have is OIL but on second thoughts their intellectual level is so low that unless we had not invented methods to use it and drill it out for use in cars and planes(again ---our inventions) they would have just stayed on top of the OIL without ever realizing its value.

Posted by: Indiana_jones [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 13, 2007 12:43 AM

[end quote]


. . . unless we had not invented methods to use it and drill it out for use in cars and planes(again ---our inventions) they would have just stayed on top of the OIL without ever realizing its value.

An excellent exposition of this is given by "exsgtbrown" also at the same Jihad Watch "Comments:"


........And the Muslims did not discover their oil, It was discovered by an Australian in 1908..back then as it is now.."Persia was devoid of infrastructure and politically unstable."...The Muslims were never stable , being basically a bunch of 7th century nomads and perverts...same as today...nothing has changed...Through the centuries, Muslims never developed a viable social order....their leaders were always the most bloodthirsty and ruthless...Muslims have always been a thrill kill machine....
....Maybe back in 1908 had someone thought to change the social infrastructure and bring the Muslims into the 20th century instead of prioritizing the bringing of oil to the surface, things would be somewhat better today.....
....Muslims have always been a violent people and it is oil that has made them extremely violent.....They have always hated the Jews too...Now the Muslims want no Jews and all the oil....
I found the following info interesting:
"BP originated in the activities of William Knox D'Arcy, an adventurer who had made a fortune in Australian mining. In 1901 D'Arcy secured a concession from the Grand Vizier of Persia (now known as Iran) to explore for petroleum throughout most of his empire. The search for oil proved extremely costly and difficult,
since Persia was devoid of infrastructure and politically unstable.

Within a few years D'Arcy was in need of capital. Eventually, after intercession by members of the British Admiralty, the Burmah Oil Company joined D'Arcy in a Concessionary Oil Syndicate in 1905 and supplied further funds in return for operational control. In May 1908 oil was discovered in the southwest of Persia at Masjid-i-Suleiman, the first oil discovery in the Middle East. The following April the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was formed, with the Burmah Oil Company holding most of the shares."

....And the rest, as they say, is history.....
Posted by: exsgtbrown FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT=[TypeKey Profile Page]" at February 13, 2007 07:10 AM

[end quote]


"In 1932, a 37-year-old engineer employed by the Standard Oil Company of California (Socal) made a habit of climbing the highest point on the island of Bahrain, about 20 miles across the Persian Gulf from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. From that hilltop, he stared at the topography of the mainland, over the blue-green waters of the gulf. There, Fred Davies (B.S. ’16), a University of Minnesota graduate in mining, saw a landscape similar to the one that he was standing on. In the distance, he could see a cluster of hills forming a dome above the countryside.

"Davies had just drilled the first successful oil well in Bahrain through similar terrain. Now his training, experience, and inIn stincts told him that there was more oil to be had across the water—much more—in those hills on the other side of the flat shoreline. In fact, he was confident enough in that assessment to advise his employers that they ought to be here, in the heart of Arabia, where no other oil company in the world had yet drilled.

"It is no exaggeration to say that all of the momentous history that has subsequently linked the United States to the Middle East began with that appraisal. From it stemmed a series of events that brought U.S. oil companies to Saudi Arabia to begin extracting the single largest petroleum deposit in the world. From those wells have flowed billions of barrels of oil, trillions of dollars in commerce, and a steady stream of turmoil. "

from Beneath Saudi Sands
By Tim Brady

More about that--lots more--read it at the link given above.

Here are some pictures and some more background as to who found the oil and how the Americans had to grovel before these Sowdi primitives.

Fred Davies (left), chairman of the board at Aramco, with King Ibn Saud (seated) and others in the Aramco dining hall in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. (From the Seal-Aramco Collection of Photographs, Box 1 Folder 4, Georgetown University Library, Special Collections Division, Washington, D.C.)

Fred Davies (second from left) at a camp east of Riyadh. (From the Special Collections Department, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah

Fred Davies (second from left) with other Aramco officials in Saudi Arabia. (From the Special Collections Department, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah.)

[wearing Arab garb. Speaking of sucking up to the Sowdis--even if it was for profit.]

In the early 1930s, King Saud was strapped for funds with which to govern his new nation and looked to the West for support through the sale of oil concessions. Historically, Britain had been the one western power that had dominated the pursuit of oil in the Middle East, but its concessions and reserves had come from Iraq and Iran. It had never explored the interior of the Arabian peninsula for oil. Though it seems hard to imagine today, there were questions whether oil even existed beneath these desert lands.

. . . Saudi Arabia was just emerging as a modern nation. The Bedouin tribes, which had dominated the region for centuries, had been consolidated under the leadership of King Ibn Saud and a monarchy, whose territory stretched from the Red Sea in the west to the Persian Gulf in the east, was formed. It was the heart of the ancient land known as Arabia and held the two cities most sacred to Muslims all over the world: Mecca, where the Prophet Muhammad was born; and Medina, where the Prophet had died. Because of its importance as the religious center of Islam, Saudi Arabia was and remains a special land for all the world’s Muslims.

The British were dealing with a number of economic and diplomatic difficulties in the wake of War I. Among them was their effort at maintaining a colonial empire under reduced circumstances. As a nation and economic power, Great Britain simply didn’t have the resources it once had, and the upshot for King Saud was that Britain’s interest in Arab oil exploration was surprisingly tepid.

The United States was a latecomer to the pursuit of Middle Eastern oil, but it jumped into the fray in the late 1920s. Socal had tried, with little success, to find oil in Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Argentina, the Philippines, and Alaska. Some within the company were less than enthusiastic about the prospects for oil in the Persian Gulf. These same skeptics viewed the exploration in even dimmer light as the Great Depression swept over the globe and a costly hunt for crude in Arabia seemed like an extravagance

Oil seekers within the company won out over its accountants, however, and Socal became the first American oil business to send explorers to the Middle East. Davies was the man picked to lead the crew, and Bahrain was the first site for drilling. After his successes there, Davies crossed into Saudi Arabia with the hope of talking to Ibn Saud about the possibility of exploring that dome of hills near the gulf coast for oil. But he failed to get an audience with the king and headed back to the United States empty-handed.

Ibn Saud’s need for cash remained, British interest in the region’s oil remained cool, and Davies, back in the States, continued to lobby for the exploration of oil in Saudi Arabia. Two new representatives of Socal were sent to the Middle East and won an audience with Saud in 1933. Through these emissaries, Socal was able to sign an agreement to begin the process of looking for oil in eastern Saudi Arabia.

By 1934, Fred Davies was back in Bahrain. A year later, he was in Saudi Arabia, serving as camp boss in the first American effort at digging oil wells in those same hills that he’d spied three years earlier, now called the Damman Dome.

As a nation, Saudi Arabia’s income was derived primarily from Muslim pilgrims making the trip to Mecca. Otherwise, Davies said in an Aramco statement, it was "a nomadic society [dependent] on the scant and uncertain provisions of the desert." The culture was tribal, patriarchal, Islamic, and ancient. According to Davies, it "could not have changed much since the days of the Prophet."

The agreement signed between Socal and the Saudis made patently clear that the Americans were in Arabia at the invitation of the Saudis and would adhere to the customs of the people and the land. That meant, among other restrictions, alcohol was strictly forbidden and consorting in any fashion with the women of Saudi Arabia was a crime punishable by death. In the eyes of the Saudis, the Americans were infidels, working in their lands at their own invitation and for Arab profit.

The Arabian-American Oil Company (Aramco)

Aramco was formed in the late 1940s out of a joining of Socal, Texaco, Exxon, and Mobil. At the time, Davies was asked to step aside from the presidency, which went to a Texaco man. Davies, "a good soldier," in the words of one co-worker, became vice president in charge of operations for Aramco and in 1949 moved back to Dhahran in Saudi Arabia with his wife, Amy, where the two would spend the rest of Davies’s career.

In 1952, the headquarters for Aramco were moved to Saudi Arabia, and Davies, already there and in charge of operations, was named chairman of the board and CEO. Along with the Texaco executive, who remained president of Aramco, Davies worked as a co–chief officer until his retirement in 1959.

from Beneath Saudi Sands
By Tim Brady

[On a personal note: I (Leslie White) met with a Texaco executive and was offered job possibilities in Saudi Arabia (with Aramco) and, when I declined because of the repressive conditions in the oil camps in Arabia (1), exploration opportunities in Turkey. I refused to consider these possible positions because I did not want to work nor set foot in any Islamic country. This was some time ago, so that my aversion to Islam predates the present confrontation with that ideology now again on the war path (jihad).]
1 The agreement signed between Socal and the Saudis made patently clear that the Americans were in Arabia at the invitation of the Saudis and would adhere to the customs of the people and the land. That meant, among other restrictions, alcohol was strictly forbidden and consorting in any fashion with the women of Saudi Arabia was a crime punishable by death. In the eyes of the Saudis, the Americans were infidels, working in their lands at their own invitation and for Arab profit.

NOTE: "a crime punishable by death . . . Americans were infidels . . . " unless you were really greedy for money or strapped for it, you had to be nuts to work under these conditions. Oh, and by the way, if you went outside the American camps, and were seen smoking, any Arab could slap the cigarette out of your mouth with impunity. I know this from personal communication by an American who had worked in Sowdi. lw. And then about "alcohol . . . strictly forbidden," lashes could be given for an infraction, and one British woman--I believe she had been a nurse--was sentenced to a whole shtload of those (sentence never carried out though).



How did "Sa'udi Arabia" get its start? I have bypassed Saudi sources, Aramco sources, and the BBC, because I did not want a fluff job. So, I went to the Jewish Virtual Library, in the belief that the folks there would not embellish the accomplishments of the ruler of Mecca and Medina, the stomping grounds of the greatest enemy the Jews have had since Amalek: Mohammed.
Here's how Saudi got started:

Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud (Ibn Saud)
(1880 - 1953)

Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud, also known by several abbreviated forms of this name, or simply as Ibn Saud, was first monarch of Saudi Arabia. He was born into the House of Saud (also Sa'ud), which had historically maintained dominion over an area of what was then known as Arabia called Nejd.

He was born in Riyadh. In 1890, at the age of ten, Saud followed his family into exile in Kuwait following the conquering of the family's lands by the Rashidi. He spent the remainder of his childhood in Kuwait as a "penniless exile." [1]

In 1901, at the age of 21, Ibn Saud succeeded his father, Abdul Rahman bin Faisal, to become the leader of the Saud dynasty with the title Sultan of Nejd. It was at this time that he set out to reconquer his family lands from Ibn Rashid in what is now called Saudi Arabia. In 1902, together with a party of relatives and servants, he recaptured Riyadh with only twenty men by assassinating the Rashidi governor of the city. Ibn Saud was considered a "magnetic" leader, and many former supporters of the House of Saud once again rallied to its call following the capture of Riyadh.

For two years following his dramatic capture of Riyadh, Ibn Saud recaptured almost half of Nejd from the Rashidi. In 1904, however, Ibn Rashid appealed to the Ottoman Empire for assistance in defeating the House of Saud. The Ottomans sent troops to Arabia, setting Ibn Saud on the defensive. The armies of the House of Saud suffered a major defeat on June 15, 1904, but his forces soon reconstituted and resumed the offensive as the Turkish troops left the country due to supply problems.

Ibn Saud finally consolidated control over the Nejd in 1912 with the help of an organized and well-trained army. During World War I, the British government attempted to cultivate favor with Ibn Saud, but generally favored his rival Sherif Hussein ibn Ali, leader of Hejaz, whom the Sauds were almost constantly at war with. Despite this, the British entered into a treaty in December of 1915 making the lands of the House of Saud a British protectorate. In exchange, Ibn Saud pledged to again make war against Ibn Rashid, who was an ally of the Ottomans.

Ibn Saud did not, however, immediately make war against Ibn Rashid, despite a steady supply of weapons and cash (£5,000 Sterling per month) supplied by the British. He argued with the British that the payment he received was insufficient to adequately wage war against an enemy as powerful as Ibn Rashid. In 1920, however, the House of Saud finally marched again against the Rashidi, extinguishing their dominion in 1922. The defeat of the Rashidis doubled the territory of the House of Saud, and British subsidies continued until 1924.

In 1925 the Sauds defeated Husayn in battle.

In 1927, following the defeat of Husayn, the British government recognized the power of the Saud family, led by Ibn Saud, over much of what is today Saudi Arabia. At this time he changed his own title from Sultan of Nejd to King of Hejaz and Nejd.
From 1927 to 1932, Ibn Saud continued to consolidate power throughout the Arabian Peninsula. In 1932, having conquered most of the Peninsula, Saud renamed the area from the lands of Nejd and Hejaz to Saudi Arabia. He then proclaimed himself King of Saudi Arabia, with the support of the British government.

Oil and the rule of Ibn Saud

Oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia in 1938, and Ibn Saud responded by granting substantial authority over Saudi oil fields to American oil companies. In the early days of the oil boom most oil revenues received by the government of Saudi Arabia were immediately directed to the coffers of the royal family. As the income from oil grew, however, Ibn Saud began to spend some revenues on improving the lives of his subjects.

Saud forced many nomadic tribes to settle down and abandon "petty wars" and vendettas. He also began to fight crime in Saudi Arabia, particularly crime against pilgrims visiting the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Ibn Saud positioned Saudi Arabia as neutral in World War II, but was generally considered to favor the Allies.

In 1948, Saud participated in the Arab-Israeli war. The contribution of Saudi Arabia was generally considered token.

Ibn Saud died in Taif.

Ibn Saud had 52 children (of which 37 were boys), by several different women.

See for the names of the 52.

Here's everything that you ever wanted to know about Saudi Arabia and then some:

Saudi Arabia
Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud
Fahd bin Abdul Aziz
Faisal bin Abdul Aziz
Khalid bin Abdul Aziz
Saud bin Abdul Aziz
Blood Libel in Saudi Daily
Human Rights
Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman ibn Faisal Al Saud (Ibn Saud)
House Unamiously Passes Resolution Condemning Saudi Boycott of Israel
The “Islamic Affairs Department” of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.
Kings of Saudi Arabia
Letter From President Roosevelt to the King of Saudi Arabia Regarding Palestine
Modern Saudi Arabia
Potential Threats To Israel: Saudi Arabia
Reagan Welcomes King Fahd of Saudi Arabia
Saud bin Abdul Aziz
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia Bans Jewish Visitors
Saudi Arabia Continues Boycott of Israel
Saudi Financial Support to the Palestinians
Saudis Providing Aid to “Martyrs”
Saudis Ban Pokemon Because of Zionist Symbol
Saudis Disseminating Hate Propaganda in U.S.



Getting Away With Murder - the Saudi Relation with the United States
by Hugh Fitzgerald
from his "66 Suitcases"

islam delenda est

Wednesday, January 13, 2010



"Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’"

"One of the world’s most respected Deobandi scholars believes that aggressive military jihad should be waged by Muslims 'to establish the supremacy of Islam' worldwide.

"Justice Muhammad Taqi Usmani argues that Muslims should live peacefully in countries such as Britain, where they have the freedom to practise Islam, only until they gain enough power to engage in battle.

"His views explode the myth that the creed of offensive, expansionist jihad represents a distortion of traditional Islamic thinking."

Then . . . the usual Moslem excuse:

"Mr Usmani told The Times that Islam and Modernism was an English translation of his original Urdu book, 'which at times gives a connotation different from the original'”.

Deception, lies, "lost in translation," etc. As always, Islam runs true to form. That is, we got Islam's number. And it does not change, no matter what deceit spews out of Islamic maws.

. . . and there are soothing comments by readers, such as,

"Muslims want the same things other Britons do: a better life. And they want the same things other people of faith do: peace, justice and God's pleasure."

Yeah sure, so pay no attention to what is going around you, people. "Believe us Moslems, we never lie."

[only when we have to, so that we can soothe you until we are strong enought to subjugate you.]

More, much more, at . . .

This item thanks to
American Congress for TruthP.O. Box 6884Virginia Beach, VA 23456

ALSO . . .

. . . an interesting observation by a reader from Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, in connection with a related Times article

"Rene Grousset, the French historian, has correctly observed that, as majorities, Muslims are intolerant, and, as minorities, they are turbulent. In 14 centuries Muslims have not been able to develop an ideology of co-existence, within the same space, with communities belonging to a different cultural persuasion. And the media and the politicians in the West, and in India, are afraid to say it. It is a pity. British support of Mus "

Edmonton, Canada

"Two faces of British youth in thrall to sinister Muslim sect"

. . . and more

Forked Tongues

British Muslims should recognise the threat of Deobandi extremism

"Extremist poison can lurk in the body politic for centuries. The militant hardline Islamic sect that preaches hatred for Jews, Christians and Hindus, scorns the values of British society and incites Muslims to apocalyptic violence against its enemies can trace its roots back to the Indian Mutiny. After the suppression of the 1857 uprising, a group of Muslims set up a seminary in Deoband as an act of defiance against imperial rule. The message was uncompromising: Muslims had to reject any compromise with Western values, cut all contact with nonbelievers and prepare themselves for conflict to establish the global victory of Islam. That Deobandi message of hatred is now, 140 years later, being preached from mosques across Britain. It is a serious threat to civil society, to religious tolerance and to the hundreds of thousands of British Muslims it seeks to ensnare, as we report today.
. . . Continued at

Comment on the above:

"Hardly ever would a smile strech across my face when reading the news but the utter nonsense of this article sure did. Deobandi's first are not a sect, they are simply Sunni muslims from Hannafi Sect, which makes up the largest group in the Islamic population. They are also the most visible or should we say overt muslims because they actually practice Islam to its teachings ie Islamic dress, men supporting beards, observing fast and you may see them praying salaat at work. Oppossed to 'moderate' muslims who may behave and come across as a Hindus until you are aware of their arabic name. Typically holding traditional Pakistani cultural values and only going to the mosque on Fridays, not praying the 5 times a day. Most of the youth today accepts Sheikh Riyadh-ul-Haq as a mentor because of his efficiency in clarrifying the meaning of this life and giving them direction. His speeches have never meant to distance the British muslim youth from society because they are the culture of today."

Amir Mahmood, Coventry, United Kingdom

More comments at

First published on 9-13-2007 at the original Islamic Danger blog as

Monday, November 16, 2009


( . . . and pray tell, what do Cossacks [see them in the picture above] have to do with instilling fear into the hearts and minds of the hordes of Mohammed? Read on and see)

[First published in the original "Islamic Danger" blog]

ISLAM: The Fear Factor

This global jihad can succeed only if we lose the battle for hearts and minds – our
--David Kupelian
"How To Defeat Radical Islam"

With "Islamophobia" they want to howl "victim!" but at the same time make us afraid.


Are Moslems afraid of Islamophobia?

The term Islamophobia was coined in an attempt to give a name for what Moslems perceived as an antipathy towards their ideology. Observing that the term antisemitism used to describe an unreasonable hatred for Jews, Moslems wanted to come up with a similar catch-phrase to embody the dislike for their actions and ideology rising in the non-Moslem world.

The most natural designation for the antipathy they perceived would have been anti-Islamism or anti-Moslemism, but that did not contain what Msolems wanted to get across. It made them into victims, which was okay with them for their purposes, but it also made them appear as weak victims. And this they did not want. They did not want to appear as the beaten-down Islamic equivalent of the spat-upon Jews that were the target of antisemitism.

Whether this was done consciously or unconsciously does not matter, Moslems came up with the word Islamophobia.

This served their purpose well. A phobia is a fear: Acrophobia--fear of heights, Arachnophobia-fear of spiders, Claustrophobia--fear of enclosed spaces, etc. Ergo: Islamophobia--fear of Islam.

They threw this at us as if shouting, "You are afraid of Islam!" this serves a dual purpose, it makes us ponder whether we are or not (weakness) and it makes us feel guity that we are atiMoslem, a religion, the Arab race, the whole package.

"How to Strike Fear into the Hearts of Your Enemies"

Apparently an Islamic dictum is make your enemy tremble with fear and then to strike him.

But Fear is but a weapon, a tool, like a gun, It can be used against us and by us. Moslems fear us. No matter how they boast, strut about and brag. Using poetic hyperbole (Saddam Hussain "The Mother of All Battles") they try to strike fear into our hearts.

When we tell the Islamic world that we will destroy them were they to attack us --the type of attack that would trigger swift and terrible retribution, where the type of response is left open (it is our choice) , they should be concerned. We are not as "nice" and soft as some of our more public faces and voices make us appear to be.

When it comes, it will be brutal. (Nagasaki, Hiroshima were but rehearsals for what is awaiting the Islamic world were it to strike the "trigger blow.")

Our leaders will not always be close with Islamic houses. It will not always have such idiots a Jimmy Carter speaking for us. The Kosovo Moslem trickery played on Bill Clinton (and us gullible ninnies) was a good one. But, we will have the leaders we need when we go to war. When the war comes, the real war, it will be the jihadists who will soil their bloomers.


The following exchange is traditionally attributed as the demand for fealty made by the Turkish sultan Mehmet IV (1642—1693) to the Zaporozhian Dnieper Cossacks, followed by the answer given by the Cossacks and their chieftain Ivan Sirko (1605?—1680).

Proposal Of Mehmet IV, Sultan of Constantinople

I, sultan, the son of Mohammed, the brother of the Sun and the Moon, grandson and the deputy of God, the owner of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Great and Lesser Egypt, the tsar of tsars, the lord of lords, knight extraordinary, soldier invincible by anyone, stalwart keeper of the crypt of our Lord, trustee of God himself, hope and comfort of Moslems, contender and great defender of Christians — command you, Zaporozhian Cossacks, to surrender yourselves to me voluntarily without any resistance and not to compel my vexation with your attacks.
-Turkish Sultan Mehmet IV

The Answer of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Sultan of Constantinople

More criminal than Barabbas
Horned like the fallen angels
With Beelzebub you are down there
Fed on garbage and filth
We will not come to your Sabbaths
Rotten fish of Salonica
Long chain of frightful dreams
Of eyes torn out with a pike thrust
Your mother blew a liquid fart
And you were born out of her colic
Tormenter of Podolye Lover
Of wounds of ulcers of scabs
Groin of a pig arse of a mare
All your riches you should hoard
To spend on your treatments

- Guillaume Apollinaire
French poet

— English translation from the French by MZ

That was the poetic, the cleaned-up, version of what is the Zaporozhian Cossacks actual reply is said to have been. Here is what they are supposed to have said.

The Kozaks of the Dnieper to the Sultan of Turkey: Thou Turkish Satan, brother and companion to the accursed Devil, and companion to Lucifer himself, Greetings! What the hell kind of noble knight art thou? The Devil voids, and thy army devours. Never wilt thou be fit to have the sons of Christ under thee: thy army we fear not, and by land and on sea we will do battle against thee. Thou scullion of Babylon, thou wheelwright of Macedonia, thou beer-brewer of Jerusalem, thou goat-flayer of Alexandria, thou swineherd of Egypt, both the Greater and the Lesser, thou sow of Armenia, thou goat of Tartary, thou hangman of Kamenetz, thou evildoer of Podoliansk, thou grandson of the Devil himself, thou great silly oaf of all the world and of the netherworld and, before our God, a blockhead, a swine's snout, a mare's ass, a butcher's cur, an unbaptized brow, May the Devil take thee! That is what the Kozaks have to say to thee, thou basest-born of runts! Unfit art thou to lord it over true Christians! The date we write not for no calendar have we got; the moon is in the sky, the year is in a book, and the day is the same with us here as with thee over there, and thou canst kiss us thou knowest where!

Wait! Wait! You ain't seen nothing yet. Here's a more earthy translation of that reply:

Response of the Zaporozhians to Mehmet IV.

Zaporozhian cossacks to Turkish sultan! Thou, sultan, Turkish prick, and brother and comrade to the accursed devil, secretary to Lucifer himself. What sort of cock-wrangling knight art thou, if thy naked arse canst not smother a hedgehog. What the devil shits, thy army eats. Never wilt thou have Christian offspring under thee, thou son of a bitch; we fear not thy armies, by land and by water we shall fight thee; may thy mother be fucked all the way through. Thou Babylonian hash monger, Macedonian bullshitter, Jerusalemite braggart, Alexandrian wether, Greater and Lesser Egypt’s swineherd, Armenian swine, Podolian villain, Tatarian gopher, Kamenetskian executioner, fuckwit to the entire world and its underworld, fool to our Lord, grandson to the asp and crook to our cock. Pig’s snout, mare’s arse, feral dog, heathen blockhead, fucked be thy mother. So the Zaporozhians spoke unto thee, dastard. Thou wilt not lead even the Christian pigs. Now we end, for the date we know not, calendars we have none, the moon is in the sky, the year is in the book, the day with ye the same as with us, and for that thou canst kiss us in the arse!
Signed: Division chieftain Ivan Sirko with the entire Zaporozhian division

Whichever version is best is up to you. Take your pick. I like the first, Apollinair's: it's short and it can be repeated in polite company. The two other, however, are more in keeping with the Cossack spirit. If you really want to let 'em have it, either one of those will do the job. Number three can be used just before the Mohammedan forces come at you with their battle cries.

Whatever happened to the Zaporozhians after that example of how diplomacy should be exercised with an unfriendly power is a matter of conjecture.

The diplomatic exchange is traditionally attributed as the demand for fealty made by the Turkish sultan Mehmet IV (1642—1693) to the Zaporozhian Dnieper Cossacks, and the answer given by the Cossacks and their chieftain Ivan Sirko (1605?—1680).

As for the Sultan of the Turks, Mehmet IV, he was the . . .

Son of sultan Ibrahim I born of and brought up by his Russian concubine Turhan Hatice, Mehmet IV ascended to the Ottoman throne following the assassination of his father in 1648. His reign witnessed great military victories against Venice, Transylvania, and Poland. However, his ambition to extend his rule into Podolia and Ukraine in the East, and Austria and Hungary in the West, was thwarted on September 12 of 1683 by the rout of the Ottoman armies at the walls of Vienna, at the hands of the coalition led by Charles IV, Duke of Lorraine and king Jan III Sobieski of Poland. In the wake of a further defeat in 1687 at Mohacs, inflicted by the Holy League led by Charles V of Lorraine, Mehmet IV was deposed and imprisoned by his council. He lived out his days with two concubines, confined in quarters overlooking his favorite hunting grounds.

Cossack chieftain Ivan Sirko distinguished himself in campaigns against Poland, the Ottoman Empire, and Crimean Tatars, accompanied by constant fluctuation in principles and alliances. A characteristic episode in his military exploits has him liberating seven thousand Christian prisoners from Moslem captivity. To these beneficiaries of his martial prowess Sirko offered a choice between accompanying his Cossacks to Rus, and returning to their original Crimean homes. He then dispatched his troops to slaughter three thousand Christians that chose to return to their homes instead of starting from scratch amongst the Cossacks. Surveying the ensuing carnage, the heroic chieftain spoke: Forgive us, brothers, and sleep here until the Last Judgment of our Lord, lest you multiply in the Crimea amongst the infidel, vexing our brave spirits, and causing your eternal unbaptized damnation. (Простите нас, братья, а сами спите тут до страшного Господнего суда, чем размножаться вам в Крыму между бусурманами на наши молодецкие головы, а на свою вечную без крещения погибель.) This amalgam of pragmatic interest in preempting the reproduction of potential enemies with altruistic concern for saving Christian souls provides a vivid illustration of the Cossack chieftain’s favorite saying: «Нужда закон змінює», need will amend law. Today, this intrepid Cossack hero is celebrated in official Ukrainian coinage

Following the account of how a French poet and a Russian composer got together (in spirit only as one was already dead) is another translation of Apollinaire's oeuvre into English and then into Russian. Why into Russian? It became part of the Shostakovitch Symphony No. 14, which included Apollinaire's longer poem "The Ballad of the Badly Loved," of which the reply of the Zaporozhian Cossacks is a part. Why Apollinaire included this in the larger poem, I do not know.

This apocryphal tale inspired Guillaume Apollinaire (1880—1918) to condense legendary Cossack obloquy into a digression within his great love lyric La Chanson du Mal-Aimé, first published in the Mercure de France on May 1st, 1909. On 29 September, 1969, its Russian rendering played a key part in the first performance of Symphony No. 14, Opus 135 by Dmitri Shostakovich (1906—1975). Thus the tale of Eastern European diplomacy came full circle.

Here are the promised alternate translations:

The Zaporozhian Cossacks' Answer
to the Sultan of Constantinople (Guillaume Apollinaire)

You are a hundred times more criminal than Barabbas.
Living as the neighbor of Beelzebub,
You wallow in the most foul vices.
Fed on filth since childhood,
Know this: you'll celebrate your Sabbath without us.

Rotten cancer, Salonica's refuse,
A terrible nightmare which cannot be told,
One-eyed, putrid and noseless,
You were born while your mother
Was writhing in fecal spasms.

Evil butcher of Podolye, look:
You are covered in wounds, sores and scabs.
Rump of a horse, snout of a pig,
May all the drugs be found
For you to heal your ills!

VIII. Otvet zaporozhskikh kazakov konstantinopol’skomu sultanu

Ti prestupney Varravii v sto raz.
S Vel’zevulom zhivya po sosedstvu,
v samiikh merzkikh grekhakh tii pogryaz.
Nechistotami vskormlenniiy s detstva,
znay: svoy shabash tii spraviish bez nas.

Rak protukhshiy, Salonik otbrosii,
skverniiy son, chto nel’zya rasskazat’,
okrivevsiy, gniloy i beznosiiy,
tii rodilsya, kogda tvoya mat’
izvivalas’ v korchakh ponosa.

Zloy palach Podol’ya, vzglyani:
ves’ti v ranakh, yazvakh i strup’yakh.
Zad kobiilii, riilo svin’i,
pust’ tebe vse snadob’ya skupyat,
chtob lechil tii bolyachki svoi!
—Guillaume Apollinaire; translated by M. Kudinov

The point of all of this is that the Cossacks were not nice touchy-feely types that felt the pain of their Mahometan adversaries. They figure in on this treatment of fear--fear that can cut both ways--because they have been used before to keep Islamic forces at bay. They also were used by the Tsars in pogroms against Jews [more on this further down below in this treatise] and to control the rising people ante-Bolschevik Revolution.

[Now, do not think for one second that I propose relying on the Cossacks strike fear into the hearts and minds of the Mahometans nor to do the fighting for us. They can, however, be used as an example of how to conduct diplomacy versus Moslem demands, threats, and boastful grandeur.]

Addendum. Amended to be a suitable--

--Answer of the American People to the letter (of November 2006) sent to them by Ahmadinejad:

More criminal than Barabbas
Horned like the f*cking devil
With Beelzebub you are down there
Fed on garbage and shit
We will not come to your Sabbaths
Rotten fish of Teheran
Creature of nightmares
May your eyes be plucked out
Your mother blew a liquid fart
And you were born out of her colic
Tormentor of the world
Lover of wounds, of ulcers, of scabs
Pig's prick, mare's ass
Get some professional help
To rid you of your delusions

[Adapted and changed from "The Answer of the Zaporozhian Cossacks to the Sultan of Constantinople" by Guillaume Apollinaire, English translation from the French by MZ with changes and substitutions by Leslie White.]

Here's more about them (Cossacks, that is)


The original Cossacks were runaway slaves who fled the central areas of Russia and settled the southern steppes along the Don River where they were unlikely to be caught. Later, they acknowledged the sovereignty of the tsar in exchange for the status of a special military community with its own rights and freedoms. Don Cossacks took part in all wars that Russia waged from the 18th to the early 20th centuries, and won renown as especially fearsome defenders of the nation. However, this could not save the Cossacks in 1920, when the Soviet government, encouraged by Lenin, abolished them by special decree.

Nevertheless, the Cossacks, who now predominantly reside in the Rostov Region next to the North Caucasus, have managed to preserve the unique customs, traditions and culture of their predecessors. In the early 1990s, they were officially rehabilitated and given the status of a public organization. But this was not enough for these patriotic and military-minded people: They were waiting for a chance to resume their traditional role of frontier guards, and the new law will give them a chance to do so.

The Cossack revival has been brought about by recent changes in the area. The North Caucasus and the Krasnodar Territory need protection from Islamic extremists, as well as from Chechen and international terrorists. In addition, migrants who have flooded the region often attempt to impose their order on the local population. As a result, the number of Russians is diminishing, and Russians no longer feel safe.

General Gennady Troshin, formerly commander of the federal troops in the Chechen Republic and now presidential aide on Cossack issues, is confident that the Cossacks will help protect Russia's southern borders. He considers the Cossacks a serious force, saying that they are already helping the government bodies to maintain law and order in their stanitsas (large villages). Cossack atamans, or chiefs, are usually members of the local administration, and their opinion carries weight with the local governors.

A rank-and-file Cossack made a typical statement in a recent televised report: "Today both [Islamic extremists] and our 'Western friends' are making attempts to split Russia again. Russia needs to muster its spiritual power. Something has to be done to oppose the rat race, the cult of violence and drug addiction. Who will serve in the Army tomorrow? Weaklings. We don't want this to happen. This is why we, the Cossacks of Russia, are restoring our traditions."
If the bill becomes law, draft-age Cossacks will gain the right to serve in traditional Cossack military units, as well as frontier and internal forces. The bill provides for Cossack involvement in the war on terror, in dealing with emergency situations, and in protecting public order. They will also take part in efforts to guarantee state and border security, as well as ecological and fire safety. The federal authorities will also be obliged to give partial funding to the Cossacks from the state budget, and to grant them certain tax benefits.

But the Cossack renaissance is not welcomed by some human-rights activists, who sense in it a tinge of rising Great Russian chauvinism.

"Needless to say, it is difficult to object to people's desire to unite. If they want to guard the frontiers, let them do this as a version of contract service," Lev Ponomaryov, head of For Human Rights, said. "But it is alarming that they may be given the right to maintain law and order within these borders. Experience shows that the Cossacks have their own interpretation of law and order."

Russian Cossacks are used to skeptical attitudes. But today they have a powerful supporter in Putin, who views the so-far-unregistered 10 million Cossacks as his potential assistants in consolidating Russia's integrity and ensuring its citizens' security. The Kremlin expects the Cossacks to reaffirm their historical reputation as patriots, defenders of the state and champions of moral values.

The gist of the Cossack phenomenon is manifest in a popular anecdote about Napoleon, who is quoted as saying: "Give me 20 thousand Cossacks and I will conquer the whole of Europe and even the whole world." The Don atamans sent him a prompt reply: "Send us 20,000 French women, and in 20 years you will get 20,000 Cossacks. But they will serve Russia nonetheless."

Cossacks as the Nemesis of Jews Residing in Tsarist Russia

That they were, all right. Whenever the Tsars saw fit to divert the Russian populace's ire from the Russian ruling class, the Jews were blamed for everything, and to placate the suffering masses, the Cossacks were loosed on the Jews. The pogroms were merciless sprees of murder, robbery, and rape. There looms, however, a possible brighter future in the relationship between Cossack and Jew. Perhaps, faced by a common Islamic enemy, the Cossacks can divert their ruthlessness towards the real menace: the southern borders of Russia and the Islamic forces menacing Christians as well as the singled-out-by the Koran ans the enemy of Mohammed and his unseen (conveniently made-up) master--the Jews.

posted on 08/11/2006
KIEV, Ukraine – Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Azriel Chaikin and the Israeli Ambassador to Ukraine Naomi Ben-Ami met with the leader of the Ukrainian Cossacks Anatoliy Schevchenko and the General Judge of Cossacks Igor Kozlovsky. At this meeting, the Cossack leaders assured the Chief Rabbi of Ukraine and the Israeli Ambassador of their support of Israel as it combats terrorism. As a dean of a local higher-education institution, Mr. Schevchenko said his teaching staff was doing everything possible to explain to their students the importance of supporting Israel as well as the need to fight against anti-Semitism and national and religious intolerance.

The Cossacks also announced that they were going to visit Israel on a solidarity mission at the invitation of Chief Rabbi of Ukraine Azriel Chaikin. The parties shared their opinions regarding the current situation in Ukraine and in Israel, the Israeli Ambassador expressing her hope that joint efforts of the international community aimed at resolving the current conflict and preventing such conflict in the future. At the end of the meeting, the Israeli diplomat thanked the Cossack leaders for their support and understanding of the Israeli position.

To this, the most appropriate comment is the Spanish "ojala" from the Andalusian Moorish arabic meaning "that allah would want it to be so)."

The savagery of the followers of Mohammed can be matched or better yet be outstripped by that of the Cossacks.

to finish off this diatribe on "how to instill fear into the hearts and minds of the Mahometans," here is a description of another encounter between Moslem and Russian warriors. The outcome? Well, let us see . . .

Abdul Abulbul Amir
Written By: Percy French
Copyright Unknown

The sons of the prophet were hardy and bold,
And quite unaccustomed to fear,
But the bravest of these was a man, I am told
Named Abdul Abulbul Amir.

This son of the desert, in battle aroused,
Could spit twenty men on his spear.
A terrible creature, both sober and soused
Was Abdul Abulbul Amir.

When they needed a man to encourage the van,
Or to harass the foe from the rear,
Or to storm a redoubt, they had only to shout
For Abdul Abulbul Amir.

There are heroes aplenty and men known to fame
In the troops that were led by the Czar;
But the bravest of these was a man by the name
Of Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

He could imitate Irving, play Euchre and pool
And perform on the Spanish Guitar.
In fact, quite the cream of the Muscovite team
Was Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

The ladies all loved him, his rivals were few;
He could drink them all under the bar.
As gallant or tank, there was no one to rank
With Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

One day this bold Russian had shouldered his gun
And donned his most truculent sneer
Downtown he did go, where he trod on the toe
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir

"Young man," quoth Bulbul, "has life grown so dull,
That you're anxious to end your career?
Vile infidel! Know, you have trod on the toe
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir."

"So take your last look at the sunshine and brook
And send your regrets to the Czar;
By this I imply you are going to die,
Mr. Ivan Skavinsky Skivar."

Quoth Ivan, "My friend, your remarks, in the end,
Will avail you but little, I fear,
For you ne'er will survive to repeat them alive,
Mr. Abdul Abulbul Amir!"

Then this bold mameluke drew his trusty chibouque
With a cry of "Allah Akbar!"
And with murderous intent, he ferociously went
For Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

They parried and thrust and they side-stepped and cussed
'Till their blood would have filled a great pot.
The philologist blokes, who seldom crack jokes,
Say that hash was first made on that spot.
They fought all that night, 'neath the pale yellow moon;
The din, it was heard from afar;
And great multitudes came, so great was the fame
of Abdul and Ivan Skivar.

As Abdul's long knife was extracting the life -
In fact, he was shouting "Huzzah!" - -
He felt himself struck by that wily Kalmuck,
Count Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

The sultan drove by in his red-breasted fly,
Expecting the victor to cheer;
But he only drew nigh to hear the last sigh
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir.

Czar Petrovich, too, in his spectacles blue
Rode up in his new crested car.
He arrived just in time to exchange a last line
With Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.

A loud-sounding splash from the Danube was heard
Resounding o'er meadows afar;
It came from the sack fitting close to the back
Of Ivan Skavinsky Skovar.

There's a tomb rises up where the blue Danube flows;
Engraved there in characters clear;
"Ah stranger, when passing, please pray for the soul
Of Abdul Abulbul Amir."

A Muscovite maiden her lone vigil keeps,
'Neath the light of the pale polar star;
And the name that she murmurs as oft as she weeps
Is Ivan Skavinsky Skivar.
* * *

I'd call it a DRAW, wouldn't you?

. . . and before we go:

[spoken in a sonorous voice]

"Dedicated to the jihadists in mind and would-be deed that threaten us with mayhem:"


You cannot kill words
Rapists of those who bore you
You cannot cut heads off ideas
Nor stab the will to resist.
You, would-be hunters, will be the hunted
Mewling hyenas sent loping
Dragging your shit-smeared hindquarters
back to your accursed umma.
You filth, you devil's shit,
You will squat with the one who spawned your vile mind-twist
Who sent you to sally forth
To bay an unseen idol's name at the crescent moon.
You will swallow your own dung and suck your urine
While the demons of hell howl
around the quivering blobs of roasting flesh
That were once you.


You, eaters of dung and drinkers of urine


Bury your noses in your scriptures, the curse of the world is upon you,
You cannot achieve as neither did your strain
in what-had-once-been al-andalus, at Poitiers,
and when your Turkish proxy legions
twice bloodied their be-turbaned heads against the walls of Vienna.
Your kind was humbled by Hulegu Khan,
your Turks swallowed bitter salt-water at Lepanto.
Your Berber pirates felt the steel of U.S. bayonets,
and you stewed in the filth that is your umma for centuries.
Until the soft and bleeding-hearted Westerners
gave you the means once more to come for them
and try to force your unclean ways on them.
The time has changed, your turn is come and gone.
Away with you, your clock has run out. Back!
Back to the realm of the prince of darkness
from whose loins your hateful teachings sprang.


(chanted softly, with reverence)

There will be millions of jihadist dead. Jihadists are appalled by pigs blood and entrails. Wrapped in pork intestines and splattered with pig's blood before castration and being chainsawed from crotch to top of the skull, a jihadist will never reach paradise. Likewise being sewn inside of a pig carcass is a guarantee to another realm than "blessed" paradise.

There are thousands more of fun things to do to a jihadist. Forget about Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay, those were country clubs compared what the jihadist unlucky enough to be captured rather than killed (and turned into a jihadist-in-a-pig blanket) will face.

Until next time then, this is your friendly interlocutor saying . . . "ta ta"

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

The Pedigree of "Islamic Danger"




It evolved from no-holds-barred free-for-all on message boards [AOL, Yahoo], to club [Yahoo], community [Yahoo, MSN], and group [Yahoo, MSN], until it launched into the blogosphere.

Right now, we have eleven [11] blogs on Blogspot*--but do not be concerned, were these to be muzzled, we have blogs standing by to take over the fight at other venues.

An early start in the resistance against Islam, the original "Islamic Danger," an internet club, was formed by two founders who had met as keyboard-comrades-in-arms on internet message boards in 2000. [At AOL]

In those early--pre-9-11--days of the anti-jihad, any uncomplimentary reference to "the religion of peace" (dubbed as such by the authorities) was immediately punished by deletion of the post as "hate speech." Although rife with Jew-hatred and attacks against American values, messages posted by the followers of Islam remained, regardless of their breach of the Terms of Service (TOS).

In early 2001, the fight was moved to a more receptive venue--as an internet club "Islamic Danger"--its first incarnation [at Yahoo]. Membership in the club grew phenomenally until it led the Middle East section in membership, visits, and number of posts. This growth spurted noticeably after the Islamic attack against the United States on 9-11-01.

Visibility brought more enemies of the Islamic and Leftist persuasion. Every post was examined by the enemies of America for breaches of Terms of Service (TOS). The club was brought down by an European who "felt the pain" of the Islamics ("self-professed, perennial victims").

The original founders were banned for life from the venue, and sadly disappeared from interspace. [Like hell]

Several stalwart followers of the old "Islamic Danger" established a community with the same name at another internet venue [at MSN]. Same story repeated itself. As its membership grew, attacks by Islamics and their Leftist fellow-travellers multiplied. An attack, including the posting of hate messages and inappropriate photographs, and then running screaming "hate!" and "TOS violation!"to the "authorities" led to the sudden demise of the group.

There were several attempts to resuscitate the group--the last proving successful. As long as membership stayed under a noticeable percentage, the group was allowed to remain. Any sudden growth led to deletion of the group.

Two of these groups still exist under the old name, as well as several clones under the same management.

The "Islamic Danger" blogs you can find on the internet [the blogspot "Islamic Danger"blogs, listed below] were started by veterans of the early struggles to warn the West against the danger of Islamic infiltration into its lands with the aim of subjugation of free people. The goal of the Islamics, as it has been since the early days of desert brigandry under Mohammed, is to have a subjugated heavily-taxed population that the Mohammedans could then milk and live off.

The predilection for Islamics to live off the work of others is a fact that can be seen in the EU welfare states where they rushed for "asylum." Conquest by demographics is a fact of Islamic striving to conquer the free world. Their abhorrence of work can be seen from the Saudi penchant for having an oppressed and sexually brutalized foreign "underclass" do manual labor in lieu of the usual Christian and other non-Moslem slaves that have been used by Mohammedans for the past 13 centuries (1).

1. . . . [Donald Rumsfeld] observed that oil billions have shielded [Moslems] "from the reality of the work, effort and investment that leads to wealth for the rest of the world. Too often Muslims are against physical labor, so they bring in Koreans and Pakistanis[*] while their young people remain unemployed. An unemployed population is easy to recruit to radicalism.”
--Donald Rumsfeld

Related to the above:

Saudi Arabia is hub of world terror: The desert kingdom supplies the cash and the killers (52)

[*] Not to forget Filipinos and Filipinas

* Name not taken from, but we strongly endorse, the excellent
The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization
by Yohanan Ramati
1. The Historical Background of Islamic Resurgence
2. The Diagnosis
3. The Cure the West Rejected
4. Postscript from the Ashes of the Twin Towers
[ Full article for printing ]

* "Islamic Danger" Blogs
Islamic Danger FU
The Jew in Yellow
The Jew in Yellow No More
On the Back of My Mind
How to Stop the Islamic Jihad
Islamic Danger 2U
Islamic Danger to Bharat (India)
Islamic Danger to Americans
Islamic Danger in History
Islamic Danger Redux
Islamic Danger (original, now censored)



A bold look at the history of America at war.

A warning to those that would attack us

. . . the essential decency of the American fighting forces -- a fact we need to affirm unapologetically today in the face of jihadist propaganda, and as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending."

--Robert Spencer

In support of of the previous post, "WHO IS TAKING THE BRUNT OF ISLAM'S ATTACK ON THE WEST? "

I am reprinting this here.
--Leslie White
* The Gadsden Flag is an instant reminder of the American Colonial period. Since colonial days, the rattlesnake has been used to portray the spirit of Americans. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin published a political essay describing the 13 American colonies as a snake divided reminding us of the danger of disunity.


In 1774, Colonel Gadsden of the Revolutionary Army emphasized this by printing the legend "DONT TREAD ON ME" on his flag.

The birth of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps

By 1775, the snake symbol wasn't just being printed in newspapers. It was appearing all over the colonies ... on uniform buttons ... on paper money ... and of course, on banners and flags.

The snake symbol morphed quite a bit during its rapid, widespread adoption. It wasn't cut up into pieces anymore. And it was usually shown as an American timber rattlesnake, not a generic serpent.

We don't know for certain where, when, or by whom the familiar coiled rattlesnake was first used with the warning "Don't Tread on Me."

We do know when it first entered the history books.

In the fall of 1775, the British were occupying Boston and the young Continental Army was holed up in Cambridge, woefully short on arms and ammunition. At the Battle of Bunker Hill, Washington's troops had been so low on gunpowder that they were ordered "not to fire until you see the whites of their eyes."

In October, a merchant ship called The Black Prince returned to Philadelphia from a voyage to England. On board were private letters to the Second Continental Congress that informed them that the British government was sending two ships to America loaded with arms and gunpowder for the British troops.

Congress decided that General Washington needed those arms more than General Howe. A plan was hatched to capture the British cargo ships. They authorized the creation of a Continental Navy, starting with four ships. The frigate that carried the information from England, the Black Prince, was one of the four. It was purchased, converted to a man-of-war, and renamed the Alfred.

To accompany the Navy on their first mission, Congress also authorized the mustering of five companies of Marines. The Alfred and its sailors and marines went on to achieve some of the most notable victories of the American Revolution. But that's not the story we're interested in here.

What's particularly interesting for us is that some of the Marines that enlisted that month in Philadelphia were carrying drums painted yellow, emblazoned with a fierce rattlesnake, coiled and ready to strike, with thirteen rattles, and sporting the motto "Don't Tread on Me."

Benjamin Franklin diverts an idle hour

In December 1775, "An American Guesser" anonymously wrote to the Pennsylvania Journal:

"I observed on one of the drums belonging to the marines now raising, there was painted a Rattle-Snake, with this modest motto under it, 'Don't tread on me.' As I know it is the custom to have some device on the arms of every country, I supposed this may have been intended for the arms of America."

This anonymous writer, having "nothing to do with public affairs" and "in order to divert an idle hour," speculated on why a snake might be chosen as a symbol for America.

First, it occurred to him that "the Rattle-Snake is found in no other quarter of the world besides America."

The rattlesnake also has sharp eyes, and "may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance." Furthermore,

"She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. ... she never wounds 'till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her." Finally,

"I confess I was wholly at a loss what to make of the rattles, 'till I went back and counted them and found them just thirteen, exactly the number of the Colonies united in America; and I recollected too that this was the only part of the Snake which increased in numbers. ...

"'Tis curious and amazing to observe how distinct and independent of each other the rattles of this animal are, and yet how firmly they are united together, so as never to be separated but by breaking them to pieces. One of those rattles singly, is incapable of producing sound, but the ringing of thirteen together, is sufficient to alarm the boldest man living."

Many scholars now agree that this "American Guesser" was Benjamin Franklin.
The foregoing from

There is a book titled

Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist
Hunting by H.W.W Crocker

Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch

says the following about the book:

"Because the global jihad is advancing on many fronts, not all involving terrorism or violence, a strong military is not the only thing we need to defeat it. But it is -- especially when properly deployed -- an indispensable prerequisite. I have been reminded of this while reading Don't Tread On Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist Hunting by H. W. Crocker.

This book is not only briskly and brightly written, as are all his books, but it underscores the essential decency of the American fighting forces -- a fact we need to affirm unapologetically today in the face of jihadist propaganda, and as one principal manifestation of the superiority (yes) of the culture and civilization that we are defending.

posted by Robert at September 20, 2006 08:42 AM

Other reviews:

Don't Tread on Me: A 400-Year History of America at War, from Indian Fighting to Terrorist
Hunting by H.W.W Crocker

Fast-paced and riveting, Don’t Tread on Me is a bold look at the history of America at war.

Also available as an eBook


“Talk about politically incorrect! Don’t Tread on Me is the best, most entertaining account of the American warrior I’ve ever read. Crocker gets it! So will you.”
—Lt. Col. Robert “Buzz” Patterson, U.S. Air Force (Ret.), former military aide to the president, bestselling author of Dereliction of Duty and War Crimes

“Robust and provocative, Don’t Tread on Me is a unique addition to any library of American history—and it might try to annex your neighboring volumes.”
—Tony Blankley, McLaughlin Group panelist, bestselling author of The West’s Last Chance

“In Don’t Tread on Me, Crocker writes manfully of our nation’s proud martial spirit that is assailed on so many sides today. I was ready to head to the nearest armed forces recruiting office after reading it.”
—Steven F. Hayward, author of Churchill on Leadership and The Age of Reagan, 1964–1980

“The central thrust of Harry Crocker’s sparkling book is that a nation’s very essence is reflected in the character of its military, that its history is written in the blood and courage of its fighting men. In prose as unblinking as it is fast-moving, he tells the story of the creation of the ‘American Empire.’ This book is a true one-of-a-kind; its power flows from Crocker’s focus on the dauntless warriors who forged and safeguarded the United States of America.”
—Lt. Gen. Dave R. Palmer, U.S. Army (Ret.), former superintendent of West Point, author of George Washington and Benedict Arnold: A Tale of Two Patriots

“Don’t Tread on Me is that rare but admirable thing—a book written from a Tory, Imperialist, Southern Gentleman’s perspective. Winston Churchill and Andrew Jackson would both be proud. A rousing read through the rattling good tales of American history.”
—John O’Sullivan, editor-at-large for National Review

“A book as dashing, formidable, and triumphant as the American fighting man it describes.” —Bernard Cornwell, author of Sharpe’s Fury and the bestselling Richard Sharpe series

Book Description
• Did America win its independence because British generals were too busy canoodling with their mistresses?

• Should America have annexed Mexico—all of it—and Cuba too?

• Did 1776 justify Southern secession in the nineteenth century?

• Should Patton have been promoted over Eisenhower?

• Did the U.S. military win—and Congress lose—the Vietnam War?

• Was it right to depose Saddam Hussein—and is it wrong to worry about a possible Iraqi civil war?

The answer to these questions is a resounding yes, says author H. W. Crocker III in this stirring and contrarian new book.

In Don’t Tread on Me, Crocker unfolds four hundred years of American military history, revealing how Americans were born Indian fighters whose military prowess carved out first a continental and then a global empire—a Pax Americana that has been a benefit to the world.

From the seventeenth century on, he argues, Americans have shown a jealous regard for their freedom—and have backed it up with an unheralded skill in small-unit combat operations, a tradition that includes Rogers’ Rangers, Merrill’s Marauders, and today’s Special Forces.

He shows that Americans were born to the foam too, with a mastery of naval gunnery and tactics that allowed America’s Navy, even in its infancy, to defeat French and British warships and expand American commerce on the seas.

Most of all, Crocker highlights the courage of the dogface infantry, the fighting leathernecks, and the daring sailors and airmen who have turned the tide of battle again and again.

In Don’t Tread on Me, still forests are suddenly pierced by the Rebel Yell and a surge of grey. Teddy Roosevelt’s spectacles flash in the sunlight as he leads his Rough Riders charging up San Juan Hill. American doughboys rip into close-quarters combat against the Germans. Marines drive the Japanese out of their island fortresses using flamethrowers, grenades, and guts. GIs slug their way into Hitler’s Germany. The long twilight struggle against communism is fought in the snows of Korea and the steaming jungles of Vietnam. And today, U.S. Navy SEALs and U.S. Army Rangers battle Islamist terrorists in the bleak mountains of Afghanistan, just as their forebears fought Barbary pirates two hundred years ago.

Review by a reader: Thought provoking

M. Lynch (Chicago, IL USA)
Freedom isn't free, and whether it was at Valley Forge or Pearl Harbor, the United States has had to fight for the right to remain an exceptional nation. H.W. Crocker's story is a great tribute to the men and women who have served in uniform and defended our borders. Needless to say, in these uncertain times, "Don't Tread on Me" is an important reminder that we Americans cannot take our freedoms for granted.

More reader reviews can be found at the website:


Who is dying in the war against us by Islam? (Oh pulleeze! Not "Islamic extremism" or "radical Islam" or "a tiny minority of . . . ," etc., etc., etc.)

You can see their faces--those of the dead--in uniform, on some of our News channels (even the crappy ones that suck up to the Arab Moslems because they are watched in the Arab world and have Saudi investment [but one does have a socially redeeming feature by giving Glenn Beck lots of airtime.]) They show them on PBS to make us feel guilt--for our government having sent fighting men to Iraq. The faces are the faces of the fallen, the dead, our dead.

Most of them are the faces of the young, the brave, our finest. Never mind that Kerry arrogantly relegates them to the category of failures, those who couldn't cut it in academia; the senator is an anal orifice. These young men and women chose the military as a profession. In the United States their profession has a history stretching back to before our Revolution. Without fighters, there would not have been a Revolution, and we would today be subjects of the British monarch. (And the Moslem-placating sad remnant of what was once a glorious empire. [You do not like that empire--on which the sun never set? Why? Because there were people in its colonies that were not "free?" Well, my friends, today these self-same people are "free," of the British, but under oppressive rulers that may be of the same color and nationality but far worse than the British ever were.]) But I digress, back to our fallen heroes.

There is that congressman who with a gravelly voice tells us that the men and women in our volunteer armed forces come from an underclass, not from the elite, the people who govern our country. He hoarsely urges a draft--everybody goes, whether they want to or not. When push came to shove and we were fighting for our country's existence--as we did in World War II--a non-volunteer, citizen army was necessary. Whether people who are forced to go into the military are as effective as those who want to fight is questionable. Some have it in them to become warriors, others hide behind cover and never fire a weapon.

Highly trained contingents such as our United States Marines, Army Rangers, Navy Seals and other Special Forces are certain to use their weapons and do a professional job, whether they agree with the politics enveloping the conflict or not.

People enlist in a volunteer military for various reasons. If it is to further their education or to stay as professionals and retire earlier than the rest of the population, it is an honorable vocation.

Not all of the dead are in their late teens or their twenties. There are older enlisted men and officers equal in age to civilians back in the States that have wives and children. They will never see their loved ones again.

On PBS, Jim Lehrer showed twenty of the dead--with accompanying dead air--silence. Out of reverence for our dead? Or to make us feel ashamed?

Everyone publicly gives lip service to supporting our troops. Yes, they support the troops, but not the war. During Vietnam time, the anti-American Americans spat on our troops, derided them, or accused them of atrocities as did that same John Kerry, U.S. Senator, and an . . . you know what I said about him before.

Now, I am not a G. W. Bush fan, for a multitude of reasons, but our enemies want to kill Americans, as much as they hanker to kill Jews. If there are no Americans--armed Americans-- to discourage them from this yearning, where do you think they will find massed, unprotected Americans? They did on 9-11, and the jihadists will try to serve their allah by coming over here to placate him with human blood (ours or theirs).

This sounds like the Bush line justifying being in Iraq. (I would've liked it better had he attacked the Saudis.) During Bush's predecessors' tenure, however, a destroyer was attacked by the jihad boys, embassies were blasted, bodies of American fighting men were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by howling Moslem mobs, a couple of hundred US Marines had to die in Beirut without firing a shot, and the greatest humiliation of all was when the toothy Jimmy Carter allowed the Iranians to take and keep American hostages and take over the American embassy in what should have been considered an act of war.

This is not the time to discuss whether we should stay in Iraq and what should've been done, could've been done. This is the time to honor our dead. They died defending our way of life, whether it was in Iraq or Afghanistan or on some mission against the enemy that must forever remain unknown.

Countries that do not have a fighting military, and that have what others want, cannot survive. If we rush to draft our men (and perhaps women), the elite will supply the officer class. Will these officers measure up to our professional officers? Some civilians turned officers become fighting men, others take cushy jobs (you've seen it in world War II movies.)

When I am near military installations, I see young men and women who volunteered, who enlisted. I talk to them and it saddens me that some will die, never having reached the age of twenty.

We did not want this war, we did nothing to justify Islamic jihadists crashing planes into our buildings and killing thousands of people. It is their war against us. Islam's eternal war seeking to make the entire world Islamic.

There is no glory in war. There is, however, honor, We must honor those that died in the war that has yet to reach its zenith, that we must hope and pray will not rage through our streets, in our mountains, our fields, our villages and towns.

First published at the now-censored and -locked "Islamic Danger" on 11/30/06

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Fighting Wars to Lose . . .

or "Why Since World War II, the U.S. has lost every war it ever was drawn into."

Update on "Incident at Haditha" July 23, 2009 (see *Footnote)

UPDATE JULY 19, 2009:
Buh-Bye, Walter Cronkite: He Lost the Vietnam War for U.S. on TV, Had American Blood on His Hands - By Debbie Schlussel

Hizb ut-Tahrir America's (HTA) Khilafah conference, held at the Hilton in Oak Lawn, IL, USA
from The Investigative Project on Terrorism:
Hizb Ut-Tahrir In America: Preaching Hate, Building A Caliphate
Hizb ut-Tahrir, (HT) the pro-jihadist organization meeting this weekend in suburban Chicago, has been waging a below-the-radar campaign to recruit Americans for decades. Hizb ut-Tahrir activists in the United States have generally taken a low public profile following the 9/11 attacks, avoiding the vitriolic, hate-America rhetoric coming from HT activists abroad.The open nature of this weekend's Khalifa (Caliphate) Conference in Chicago under the Hizb ut-Tahrir banner indicates that the group has decided to enhance its recruiting efforts among U.S. Muslims.
Read the full story

Select Quotes from Historic 1994 Hizb Ut-Tahrir Rally in London's Wembley Arena
In 1994, tens of thousands of supporters of Hizb ut-Tharir rallied in London to demand Islamic control over the West, issued calls for world wide jihad and violent attacks, attacked democracy as incompatible with Islam, and demanded that an Islamic caliphate rule the entire world. The rally was one of the most radical mass Islamist gatherings ever held in a Western country.
Read the full story

Treading on Eggs in Afghanistan!
Obama’s new battle plan will get more Americans killed!
New US battle rule: No fighting near Afghan homes. Of course, once Taliban fighters learn of the directive, civilian homes will be the perfect place to seek cover.

(Contains NewMaterial) Added on June 21, 2009

The Answer: The welfare of the enemy has become more important . . .
. . . than that of the troops fighting for us.

Under such a condition, who but the bravest would willingly enlist in our armed forces?

Our present President never did . . . or had to. His predecessor served . . ah . . . barely. He was a cutup at that age: air national guard, spotty attendance . . etc.

Enlisting--or accepting a commission--means that you have to trust in military justice and in that your country will back you up before being more concerned about the safety and welfare of the enemy than yours.

Nigh impossible Rules of Engagement (ROEs) and an overly solicitous attitude towards those we are fighting--at the expense of our own fighters--would soon disabuse one of these illusions.

See such events as Action at Haditha* . . .

. . . and the tragic events leading to the loss of a SEAL team to safeguard the lives of three enemy individuals who betrayed the Americans' trust--or whose leader acted in fear of a courts-martial and American pro-enemy lawyers looming in his imagination . . .

This made our troops into split-personality fighting forces: worry about completing the mission while staying alive, in one piece, and making certain that you kill enemies only out of necessity while preserving the precious lives of enemy civilians--at the expense of the lives of American warriors.

Now you must learn about Something Terrible:

Joan Swirsky: Something Terrible Has Happened To Michael
posted by Lance
at TMQ2 (The Moslem Question 2 -- its predecessor TMQ1 was shut down by fair-to-all-but-fairer-to-Moslems-blogspot blogger authorities)


. . . there are rare instances in which a member of our military is punished for doing what he was trained to do – subdue or, if necessary, kill the enemy. This is what happened.

In May 2008, a known member of an al Qaeda cell, Ali Mansur, was suspected of having organized an attack on the young Army Ranger’s platoon, which killed two U.S. soldiers and injured two more under Lt. Behenna’s command. For some unfathomable reason, Army intelligence ordered that Mansur be released and ordered Lt. Behenna, who was then 24, to escort the terrorist to his home.

On the way, Behenna questioned Mansur in an effort to learn additional information about other members of the terrorist cell, as well as who was financing it. During the interrogation, Mansur attacked Lt. Behenna, who killed the terrorist in self-defense.

But instead of expressing relief that one of their own had survived the attack, the government cast Mansur as the “victim” and prosecuted Lt. Behenna for premeditated murder!

The following timeline was taken, in part, from the website that has been established in support of Lt. Behenna – – and confirmed by his mother, Vicki.

On February 23, 2009, Behenna went on trial. During the trial:

* The government argued that Behenna executed Mansur while he was sitting on a rock, while Behenna said that he shot in self defense after Mansur stood up and tried to reach for the Lieutenant’s gun during the interrogation.

* A government expert, an Iraqi doctor who performed the autopsy, said that the bullets had a horizontal trajectory, suggesting a direct confrontation and not a scenario in which a defenseless Mansur sat helplessly on a rock while a standing Behenna shot him at a downward angle. In fact, both government and defense experts agreed on the trajectory of the bullets that killed Mansur.

* In short order, the prosecution decided not to call to the stand another government expert, Dr. Herbert MacDonnell, but instead sent him home. But not before Dr. MacDonell told Behenna’s defense attorney that he would have been a good witness for the defense.

* While Dr. MacDonnell was picking up his coat in the prosecution room on his way out of the courthouse, he told the three prosecutors: “The explanation that Lt Behenna just testified to was the exact same scenario I told you yesterday. Lt Behenna is telling the truth.”

* Referring to Dr. MacDonnell’s statement that he would have been a good witness, the defense counsel, Jack Zimmermann, asked the prosecutors if they had any exculpatory evidence that should be provided to the defense. (This is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt.) But the prosecutors denied having any such evidence despite having been told by their own expert witness that Lt Behenna’s explanation was the only logical explanation of the events that had transpired.

* Because this evidence was withheld, the prosecutors were able to argue that Lt. Behenna executed Ali Mansur while the “victim” was seated on a rock – in spite of the testimony of forensic experts, including Dr. MacDonnell, who agreed that Mansur was standing with his arms outstretched when he was shot.

* On February 27, 2009, Lt. Behenna was convicted of unpremeditated murder and assault by a military panel of seven officers – none of whom were combat arms.

* Following the trial, Dr. MacDonnell contacted the prosecutors again, asking that the information he provided them be given to the defense.

* After Dr. MacDonnell’s e-mail was provided to the defense counsel, Mr. Zimmermann moved for a mistrial.

* Judge Theodore E. Dixon promptly ordered both sides in the case to file briefs relating to a possible mistrial, and, after reading the briefs, set a date for an additional hearing and ordered additional briefs, including one from the defense requesting a new trial.

* But on March 20, Judge Dixon denied the defense motions to declare a mistrial and to order a new trial and sentenced Lt. Behenna to serve 25 years in Leavenworth penitentiary.

Lt. Behenna’s attorneys are appealing the verdict. It is Vicki Behenna’s understanding that the General of the 101st Airborne will review Michael’s case in the next several weeks, in which case he can set aside the findings of guilt, order a new trial, or reduce Michael’s sentence. After the General’s decision, Michael’s case will be docketed in the appellate court, a process that can take from one-to-three years for the appeal to be heard.


There are those who believe that Michael was “sacrificed” for political reasons. Is it possible that the motive for failing to provide the exculpatory information had anything to do with our military’s desire to be able to tell the Iraqi government that they had convicted an officer, the better to actualize some kind of quid pro quo arrangement or smooth over some ruffled feathers?

In my opinion, it’s a miscarriage of justice for a soldier who is fighting for the Constitutional rights we hold dear – the right to due process and a fair trial – to be denied those rights in his own trial! And what about the demoralization this causes other U.S. troops, who continue to fight on behalf of the freedom and security of our nation? Whether they are U.S. border patrol agents, members of the armed forces, or FBI agents, no individual who is serving on the frontlines in the War on Terror should be afforded anything less than a fair trial.

The Behennas and their many supporters have mobilized to help Michael and they urge everyone to contact his or her elected official to make sure that justice is done. And because the government has limitless resources but they don’t, they’ve established a Legal Defense Fund to help their efforts.

1LT Michael Behenna Legal Defense Fund
c/o Jack Dawson, co-trustee
100 Park Avenue, Second Floor
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102-8099

Rachel Lawrence Mor, co-trustee
3037 N.W. 63rd Street, Suite 251
Oklahoma City Oklahoma 73116
Please read Legal Disclosure before donating.

They’ve also promised to send a Defend Michael Wristband for any donation of $20 or more.

"If we fail to support those fighting for us, one day there will be no one to fight for us."

"Sacrificing our warriors to garner favorable world opinion, especially that of our enemies, is perceived as weakness not fairness."

The Story

An American Hero deserves a new trial Petition
Critical evidence was withheld by prosecutors during the trial of 1LT Michael Behenna. If you believe that soldiers who fight for our constitutional rights,

To read more about perversions of American warrior values go to
. . . to Betrayal at Haditha
Semper Fi? (Always Faithful?)
The Marines to the country, YES!
The nation to its Marines? NOT ALWAYS
and apparently not at Haditha, Iraq.


See the following links for "Action at Haditha" details:

More Recent Haditha Events:


Haditha, Four Years Later - 2009

Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich, the leader of the Platoon charged with counts of murder occurring in November 2005, in Haditha, Iraq, still has not had his day in a military court-martial. The loss of Iraqi civilian life occurred in November 2005, when members of his squad were clearing houses looking for the trigger man, who moments earlier had set off an IED that killed one Marine and severely wounded two others. There were two official military investigations of the incident, and an in-depth NCIS investigation, taking another year and a half to complete. However, 2007, the Hamdania murder cases were in the news, and the Marine Corps chose to take them to trial first, further delaying the Haditha cases.

Article 32 Hearings for Wuterich

In 2007, nearly two years later, the Article 32 hearings, similar to preliminary hearings, were underway with eight Haditha Marines facing charges. As rarely happens in the military justice system, the results of various Article 32 hearings led to 6 of 8 cases being dismissed. By the end of 2007, there remained only two Marines charged with manslaughter and failure to investigate, Staff Sergeant Wuterich and his Battalion Commander, LtCol Chessani, respectively.

Military Defense Lawyers

Staff Sergeant Wuterich’s civilian and military lawyers, Neal A. Puckett and Haytham Faraj, were ready for a court-martial in the spring of 2008, two and half years after the IED attack in Haditha. During the military court pre-trial hearings, the government subpoenaed the outtakes from the CBS 60 Minutes Interview. The judge quashed the subpoena. Another subpoena was also quashed on First Amendment grounds. The prosecutors appealed the military judges ruling twice, delaying swift justice for a Staff Sergeant Wuterich. The first appeal has now been appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The second appeal has just reached the first military appellate court. In the meantime, the Battalion commander’s case has been dismissed due to unlawful command influence, and Staff Sergeant Wuterich, who is not allowed to attend professional military education or be promoted, is still waiting to go into a military court, having waited three and half years. Most of the military lawyers involved with the case, including the military judge, have retired or transferred.

Silberberg / AP

Another event at Haditha:

A U.S. Marine inspects the remains of a vehicle destroyed by a roadside bomb. . . . Fourteen Marines and a civilian interpreter were killed in the blast near Haditha.
updated 6:06 a.m. PT, Thurs., Aug 4, 2005