Doc's Talk: UK jihad murderer: "I believe the best way to conduct any act is to copy Mohammed...I will never regret obeying the command of Allah"

Tuesday, December 10, 2013

UK jihad murderer: "I believe the best way to conduct any act is to copy Mohammed...I will never regret obeying the command of Allah"

The two jihad murderers at the scene of the murder

Watch for all the moderate Muslims in the UK and elsewhere to rush to explain how Muhammad would have deplored this murder -- no, wait...
"Lee Rigby trial: Live updates as defence case for Woolwich murder suspect Michael Adebolajo begins," by Natalie Evans and Peter Stubley for the Mirror, December 9 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

...Adebolajo denied trying to kill police and said he wanted martyrdom: "I would only be able to harm them if Allah gave me some super powers.... Adebolajo also criticised the use of drones to kill innocent civilians and accused Hamid Karzai, the leader in Afghanistan, of being a "puppet".
Mr Whittam said: "So you and your co-defendant decided to take the law into your own hands and kill a soldier?"
Adebolajo answered: "No. The law is with Allah. The truth is everyone will stand before Allah and then we will truly see who has the power. I obeyed Allah and that is the end of the story for me."...
Adebolajo said: "I could see through the cracked windscreen he was only partially conscious. On his duties he is likely to have killed. So to fight jihad is not just about is this man a danger to me, it is about the weak, the women and children."
Mr Whittam said: "He was not capable of harming you there and then was he?"
Adebolajo replied: "He was a soldier and I am a soldier. This is not a personal vendetta or whether I believe my life was in danger at that moment."

Mr Whittam added: "You then struck him repeatedly with the machete."
Adebolajo said: "There are many injuries your pathologist has claimed were on the body that I have no idea how they were on the body at all."
He continued to dispute that he caused all the injuries on the body as shown on the computerised graphics.
"I did not dispute that I killed him, I did not dispute that I struck him on the neck. I didn't want to turn the death of this soldier into a petty point scoring exercise as to who caused what injury.
"I struck at his neck."
Describing the attempted decapitation, Adebolajo said: "I believe the best way to conduct any act is to copy Mohammed. It was not for malice.
"After I struck at the neck, I used another of the knives to try to remove the head. I was unsuccessful with that attempt. I had already killed the soldier at the time my brother arrived at the time."
2:36 pm
The trial resumed with the cross-examination of Adebolajo prosecutor Richard Whittam QC.
Whittam said: "Which particular war were you fighting? If you are a soldier of Allah, who does that allow you to kill?"
Adebolajo replied: "In battles Mohammed has fought in he targeted the military. He does not fight civilians. Afghanistan is of course one of them. Just because I did not fight at this time does not mean it was not obligatory upon me to fight. To my understanding the war in Afghanistan is still ongoing."
Whittam asked: "What about Iraq?"
Adebolajo added: "'That war obviously had finished. My primary concern is Afghanistan and those unjust wars that are ongoing.
"The truth is that no muslim hopes to have to kill anybody. However just as general in British army who plans an attack knowing full well that people will die, this is what happens in war. When we target a soldier to take his life this is not a casual thing, it is a military operation."
He told the court: "Jihad is by its very nature, political. It's not something that is to be taken lightly. Those who are responsible for sending British troops to kill Muslims, it just so happens those people who have control over the military are in government."
Whittam said: "You chose to attack somebody in public in daylight hours. Having attempted to decapitate him, you threw his body in the road. You were doing that so people could see what you had done."
Adebolajo replied: "The truth is this, after the vehicle crashed I became aware that people thought what had occurred was just a car accident. The problem of this I could foresee people beginning to gather.
"I did not want a have a go hero. I decided to move the soldier's body into the road far away from me so that it became clear that anybody who approaches me they would be trying to harm me in some way."
Adebolajo refused to tell the court when he began plotting the attack.
1:00 pm
In cross-examination by Abbas Lakha QC, for Adebowale, Adebolajo confirmed there was no plan to kill a police officer, paramedic or member of the public.
Adebolajo said: "We knew whoever had the gun was more likely to obtain shahada [martyrdom]... this is as far as the discussion went."
He said he did try to obtain ammunition before the attack but added: "This was not to harm anyone. This was maybe to control the crowd, take a shot in the air."
Adebolajo will be cross-examined by the prosecutor Richard Whittam QC after lunch.
12:54 pm
He added: "The war continues, even to this day. It is a war between Islam and those militaries that invade Muslim lands."
Adebolajo suggested that he could have been charged with treason.
Asked what he thought should happen to him after the case, he said: "As an enemy soldier I believe either I should be ransomed to my mujahid brothers or I should be set free or I should be killed.'
Asked if he had any regrets, he paused before replying: "I will never regret obeying the command of Allah, so that's all I can say. I am doing what Allah commands me to do. I cannot do anything else. I don't consider I have a choice. It is compulsory upon me."
Asked about his feelings towards Lee Rigby's family, he said: "I have no animosity or bad feeling towards them, because every soldier has family. His family love him, just like I have family.
"I don't blame them, I do not wish bad or harm upon them. I killed somebody they love, but at the same time people I love or are dear to me are being killed as well. Muslims feel pain too."
12:47 pm
Gottlieb asked Adebolajo: "What is your defence to the charge of murder?"
Adebolajo replied: "In terms of the law? I am a soldier of Allah. I understand that some people might not recognise this as we do not wear fatigues... but we are still soldiers. To me this is all that matters. I do not take my definitions from the UN or anything like this."
He said he had never seen 'The Book of Jihad' or the copy of the Al Qaeda Inspire magazine found by police in his home.
He added: "I am pretty sure this has nothing to do with me."
Referring to bomb-making instructions, Gottlieb asked: "Did you ever consider using a bomb?"
He answered: "No. I have never learnt how to make a bomb so naturally it never came to my mind to use bombs to fight jihad."
12:26 pm
Adebolajo complained about David Cameron's reaction to the attack, telling the court: "He's clearly not listening or didn't see the footage we saw."
He said he had zero contact with Adebowale since his arrest as they have been kept in solitary confinement.
Adebolajo said he did not dispute the witness accounts or the injuries to Lee Rigby because they were not the "real issue".
He added: "I am a soldier and this is war... The real issue is can this conflict cease I believe it can. It needs David Cameron to make that decision."
12:16 pm
Adebolajo said he believed he would be shot dead by police and hoped that he would be accepted as a martyr.
Asked why he ran at the firearms officers, he said: "I wanted Allah to love me. I wanted Allah to laugh at me, so I ran towards him.
"It is forbidden for the mujahid to turn his back on the enemy. I had already made a promise that we would not turn our back on the enemy so I wanted Allah to laugh at me, if Allah laughs at me he will not throw me into the fire."
He praised the actions of the firearms officers who gave first aid to him at the scene, saying "I respect that. Every mujahid would respect that."...

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk