The Infidel Task Force

Saturday, June 20, 2009


TEHRAN, Iran – Thousands of protesters defied Iran's highest authority Saturday and marched on waiting security forces that fought back with baton charges, tear gas and water cannons as the crisis over disputed elections lurched into volatile new ground."

Shall we salute and spiritually support the youth movement in Iran, for standing up against a bloodthirsty, corrupt, dictatorship in Iran?

Should Obama let it be known that the US is supporting this said movement?

Would Iran be better off with Musavi, instead of Amadinajhad?

Simple questions, right?

Not necessarily.....the answers are:




Yes, we should give our support and prayers for the students that are marching and fighting in the streets of Tehran. Reports coming in tell of up to 40 people may have been killed. Undocumented reports also state that helicopters may be pouring chemically enhanced agents from the air. Causing a burning sensation if it comes in contact with the flesh. Thank goodness the women are covered from head to toe.

Those youths that have hit the streets have been met with extreme violence form the police and the civilian militias. Baton wheeling thugs storming into buildings and hospitals seem to relish the though of cracking skulls and popping veins.

So, my answer to this question is...Yes. WE should be behind the protestors. Americans stand for liberty and we should support those that truly wish for it.

Second question? My answer is NO!! Obama has been, and should continue to maintain a moderatly neutral stance. His relationship with the current government depends on it. This "uprising" may fizzle out, as many have done before, and Obama will be weaker then he already is. Not to forget the Arab Islamists are a very un-grateful people. Just look at Iraq.

Not to mention that if Obama speaks out in support of the protestors, it will be just another case of Americans "meddling" in foreign affairs.

Better to keep your mouth shut and see what happens, then to play your cards now and end up the loser.

Last question...another resounding NO!!

NO! Iran would not be better if Musavi won over Amadinajhad. Why? Because they are ALL corrupt!!

Don't forget, Musavi was the last Prime Minister in Iran before the constitutional changes which removed the post of prime minister. And it was under Musavi that Iran started its nuclear programs. Like Ahmadinejad, Musavi said Iran will not halt its nuclear work, but suggested he would do more to assure the West it is not for bomb-making. Big freakin deal!!

Besides, its not the Iranian president that holds power, its the Islamic mullahs. And all they care about is the repression of women, and the elimination of Israel and the jewish race.

Iran would not be better off...well OK, maybe a little. But lets not be naive, the chances of the protestors getting what they wish is very slim. Changing regimes is even slimmer. Iran becoming a semi-democracy is non-existent.

So, we can support them, we can pray for them, we can wish them all the luck in the world. But as far as I'm concerned...they're on their own.

BlackbootJack 6/20/09

Monday, June 15, 2009

An Interview with the Religion of Peace

Where do you go to get the latest stats on Islamic terror attacks?
Where do you go to get all the resources on Islam?
What is the most quoted web site on the Internet when it comes to Radical Islam?

I managed to steal a little of this mans time to talk to the Infidel Task Force.

Come with us into the mind of the man who runs The Religion of Peace web site.

First of all I would like to thank you for taking the time to speak to the viewers of the Infidel Task Force. Your web site, The Religion of Peace, has always been a mainstay in the fight against radical Islam. How did you get the inspiration to create the site?


The on-going rate of violence in the name of Islam was an obvious inspiration for, but I should also credit the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) with opening my eyes to the reality of this religion.

Even in the aftermath of 9/11, I actually believed that Muslims would lead the battle against Islamic terrorism and root out the extremists. As it turns out, I simply didn’t understand Islam well enough to know that the Muslim world reserves its true outrage for issues that directly affect their religion – such as those involving cartoons and headscarves.

I began watching CAIR closely that September and was astonished by the complete lack of moral perspective with regard to the relatively trivial matters over which the group was soon back to complaining about following the horrific mass murder of 3,000 innocents in the name of Allah. Later, through studying the Qur’an, Hadith and Sira (biography of Muhammad), I came to better understand the narcissism that is deeply rooted in Islam.

You have reported on the atrocities of radical Islam for years now. Do you feel it can be a losing battle? Or are people waking up to see what Islam truly is?

Ultimately, Islam is its own worst enemy. The more people know about this 7th century desert invention, the more poorly it contrasts with Western liberal values (and common sense).

The success of Islam in the West depends largely on self-censorship and our own willingness to jettison critical thinking when it leads to politically incorrect conclusions. After all, there is a reason why Islam is strictly protected from intellectual dissent in Muslim countries – and it is certainly disappointing that there are some here who want to follow suit.

Still, it is getting harder for these types to deny the dysfunction of the Muslim world, including the widespread problem with devoutly religious terrorists. The challenge is in getting Westerners to see past the ‘multiculturalism barrier’ and recognize that the violence and despotism is ingrained in the legacy of Muhammad.

When it comes to the terror attacks by Islamic extremists, why is it that the United Nations remains silent?


Because the United Nations isn’t what people think it is.

The romantic fantasy is that the UN is an esteemed body of wise diplomats who gather unselfishly to scratch their beards and determine the common good for the world’s people according to the best intentions of their own citizens.

In actuality, the United Nations is a bloated, massively inefficient and corrupt organization with overpaid staff members and ambassadors who are more likely to be representing the interests of dictators than democracies – each of which count equally when it comes to wielding influence. It is an impotent body with a comical sense of self-importance.

The original ideals of the UN were junked a long time ago (although, to be fair, part of this was because of Cold War politics). Terrorism is not a priority with the organization because it does not serve the political interests of the majority.

But when Israel is attacked, the UN seems to have acquired a voice. Why is that?

The UN doesn’t acquire its voice unless Israel defends itself following an attack. Again, people have to understand that the organization is not about ideals, but about politics. Israel is a great example.

Since 1967, the UN has clearly thrown in with the Palestinians, pumping in billions of dollars, allowing their resources to be co-opted for military purposes and, of course, famously allowing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to dominate the Security Council agenda 3 to 1 over anything else happening in the world.

Taking a backseat to the Palestinian conflict – which has cost about 15,000 lives over the course of 60 years – has been the Darfur genocide, for example, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians have died since 2003. There is also the brutal occupation of Tibet by China and the displacement or forced internment of millions there, not to mention the millions of Hindus slaughtered and displaced by armed Muslims in Bangladesh, Pakistan and India.

The UN even sat idly by while 800,000 Rwandan Tutsis were massacred over the course of a few months in 1994 – after pulling its "peacekeepers" out of harms way, of course. The Hutu government conducting the genocide actually sat on the Security Council at the time!

The romanticism may persist, but the United Nations hasn’t been worth taking seriously in a very long time.

It has been said, that France is one generation away from Muslim majority. Brussels is at 49% Muslim, and the UK seems to have surrendered to the eventual. What can European countries do to stop the influx of Islam from taking over their countries?

In the past, if Europeans wanted to live, then they had to stand and fight. Either this lesson has been forgotten, or they no longer feel that their countries are worth saving.

My feeling is that despite their pride and emphasis on community, many in Europe are deeply selfish and simply unwilling to see past an individual desire for maximum personal comfort. Muslim immigration is ultimately driven by the demand of unrealistic social spending. Although this flawed system will eventually collapse on itself, importing Muslim labor is this generation’s way of pushing off the problems onto the next – even as it compounds them in the process.

Eventually the tipping point will be reached, and it will be too late, even if Europeans were suddenly willing to give up their free ride and take only what they earn in life. It is a sickening betrayal of their ancestors, who fought and died to keep them free from the Islamic threat, but for now, the demographic Jihad will continue unless the continent somehow manages to finds its backbone before it is fully doomed.

Then you think it’s too late?

For Europe? Probably so. To put it in medical terms, the Islamic virus is in the system and it is replicating much faster than anything else. Meanwhile, the host is conceding tissue and actually finding ways of neutralizing its own self-defense mechanisms (with creative accusations of "racism" and "fascism").

It doesn’t take a crystal ball to see where present trends will lead in Europe.

Since 9/11/01, there have been 13342 terror attacks around the world. Do you think the United States is due for another?

Future deadly Islamic terror attacks on U.S. soil are a certainty. In fact, there has already been one just this month (in Arkansas).

How soon it will be until another 9/11 may depend on just how serious our current leadership is about making the so-called "rights" of terrorists a higher priority than public safety. It amazes me that we have even reached this point.

President Obama recently gave a speech in Cairo to the Muslim world. How effective do you think the speech was? And how do you think the Islamic world will react to that speech?

It doesn’t really matter what he says. There is still no place in Islam for infidel to defend themselves against a Muslim enemy. As long as Americans fights back against Islamic terror, they will never have the support of the Muslim world.

As someone else once put it, terrorists are the military wing of mainstream Islam.

It has often been said, that the world will end, not with a bang, but with a whimper. Knowing what we know about radical Islam, do you still think that phrase is true?

By nature, the majority of people do not think long-term. It’s why poor choices are made in life, concerning finances and even matters more serious, where short-term gratification often rules. The frustration for those of us in the anti-Jihad movement is that we are not simply trying to get people to think long-term, but really long-term - well beyond their lifetime, in fact, to a future in which they may have no personal stake.

Westerners are largely obsessed with their own comfortable lifestyle. This, along with political correctness, makes it even more difficult to convince them that quality of life will deteriorate for future generations if present trends continue and we allow Muslim minorities to grow.

Think of the frog that is cooked in boiling water, because it doesn’t react to the gradual rise in temperature. Look at how this is happening in Europe. In each country, Muslims (collectively) are extremely petulant and demanding. Already, they constitute the most violent segment of the population, according to criminal statistics. Yet, Muslims are still able to convince themselves and others that it is all the fault of their hosts!

Will the Western world end with a whimper or a bang? Since it will be at the hands of Islam, I would predict plenty of both.

I know that the viewers reading this are thinking: "What can we do?"
Just what CAN we do to maintain our way of life, and prevent our culture from being taken away from us?

I always like to answer this question by first making it clear what shouldn’t be done. No Muslim should be harmed or harassed on account of religion. No property should be vandalized, nor should the Qur’an be desecrated.

The battle against Islam can only be won through truth and education. We must teach ourselves and others what it is about Islam that makes it dangerous. How we speak the truth is almost as important as what we say – so it should be with sensitivity, humility and balance.

Once again, let me thank you for chatting with us, and may I speak for everyone when I say, keep up the good work on The Religion of Peace.