What a surprise! A band with a conservative message gets banned for having... an anti-jihadi message. Wow, never saw that coming, did you?
Stuck Mojo based in Atlanta, GA, stirred mass controversy earlier this month with the release of a video for the anti-Jihadist-themed song, 'Open Season', from their latest release entitled Southern Born Killers. Immediately after the video’s release via YouTube, the track skyrocketed into the “Most Viewed” video charts on the service. That is where the controversy began.
Upon seeing the popularity of the video, administrators at YouTube apparently blocked the video from appearing in the “Most Viewed” listings despite the viewing statistics warranting its inclusion in the Top 20. When word of this hit the conservative blogosphere, the fire was lit and support for the video, song and Stuck Mojo took off. Band leader and guitarist, Rich Ward, even appeared as a guest on Fox News’ “The Big Story with John Gibson” to discuss the video and band’s pro-American stance.
As a band that pioneered the mixture of heavy music with a rapper as a front man, Stuck Mojo has never shied away from being different. When you add into the mix that the band’s lyrics have a track record of being unapologetically conservative, it’s plain to see why controversy has always been close behind. With their strong support for the American armed forces, the generally liberal music media (and most fans) are now attacking the band with purpose; even going as far as to call the band racists despite the facts that the lead singer is black and, last time we checked, “Jihadist” isn’t a race!
This latest hypocrisy is too much, though, to let just slip by. The widely popular web site, iFilm.com, recently banned the video for 'Open Season' despite it having received many positive comments as well as overwhelming support from military personnel and others around the globe. Meanwhile, another music video, created by Jihadists themselves, showing the graphic murder of American soldiers remains available for viewing on the video service! It’s a double standard that is sick on every level.
You be the judge. At the bottom of this message are several links where you can view everything for yourself. We encourage you to read the lyrics to 'Open Season' and then check out the video. Then take a look at the disgusting murder of our soldiers that iFilm continues to support and you’ll see why we are livid. iFilm’s practices should be brought to the attention of their sponsors at a minimum. We are in a time of escalating global conflict and, in Stuck Mojo’s opinion, this company is acting clearly irresponsibly with their support of these murderers.
Find out more. Please take a moment to see exactly what is going on. And please, help the band spread the word about the blatant hypocrisy of iFilm and others who wish to silence the anti-Jihadist message of 'Open Season' and anyone else who recognizes that the enemy we face is real and not encumbered by political correctness as we are. Pass along this message and the links below.
Thank you. Sincerely, Stuck Mojo
Stuck Mojo Web Site: www.StuckMojo.us
(At this site you may also download the entire new album for free!)
Lyrics for 'Open Season': www.stuckmojomedia.com/sbk-lyrics.html#open
'Open Season' video on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymLJz3N8ayI
Stuck Mojo Discussion Forum: www.dukerocks.com/phpBB2
Discussions about 'Open Season' thread: www.dukerocks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3093
WARNING: The Jihadist-produced video, “Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Spoils of War,” on iFilm (linked below) is very graphic and very disturbing. We provide a link only as proof of the pro-Jihadist stance that iFilm has taken in this issue.)
Jihadist video “Mumia Abu-Jamal -- Spoils of War” on iFilm: www.ifilm.com/video/2708006update:Looks like the Mumia film has been removed, so feel free to disregard that link. I have had a cursory look for it, but not a very strenuous one. I'm not really into providing air time for pro-jihadi propaganda.
Apologies for the dodgy link.
And courtesy of Grimmy, you can see the Open Season CAIR remix: >here.
And So It Begins......
Yesterday's news contained this gem:
'Jesus' bashes Islamic school official
December 11, 2006 - 12:55PM
A board member at the Melbourne Islamic school which recently expelled students for desecrating the Bible has been bashed by a man who claims he's Jesus and who police fear is armed.
Samir Mohandis, a member of the board of the East Preston Islamic College, said he suffered head injures during the attack by an unknown assailant who entered the schoolground about 4.45pm on Friday.
Police said the attacker, a man aged in his 30s, appeared to have been holding a firearm.
The assailant was not known to Mr Mohandis nor did he say anything to indicate the attack may have been racially motivated, a police spokeswoman said.
Mr Mohandis told Southern Cross Broadcasting the man claimed to be Jesus.
He said security at the school would be increased.
"I still have scars to my head," he said.
The attacker is described as being about 180cm tall and of muscular build with a tattoo on his right forearm.
He had straight dark brown hair and at the time of the incident was wearing a grey t-shirt and dark trousers.
Anyone who may have seen the man in the vicinity of the school around the time of the incident should call Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000.
Two Muslim students were expelled from East Preston College earlier this month for urinating and spitting on a Bible and then setting it alight.
At the time, the college head, Shaheem Doutie, said the incident was isolated and the school had done all it could to punish the people involved.
And today we have another incident, albeit in another state
Teacher reprimanded over Muslim comment
December 11, 2006 - 3:10PM
The NSW Education Department is standing by its decision to reprimand rather than sack a Sydney schoolteacher who called a Muslim student a terrorist.
The NSW Teachers Federation praised the school for acting quickly but said it suspected the full circumstances of the case had not been reported.
Wagih Fares, 16, remains angry, however, his legal studies teacher kept his job at Blakehurst High School, in Sydney's south.
Wagih told The Daily Telegraph newspaper that following a classroom incident teacher Michael Seymour said: "I'm not negotiating with a terrorist."
The teenager said Mr Seymour followed him as he ran outraged from the school and tried to apologise.
The Department of Education confirmed it had investigated the incident and reprimanded the teacher, who was also counselled and ordered to attend a multicultural sensitivity course.
"The Department considers the comment unacceptable and insensitive and does not condone it," a spokeswoman said.
"The teacher has been reprimanded for the comment and has offered an apology to the student and his family."
But Wagih is unhappy with the way the department handled the investigation and said he had lodged a complaint with the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board.
"To come to the school and to be called a terrorist as if I've been... (trails off)," Wagih told the Ten Network.
"I've done nothing wrong and to be called that word it's painful. It is painful, that's a good word to describe it, disgusted, it's still hitting me now, it still gets me now."
The department spokeswoman said the school had tried a number of times to arrange mediation between the student, his family and the teacher.
"The family have to date refused to mediate the matter," she said.
President of the NSW Teachers Federation Maree O'Halloran said it was important the school had responded swiftly, adding the teacher himself had immediately acknowledged his mistake.
"It hasn't been let pass, there's been a recognition that what happened was not right and something was put in place immediately, it wasn't allowed to fester," Ms O'Halloran said.
"It was not condoned and the teacher himself has recognised there was a problem."
Ms O'Halloran said while she did not know the specifics of the case herself, she questioned whether the full details had been reported.
"You have to bear in mind ... that you have to get all the circumstances and all the facts before you can make informed comment," she said.
Chairman of the Anti-Discrimination Board Stepan Kerkyasharian said he could neither confirm nor deny if he had received Wagih's complaint, as all complaints were treated in confidence.
A complainant might be offered cash compensation by the subject of the complaint during the conciliation process, he said.
If conciliation failed, they could be awarded up to $40,000 by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.
No doubt this is one occasion where young Wagih should have been living here in Brackistan, but I'm sure they can find a way to hound the teacher out of his livelihood and make an example of him.
As noted above, there has been attempt at mediation, which the family have refused.
Also as noted above, we don't know the complete set of circumstances. That would be something to keep an eye out for.
Of course, being a member of the VRWC and more than a touch cynical after too many hours learning about our so-called War on Terror and the Religion of Peace, I could be accused of suspecting the beginning of a change of tactics.
After Sheikh Hilaly's assertions that women who were not sitting at home or were out and about in Freedom Sacks
if they got raped and the accompanying uproar, it should be obvious a change in direction is required if the requirement for dawa
What better way to raise the profile of islam? Not that it wasn't high enough already, that is.
Anyone familiar with the practices of CAIR (google it, I won't be linking to the Council on American-Islamic Relations) would also be aware of the exhortation to escalate any misdemeanour or slip of the tongue to the status of hate crime or assault or vilification or....... ad infinitum.
Use the laws of the land to push through changes inimical to the native (ie infidel) population.
Marine Corps Entrance Exam.
MARINE CORPS ENTRANCE EXAM
Subject: Marine Entrance Exam
Time Limit: 3 weeks
1. What language is spoken in France?
2. Give a dissertation on the ancient Babylonian Empire with particular reference to architecture, literature, law and social conditions-OR-give the first name of Pierre Trudeau.
3.Would you ask William Shakespeare to:
___a. build a bridge
___b. sail the ocean
___c. lead an army or
___d. WRITE A PLAY!!!!
4. What religion is the Pope?(check only one)
5. Metric conversion. How many feet is 0.0 meters?
6.What time is it when the big hand is on the 12 and the little hand is on the 5?
7. How many commandments was Moses given?(approximately)
8. What are people in America's far north called?
9. Spell: Bush, Carter, and Clinton
10. Six kings of England have been called George, the last one being George the Sixth. Name the previous five:
11. Where does rain come from?
____b. a 7-11
____d. the sky
12. Can you explain Einstein's Therory of Relativity?
13. What are coat hangers for?
14. The Star Spangled Banner is the National Anthem for what country?
15. Explain Le Chateliers Principle of Dynamic Equilibrium-OR-spell your name in BLOCK LETTERS.
16. Where is the basement in a three story building located?
17. Which part of America produces the most oranges?
____a. New York
18. Advanced math. If you have three apples, how many apples do you have?
19. What does NBC(National Broadcasting Corporation) stand for?
20. The Cornell University tradition for efficiency began when(approximately)?
*You must correctly answer three or more questions to qualify.
A Look At US Strategy In Iraq.
This sent shivers down my spine, as it no doubt will any card-carrying member of the VRWC. I'm well aware that there are people out there in our world who think that this is an okay way to run a war, but I'm a long way from their view of things.
I believe that this is a perspective that we need to look closely at, and it raises a few questions that need some serious answers.
The biggest question is whether the American people are game enough to ask them.
Many are, but how many more are not?
Next would be the obvious one about how this affects allies such as we Aussies, and how prepared we are to take on the consequences.
As they say in legal studies, ignorance is no excuse, so enjoy a bit of a learning experience.
via email:US Strategy in Iraq
9 November 2006
Many of our faculty and staff have asked me my views about the current situation in Iraq. A few students have also asked. So I thought I would take this opportunity, two days before Veterans' Day, to provide you with some insights as seen from the perspective of a combat veteran who served as the Commanding General of US and allied forces in Iraq. I also served as Chief of War Plans in the Pentagon and have spent considerable time studying national security affairs, including a fellowship at the National Defense University. So while it's true that everyone has opinions about Iraq, I would argue that not all of those opinions are equally well-informed.
This talk will address our strategy in Iraq. I won't talk about what the next steps should be, what the long-term prospects for peace in Iraq are, or how we can best get out of the quagmire we are in. Those might be other talks. For today I'm going to focus on strategy
Let me begin by saying that most of our problems in Iraq stem from a flawed strategy that has been in place since the beginning of the war.
It's important that you understand what strategy is. In military terminology there is a distinction between strategy, operations, tactics, and techniques.
Strategy pertains to national decision-making at the highest level. For example, our strategy in World War II was to mobilize the nation, then defeat the Nazi regime while conducting a holding action in the Pacific, then shift our forces to destroy the Japanese Empire. Afterwards, our strategy was to rebuild both defeated nations into capitalistic democracies in order to make them future allies.
An example of an operational decision from World War II would be the decision to invade North Africa and then Italy and Southern France before moving directly for the heart of Germany by coming ashore in Northern France or Belgium.
Tactics characterize a scheme of maneuver that integrates the different capabilities of, for example, infantry, armor, and artillery.
A technique might describe a way of employing machine guns with overlapping fields of fire or of setting up a roadblock.
Our strategy in Iraq has been:
1. fight the war on the cheap;
2. ask the ground forces to perform missions that are more suitably performed by other branches of the American government;
3. inconvenience the American people as little as possible, and
4. continue to fund the Air Force and Navy at the same levels that they have been funded at for the last 30 years while shortchanging the Army and Marines who are doing all of the fighting.
No wonder the war is not going well.
Let me explain how the war is being fought on the cheap.
From the very beginning, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who thankfully announced his departure yesterday, has striven to minimize the number of soldiers and Marines in Iraq. Instead of employing the Colin Powell doctrine of 'use massive force at the beginning to achieve a quick and decisive victory.' His goal has been 'use no more troops than absolutely necessary so we can spend defense dollars on new technology.
Before hostilities began, the Army Chief of Staff, Eric Shinseki, testified before Congress that an occupation of Iraq would require hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Shinseki made his estimate based on his extensive experience in the former Yugoslavia where he worked to disengage the warring factions of Orthodox Serbians, Catholic Croatians, and Muslim Kosovars.
Shinseki also had available the results of a wargame conducted in 1999 that involved 70 military, diplomatic, and intelligence officials. This recently declassified study concluded that 400,000 troops on the ground were needed to keep order, seal borders, and take care of other security needs. And even then stability would not be guaranteed.
Because of his testimony before Congress, Rumsfeld moved Shinseki aside. In a nearly unprecedented move, to replace Shinseki, Rumsfeld recalled from active duty a retired general who was more likely to accept his theory that we could win a war in Iraq and establish a stable government with a small number of troops.
The Defense Department has fought the war on the cheap because, despite overwhelming evidence that the Army and Marine Corps need a significant increase in their size in order to accomplished their assigned missions, the civilian officials who run the Pentagon have refused to request authorization from Congress to do so. Two Democratic representatives, Mark Udall from Colorado and Ellen Tauscher of California, have introduced a bill into Congress that would add 80,000 troops to the end-strength of the active Army. Currently, this bill has no support from the Defense Department.
When I was commissioned in 1969 the Army was one and a half million. Despite the fact that we're engaged in combat in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Philippines, and committed to peacekeeping missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Sinai, and on operational deployments in over 70 countries, our Army is now less than one third that size. We had more soldiers in Saudi Arabia in the first Gulf war than we have in the entire Army today. In fact, Wal-Mart has three times as many employees as the American Army has soldiers.
As late as 1990, Army end-strength was approximately 770,000. With fewer than a half-million today, defense analysts have argued that we need to add nearly 200,000 soldiers to the active ranks.
Today, the Army is so bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq that fewer than 10,000 soldiers are ready and able to deal with any new crisis elsewhere in the world. And because the Army is so small, after only a year at home units are returning to Iraq for a second and even a third 12-month tour of duty.
Let me add a parenthetical note here explaining a difference between our services. Army tours of duty in Iraq are for 12 or 13 months. For Marines it's normally six months. For Air Force personnel it's typically four months. So when a soldier says he's going back to Iraq for his third tour, it means something totally different than when an airman says the same thing.
Because the active force is too small, the mission of our National Guard and reserve forces has been changed. Their original purpose was to save the nation in time of peril. Today they serve as fillers for an inadequately sized active force. This change in mission has occurred with no national debate and no input from Congress.
We have fought the war on the cheap because we have never adequately funded the rebuilding of the Iraqi military or the training and equipping of the Iraqi police forces. The e-mails I receive from soldiers and Marines assigned to train Iraqi forces all complain of their inadequate resources because they are at the very bottom of the supply chain and the lowest priority.
We have fought the war on the cheap because we have failed to purchase necessary equipment for our troops or repair that which has been broken or a worn out in combat. You've all read the stories about soldiers having to purchase their own bulletproof vests and other equipment. And the Army Chief of Staff has testified that he needs an extra $17 billion to fix equipment. For example, nearly 1500 war-fighting vehicles await repair in Texas with 500 tanks sitting in Alabama.
Finally, we are fighting this war on the cheap because our defense budget of 3.8% of gross domestic product is too small. In the Kennedy administration it averaged 9% of GDP. The average defense budget in the post Vietnam era, from 1974 to 1994, was about 5.8% of GDP. If we are in a global war against radical Islam, and we are, then we need a defense budget that reflects wartime requirements.
A second part of our strategy is to ask the military to perform missions that are more appropriate for other branches of government.
Our Army and Marine Corps are taking the lead in such projects as building roads and sewage treatment plants, establishing schools, training a neutral judiciary, and developing a modern banking system.
The press refers to these activities as nation-building. Our soldiers and Marines are neither equipped nor trained to do these things. They attempt them, and in general they succeed, because they are so committed and so obedient. But it is not what they do well and what only they alone can do.
But I would ask, where are our Department of Energy and Department of Transportation in restoring Iraqi infrastructure? What's the role of our Department of Education in rebuilding an Iraqi educational system?
What does our Department of Justice do to help stand up an impartial judicial system?
Where is the US Information Agency in establishing a modern equivalent of Radio Free Europe? And why did it take a year after the end of the active fighting for the State Department to assume responsibility from the Department of Defense in setting up an Iraqi government? These other US government agencies are only peripherally and secondarily involved in Iraq.
Actually, it would be inaccurate to say that the American government is at war. The U.S. Army is at war. The Marine Corps is at war. And other small elements of our armed forces are at war. But our government is not.
A third part of our strategy is to inconvenience the American people as little as possible.
Ask yourself, are you at war? What tangible effect is this war having on your daily life? What sacrifices have you been asked to make for the sake of this war other than being inconvenienced at airports? No, America is not a war. Only a small number of young, brave, patriotic men and women, who bear the burden of fighting and dying, are at war.
A fourth aspect of our strategy is to fund Navy and Air Force budgets at prewar levels while shortchanging the Marine Corps and the Army that are doing the fighting.
This strategy, of spending billions on technology for a Navy and Air Force that face no threat, contributes mightily to our failures in Iraq.
Secretary Rumsfeld is a former Navy pilot. His view of the battlefield is from 10,000 feet, antiseptic and surgical. Since coming into office he has funded the Air Force and the Navy at the expense of the Army and Marines because he believes technological leaps will render ground forces obsolete.
He assumed that the rapid victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan confirmed this belief.
For example, the Defense Department is pouring billions into buying the newest fighter aircraft, at $360 million each, to take on a non-existent enemy Air Force.
But, for pilots like Rumsfeld, war is all about technology. It's computers, it's radar, and it's high tech weapons. Technologists have a hard time comprehending the motivations of a suicide bomber or a mother who celebrates the death of her son in such a way. It's difficult for them to understand that to overcome centuries of ethnic hatred and murder it will take more than one generation. It's hard for them to accept that for young men with little education, no wives or children, and few job prospects, war against the West is the only thing that gives meaning to their lives.
But war on the ground is not conducted with technology. It is fought by 25-year-old sergeants leading 19-year-old soldiers carrying rifles, in a dangerous and alien environment, where you can't tell combatants from noncombatants, Shiites from Sunnis, or suicide bombers from freedom seeking Iraqis. This means war on the street is neither antiseptic nor surgical.
It's dirty, complicated, and fraught with confusion and error.
In essence, our strategy has been produced by men whose view of war is based on their understanding of technology and machinery, not their knowledge of men from an alien culture and the forces which motivate them.
They fail to appreciate that if you want to hold and pacify a hostile land and a hostile people you need soldiers and Marines on the ground and in the mud, and lots of them.
In summary, our flawed strategy in Iraq has produced the situation we now face. This strategy is a product of the Pentagon, not the White House. And remember, the Pentagon is run by civilian appointees in suits, not military men and women in uniform. From the very beginning Defense Department officials failed to appreciate what it would take to win this war.
The US military has tried to support this strategy because they are trained and instructed to be subordinate to and obedient to civilian leadership.
And the American people want it that way. The last thing you want is a uniformed military accustomed to debating in public the orders of their appointed civilian masters. But retired generals and admirals are starting to speak out, to criticize the strategy that has produced our current situation in Iraq.
But, if we continue to fight the war on the cheap, if we continue to avoid involving the American people by asking them to make any sacrifice at all, if we continue to spend our dollars on technology while neglecting the soldiers and Marines on the ground, and if we fail to involve the full scope of the American government in rebuilding Iraq, then we might as well quit, and come home. But, what we have now is not a real strategy - it's business as usual.