Melanie Phillips Is Right Again - America Has Screwed Up Big Time
Melanie Phillips drops some serious
science on the U.S.
In truth, the Americans could hardly be doing more to lose the support even of those who understand and back what they are trying to do in Iraq. Those pictures of the tortured Iraqis are as sickening and appalling as they are catastrophic. Okay, this was -- we are told -- an isolated and wholly unrepresentative incident. And yes, a number of US soldiers are now facing criminal charges and courts-martial as a result. But that still doesn't lessen the shock and disgust that this can have happened at all. As if the torture wasn't bad enough, the images of the soldiers taunting those Iraqi captives and fooling about in front of them for the cameras bespeak a loss of simple humanity and civilised values here which is deeply, deeply disturbing. What kind of society produces such dehumanisation? It's not enough to be alarmed at the likely damaging effect such images will have on the Arab and Muslim world. We should be alarmed and deeply ashamed about what they say about western values.
I concur, almost completely. However, I must make two statements.
1) The question: "What kind of society produces such dehumanisation?" can elicit only a complex answer. The answer isn't simply, "an inhuman society." It is that, in my opinion, only to some degree. In addition, it is a society which promotes individuality, which has the messy consequence of producing people who decide they can take the law into their own hands. And it is also, simply true that
any society will produce people who are going to seek revenge, or more precisely,
every society includes people who would do monstrous things in the name of revenge. You will note that I never posted anything about the Iraqi's who stomped on the corpses of the dead American soldiers, and strung them up from a bridge. Why? Because there are monsters in every society.
2) We should be "alarmed and deeply ashamed." However, we should also realize that not only does a society define itself by the bad things it does, but a society also defines itself by how it, in the end, deals with and reconciles the bad things it does. That remains to be seen.
The soldiers responsible for this should be punished severely.
And finally I must say this, if Europe is a old senile lady, then America is a horny, pumped up 18 year old guy out for a night on the town.
"No, no, no, don't sell him that 24 pack. Oh jeez, why'd you sell that to him? Don't you know what they do when they drink?"
Islamic "Conference on Tolerance" Calls for Incorporation of Sharia into International Law
From Islam Online comes this
glorious news:
CAIRO, April 30 (IslamOnline.net) –
World Muslim scholars meeting in Cairo
urged incorporation of Sharia into the International Law to avoid eruption of more crises or other forms of injustice.
"Some western researchers have found out that Islamic principles could be used to develop the International Law and incorporate its moral values into it," said Jaafar Abdel-Salam, the secretary general of the Islamic Universities Association.
He was speaking
at the International Islamic Conference,
held in Cairo from April 28 till May 1 under the title of "Tolerance in Islamic Civilization".
Addressing the sixteenth session of the Conference, Abdel-Salam, himself a professor of International Law, said the application of Sharia along with the International Law would help set up a world system "turning countries closer to each other".
"Islam, with its practices, is the best of international systems that could achieve peace," said Mohamed Dissouki, an International Law professor at Al-Azhar University, in the conference.
Yeah, Mohammed. Look what a wonderful job Islam is already doing of acheiving peace. Most every conflict going on in the world today, from Chechneya to Nigeria to Sudan to Israel to Indonesia to the Phillipines to Malaysia to Algeria to Australia to Bosnia, etc, etc, etc, has Islam at it's root. That's a fact.
Empirically, that doesn't mean that Islam is inherently flawed anymore than Christianity was when it used it's doctrines as incitement against Jews during the Middle Ages. However, it does mean that Islam needs some sort of Reformation.
It's got to happen, Mohammed. Why don't you get to work on that instead of trying to establish Sharia Law in the World Court?
Sharia Law, for anyone who doesn't know, advocates the cutting off of one's hand as a punishment for stealing, and it advocates stoning as a punishment for adultery.
Hat Tip to Allah
Dateline: Russia - Jewish Cemetary Desecrated
Wasn't it just yesterday I was saying, "Today is a pretty good day?" Did the announcement from the Conference on Anti-Semitism inspire this cemetary desecration?
Look at
this.
Dateline: France - 127 Gravesites Desecrated In Jewish Cemetary
Swastikas and SS symbols painted on 127 tombstones. A German flag with the words "One People, One Reigh, One Fuhrer," emblozoned in German. The words Juden Raus (Jews Out) painted on a tombstone. Go
here for the photo. And check
this out.
Don't you wonder what that old Jewish man is thinking. He looks to be old enough to remember, if not have lived through, the Holocaust.
I'm guessing he's wondering if it's going to happen again.
Also go to Merde In France, and Allah for a little more info.
Great News - Give Thanks When Thanks Is Due - Thank You Europe Even If It's Not Perfect
This is from the Jerusalem Post:
Jewish leaders won a major victory in Europe Thursday with the announcement of a major European political body, that Israel's actions do not justify anti-Semitism.
The statement that, "international development or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism" was released at the end of a two-day conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin hosted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
It further said, "Anti-Semitism following its most devastating manifestation during the Holocaust, has assumed new forms and expressions, which along with other forms of intolerance, pose a threat to democracy, the values of civilization and, therefore, to overall security in the OSCE region and beyond."
The statement marks the first time that European leaders have agreed with Jewish and Israeli ones that a new form of anti-Semitism has emerged in the last few years in which violence against Jews has been justified as an emotional reaction to the crisis in the Middle East.
"Anti-Semitism is a challenge to us all and I'm gratified that it has been recognized here," said Minister-Without-Portfolio Natan Sharansky (Likud).
He identified for OSCE members the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.
"Israel welcomes criticism from within and without," said Sharansky. But that criticism becomes dangerous when it crosses over into anti-Semitism, he added. Demonisation of the state and its leaders by comparing them Nazi's or Hitler is anti-Semitism as is saying that Palestinian refugee camps are the equivalent of Auschwitz.
"Refugee camps are very tough places and the problems around them are legitimate," said Sharansky. But when one moves from tackling the problem to the use of Holocaust language, the discussion becomes anti-semitic.
Another clear sign of anti-Semitism is a double standard or treating Jews differently. It is anti-Semitism when Israel is condemned by international organizations more than any other country or when the Red Cross refused to allow the Jewish Star to appear on its ambulances even though other symbols can be used.
The line into anti-Semitism is also crossed when arguments are made that the State of Israel does not have the right to exist, said Sharanksy.
The conference also "condemned without reservation all manifestations of anti-Semitism and all other acts of intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief, wherever they occur."
It further stated that it also "condemns all attacks motivated by anti-Semitism or by any other forms of religious or racial hatred or intolerance, including attacks against synagogues and other religious places, sites and shrines."
US and German politicians were among the few who warned against the dangers of a new anti-Semitism, used to bash Israel, when they spoke on Wednesday to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. But the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures," said US Secretary of State Colin Powell before OSCE's conference on anti-Semitism.
He asked OSCE to "declare with one voice, 'Anti-Semitism shall have no place among us. Hate shall find no home within a Europe whole, free, and at peace.'"
But some of OSCE's 55 states, which gathered here for the two-day conference, were far from united on the issue as they argued away from the cameras over the question of whether hatred of Israel can be labeled anti-Semitic.
The fear among those who believe anti-Israel feelings have replaced the traditional hatred of Jews is that the conference will fail to take a stand when it releases its joint statement on Thursday. Turkey is reportedly leading the charge against labeling certain forms of Israel bashing as anti-Semitic.
Studies done by many monitoring groups show a stark rise in anti-Semitism since September 2000.
Most of the leaders who spoke about the dangers of anti-Semitism centered their remarks on the dangers of traditional anti-Semitism. High-ranking politicians vowed that Europe and the rest of the world would never again remain silent in the face of anti-Semitism.
But they avoided both the link with the conflict in the Middle East and that with the growing Muslim population in Europe.
Jewish leaders at the conference were grateful to see OSCE leaders take a stand against anti-Semitism. But they felt they went only half way by failing to highlight the anti-Semitism present in attacks against Israel and the threat to Jews posed by Islamic extremists.
The problem of modern anti-Semitism can't be solved until these two issues are taken seriously, said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Among those who spoke out against the threat of the new anti-Semitism was German President Johannes Rau, who said it is important to distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. Still, he said that "massive anti-Semitism" is behind much of the opposition to Israeli policy.
Powell said that "We must send the clear message to extremists of the political right and the political Left alike that all those who use hate as a rallying cry dishonor themselves and dishonor their cause. We must not permit anti-Semitic crimes to be shrugged off as inevitable side effects of inter ethnic conflicts. Political disagreements do not justify physical assaults against Jews in our streets, the destruction of Jewish schools, or the desecration of synagogues and cemeteries. There is no justification for anti-Semitism.
"When President [George W.] Bush visited the Auschwitz death camp last year, he renewed the United States' commitment to oppose anti-Semitism with these words: 'This site is a sobering reminder that, when we find anti-Semitism, whether it be in Europe, in America, or anywhere else, mankind must come together to fight such dark impulses.' "
Today is a pretty good day.
Great News - Give Thanks When Thanks Is Due - Thank You Europe Even If It's Not Perfect
Jewish leaders won a major victory in Europe Thursday with the announcement of a major European political body, that Israel's actions do not justify anti-Semitism.
The statement that, "international development or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism" was released at the end of a two-day conference on Anti-Semitism in Berlin hosted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
It further said, "Anti-Semitism following its most devastating manifestation during the Holocaust, has assumed new forms and expressions, which along with other forms of intolerance, pose a threat to democracy, the values of civilization and, therefore, to overall security in the OSCE region and beyond."
The statement marks the first time that European leaders have agreed with Jewish and Israeli ones that a new form of anti-Semitism has emerged in the last few years in which violence against Jews has been justified as an emotional reaction to the crisis in the Middle East.
"Anti-Semitism is a challenge to us all and I'm gratified that it has been recognized here," said Minister-Without-Portfolio Natan Sharansky (Likud).
He identified for OSCE members the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.
"Israel welcomes criticism from within and without," said Sharansky. But that criticism becomes dangerous when it crosses over into anti-Semitism, he added. Demonisation of the state and its leaders by comparing them Nazi's or Hitler is anti-Semitism as is saying that Palestinian refugee camps are the equivalent of Auschwitz.
"Refugee camps are very tough places and the problems around them are legitimate," said Sharansky. But when one moves from tackling the problem to the use of Holocaust language, the discussion becomes anti-semitic.
Another clear sign of anti-Semitism is a double standard or treating Jews differently. It is anti-Semitism when Israel is condemned by international organizations more than any other country or when the Red Cross refused to allow the Jewish Star to appear on its ambulances even though other symbols can be used.
The line into anti-Semitism is also crossed when arguments are made that the State of Israel does not have the right to exist, said Sharanksy.
The conference also "condemned without reservation all manifestations of anti-Semitism and all other acts of intolerance, incitement, harassment or violence against persons or communities based on ethnic origin or religious belief, wherever they occur."
It further stated that it also "condemns all attacks motivated by anti-Semitism or by any other forms of religious or racial hatred or intolerance, including attacks against synagogues and other religious places, sites and shrines."
US and German politicians were among the few who warned against the dangers of a new anti-Semitism, used to bash Israel, when they spoke on Wednesday to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
"It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. But the line is crossed when Israel or its leaders are demonized or vilified, for example by the use of Nazi symbols and racist caricatures," said US Secretary of State Colin Powell before OSCE's conference on anti-Semitism.
He asked OSCE to "declare with one voice, 'Anti-Semitism shall have no place among us. Hate shall find no home within a Europe whole, free, and at peace.'"
But some of OSCE's 55 states, which gathered here for the two-day conference, were far from united on the issue as they argued away from the cameras over the question of whether hatred of Israel can be labeled anti-Semitic.
The fear among those who believe anti-Israel feelings have replaced the traditional hatred of Jews is that the conference will fail to take a stand when it releases its joint statement on Thursday. Turkey is reportedly leading the charge against labeling certain forms of Israel bashing as anti-Semitic.
Studies done by many monitoring groups show a stark rise in anti-Semitism since September 2000.
Most of the leaders who spoke about the dangers of anti-Semitism centered their remarks on the dangers of traditional anti-Semitism. High-ranking politicians vowed that Europe and the rest of the world would never again remain silent in the face of anti-Semitism.
But they avoided both the link with the conflict in the Middle East and that with the growing Muslim population in Europe.
Jewish leaders at the conference were grateful to see OSCE leaders take a stand against anti-Semitism. But they felt they went only half way by failing to highlight the anti-Semitism present in attacks against Israel and the threat to Jews posed by Islamic extremists.
The problem of modern anti-Semitism can't be solved until these two issues are taken seriously, said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
Among those who spoke out against the threat of the new anti-Semitism was German President Johannes Rau, who said it is important to distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel. Still, he said that "massive anti-Semitism" is behind much of the opposition to Israeli policy.
Powell said that "We must send the clear message to extremists of the political right and the political Left alike that all those who use hate as a rallying cry dishonor themselves and dishonor their cause. We must not permit anti-Semitic crimes to be shrugged off as inevitable side effects of inter ethnic conflicts. Political disagreements do not justify physical assaults against Jews in our streets, the destruction of Jewish schools, or the desecration of synagogues and cemeteries. There is no justification for anti-Semitism.
"When President [George W.] Bush visited the Auschwitz death camp last year, he renewed the United States' commitment to oppose anti-Semitism with these words: 'This site is a sobering reminder that, when we find anti-Semitism, whether it be in Europe, in America, or anywhere else, mankind must come together to fight such dark impulses.' "
Hilary Clinton Says Interview With Arab Newspaper Never Happened
Hilary Clinton has denied that the interview with Arab newspaper Asharq al-Awsat ever took place. I believe her.
As I said, the idea that she would do such a thing seemed hard to believe because she really wouldn't have stood to gain from such a move.
Have They Been Hovering Around Your Nuclear Facilities
By Any Chance?
Reuters reports that "flying saucer fever" has gripped Iran:
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Is Iran about to be invaded by little green men or are the Americans racing through the night sky in spaceships to spy on the Islamic Republic?
Flying saucer fever has gripped Iran after dozens of sightings in the last few days. Fanciful cartoons of alien spacecraft have adorned the front pages.
State television on Wednesday showed a sparkling white disc it said was filmed over Tehran on Tuesday night.
More colorful Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) have been spotted beaming out green, red, blue and purple rays over the northern cities of Tabriz and Ardebil and in the Caspian Sea province of Golestan, the official IRNA news agency reported.
Newspapers and agencies reported people rushing out into the streets in eight towns on Tuesday night to watch a bright extraterrestrial light dipping in and out of the clouds.
An airforce officer in the Revolutionary Guards was quoted in the reformist Vagha-ye Etefaghiyeh daily saying Iran's Supreme National Security Council should investigate whether these visitors from afar had hostile intent.
Hostile Intent? I'm surprised the inevitable Zionist Plot hasn't been brought up... yet. I mean, for once, they don't bring it up, and yet, I believe soon they will be seeing "Unidentified Flying Objects" swooping down on their country and
blasting their nuclear development facilities right out of existence.
The American Press Lies To Us About The War
Hat Tip to InstaPundit for making me aware of this
quote from Donald Rumsfeld regarding
blatant anti-American bias in the press:
To get a sense of the stark contrast between the good that coalition forces are doing in Iraq and the tactics that the enemy has used consistently, if one thinks back, they used hospitals, they used mosques, they used schools as weapons locations and fortresses to fight from throughout the time of the invasion. The photo of terrorists using a mosque in Najaf as a base for attacks against our forces is an example of what we're finding. There have been additional attacks taken from mosques in Fallujah, and I believe there have been embedded reporters who have been able to -- as well as combat camera -- able to make some of that available to the American people.
There are two ways, I suppose, one could inform readers of the Geneva Convention stipulation against using places of worship to conduct military attacks. One might be to headline saying that Terrorists Attack Coalition Forces From Mosques. That would be one way to present the information.
Another might be to say: Mosques Targeted in Fallujah. That was the Los Angeles Times headline this morning.
I also aspire to one day possess Rumsfeld's verbally eviscerate idiocy.
Saudi Jew Hatred
National Review published an important
article concerning Saudi Royal (read "Offical State Jew Hatred"):
The Saudi royal family has been on the forefront of espousing an extreme position of hatred toward Jews, influencing the kingdom's educational system, media, and mosques, as well as its foreign and domestic policy.
In its first attempt to attract tourists to the country, Saudi Arabia's tourist commission, under the control of Prince Sultan bin Abd Al-Aziz launched an official website in March 2004. The website listed those not allowed into the kingdom: "Israeli passport holders or those whose passport has an Israeli arrival/departure stamp; those who do not abide by the Saudi traditions concerning appearance and behavior; those under the influence [of alcohol]; and Jewish people."
The Saudi embassy's Washington, D.C. spokesman, Nail Al-Jubeir, said he was "stunned" when he saw the website; and the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan, said he was "embarrassed." According to a press release by the Saudi embassy, "the information on the website was not correct and as a consequence the erroneous material was removed."
The ambassador's father, Prince Sultan, who serves as secretary general of the tourism commission, said in a statement that the controversy was "blown out of all proportions" by U.S. media seeking to portray the kingdom as anti-Semitic. He added, "...It is all part of a smear campaign meant to tarnish Saudi Arabia's image."
Prince Sultan — who is also second deputy prime minister, defense and aviation minister, and inspector general of Saudi Arabia — has been making statements against Jews for years. Following a ceremony at the Saudi Public Institution for Military Industries in June 2002, when asked about U.S. criticism of Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan replied to the Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, "It is enough to see a number of congressmen wearing Jewish yarmulkes to explain the allegations against us." More recently, the Saudi royal family website 'Ain-Al-Yaqeen, quoted Prince Sultan as saying that the U.S. media, which is "under the Jewish influence," is using the U.S. reform initiative to widen the gap between Arab countries and the U.S.
Saudi Minister of the Interior Prince Naif bin Abd Al-Aziz, Sultan's brother, has also made accusations against the Jews. In what has since become an infamous interview reported in Ain-Al-Yaqeen a year after 9/11, Naif explained that Arabs were not involved in the attacks: "We put big question marks and ask who committed the events of September 11 and who benefited from them. Who benefited from events of 9/11? I think they [the Jews] are behind these events."
Saudi kings have also been known for holding extreme anti-Semitic views. Saudi Princess Fahda bint Saud ibn Abd Al-Aziz — who's been described as "the daughter of King Saud and the historian of her father's reign" and who appears occasionally in the Saudi media — has written that her father's views on the Jews and Israel still serve as inspiration for the Arab and Muslim world. In one article, she explained that King Saud called the Jewish state a deadly disease that would never be accepted by Arabs. "...King Saud made the right diagnosis: 'The Zionist threat is like cancer — in dealing with it neither medicine nor surgery will do any good.' This royal statement was meant to emphasize that the Arabs do not, and will not, accept an Israeli state amidst them." The article added that under the leadership of King Saud, the Saudi Representative to the U.N. called for the establishment of a U.N. agency "to help resettle Jews [now in Israel] in their former European homes."
The late King Faisal was also notorious for his anti-Semitic statements. In 1972, he told the Egyptian magazine al-Musawwar, "While I was in Paris on a visit, the police discovered five murdered children. Their blood had been drained, and it turned out that some Jews had murdered them in order to take their blood and mix it with the bread they eat on that day." The following year, in an interview with the Lebanese Al-Sayyad Faisal said that in order to comprehend the crimes of Zionism it's necessary to understand the Jewish religious obligation to obtain non-Jewish blood.
The Saudi royal family's hatred of the Jews is now influencing its next generation. Saudi Prince Amr Muhammad Al-Faisal writes often in the Saudi press to warn American Jews that their compatriots will eventually turn against them. In one article he declared: "Dear cousins, if you hear a snap in two or three years, it will probably be the sound of the trap shutting on your collective necks. You have been warned."
Given that the Saudi royal family controls its country's media, mosques, and textbooks, there's no doubt they're responsible for the kingdom's reputation as a breeding ground for anti-Semitism.
No further comment, Your Honor.
Mark Steyn Is Quickly Becoming One Of My Favorite Commentators
Mark Steyn wrote a
great piece for the London Telegraph discussing how Bush took away the job of a senior Palestinian official:
There was an hilarious piece in the Washington Post on Sunday, under the plaintive headline, "Why Did Bush Take My Job?" The author was Saeb Erekat, and the job he claims Bush has taken from him is "senior Palestinian negotiator" with the Israelis. The other day, speaking in support of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, President Bush stated the obvious: it was "unrealistic" to expect a return to the armistice lines of 1949, and there’s no point wasting time discussing the Palestinian "right of return" to what’s now Israel, because it’s never going to happen.
Now Mr Erekat has joined the chorus. "Why did Bush take my job?" To be honest, I’d forgotten whether or not Mr Erekat currently held it. Periodically he resigns from Arafat’s cabinet for some reason or another, but quietly returns to his post a couple of months later ...
Edward Heath, in his time as Lord Privy Seal, was once addressed by some foreign dignitary as "Lord Heath" and famously responded that he was neither a lord nor a privy nor a seal. The "senior Palestinian negotiator" is not "senior", speaks for no viable faction within either the dignified (Arafatist) or efficient (Hamas) parts of the Palestinian Authority, and hasn’t negotiated anything in a decade.
Mr Erekat’s real job is to look good in a suit and go on television and sound reasonable when, as on September 11, the excitable chaps in Ramallah are dancing in the street and singing the Arabic version of Happy Days Are Here Again. And he is, of course, "democratically elected", being presently in the ninth year of a five-year term. So Yasser keeps him around to do the CNN-BBC interviews when Hanan Ashrawi is washing her hair and they need someone to do the autopilot drone of "root causes", "desperation", "cycle of violence".
But, if Bush did "take my job", it’s because Erekat is not up to it. For 10 years, the world has been trying to give a state to the Palestinians and the Palestinians keep tossing obstacles in their path. The latest innovation was a suicide-bomber arrested with explosives bearing HIV-infected blood, the thinking being that anyone who survived would get Aids. Unfortunately, the heat of the explosion kills the virus. But, in his combination of depravity and incompetence, the "Aids bomber" neatly encapsulates the present state of Palestinian "nationalism". The only way the Palestinians will get any kind of state is if Israel and America inflict it on them and eliminate such lethargic middle-men as Mr Erekat.
So Sharon is withdrawing from Gaza, abandoning the settlements and building a wall. This is bad news for those Palestinians who take a more nuanced approach to Jews - who think that, if you accidentally infect yourself while strapping on the HIV bomb, you should have the right to state-of-the-art treatment from an Israeli hospital. But they’ll have to make the best of it. Israel has concluded that, if you can’t "live in peace" with your neighbour, the priority is to live.
I aspire to one day be able to inflict that level of sarcastic analytical evisceration.
Thanks To Pat Tillman And All Of The Courageous And Selfless GI's
Fighting In The War On Terror
The amazing example of Pat Tillman reminds one of the courageous sacrifice of
all the GI's fighting in the War on Terror, and leads me to want to say "Thanks."
Dennis Prager wrote a pretty cool
article in tribute to Pat Tillman.
There is a famous Jewish legend that holds that at any given time, there are 36 tzadikim – particularly good people – living on earth. Thanks to them, the world does not self-destruct. If the number were to decline, the world would end.
I, for one, am torn. On the one hand, I have met a few such moral giants in my lifetime, and I am only one person. On the other hand, they sure are rare, and they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by moral dwarfs.
From what I know about Pat Tillman, he sounds like he was one of the 36. He embodied goodness, idealism, strength and character in a way that is increasingly rare.
First, he did something almost none of us would do. He voluntarily risked his life to fight evil and serve his country rather than become a multi-millionaire, deified pro-football player. Instead, he decided to forgo all that money, all that glory and all that fame, and fight for America in a remote corner of Afghanistan.
Second, he made this decision and sought no credit for it. He refused to give interviews about his decision.
Third, and perhaps most telling, the Washington Times reported that, "When in high school, Sgt. Tillman beat up someone who had assaulted his friend and ended up serving 30 days in a juvenile-detention facility."
Apparently beating up bullies was a deep yearning in Tillman from his youth. That is, after all, exactly what he did and what America is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq – beating up bullies. Pat Tillman hated evil. That alone puts him in a distinct minority in today's world.
Most people who are concerned with good and evil are preoccupied with understanding those who do evil. This is easily confirmed by any perusal of a library or bookstore's shelves. The ratio of books attempting to explain evil to books attempting to explain good is probably a thousand to one. Why? Because of our naive belief that goodness is normal, and that it is the abnormal evil ones who need to be explained.
This is nonsense.
The fact is that the truly good are abnormal. It is the Pat Tillmans, not the fanatical Muslims who killed him, who need to be studied. For if we do not figure out how to make more Pat Tillmans here in America and throughout the world, we and the world will self-destruct. There are only 36 of them.
Call me crazy, but I think there are more than 36 "particularly good people" on the face of the Earth. If there were only 36, then that would mean now there are only 35. Maybe we're in trouble.
I just couldn't resist getting a little sarcasm in there, could I?
Really, the point is that Tillman
was a great man, for the reasons Prager stated, and I would imagine his family could tell us even more.
Exactly What Office Is She Running For Now?
Hilary Clinton interviews with a London-based Arab daily and bad-mouths American policy? Is this really true and, if so,
what the ...? What would Hilary Clinton possibly stand to gain from this?
Speaking to an Arab-language newspaper, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., charged President Bush's "stubborn" policies are endangering the stability of the Middle East.
The president does not fully understand the situation in Iraq and has no plan, Clinton told the London-based Arab-language daily Asharq al-Awsat, according to Agence France-Presse.
The Bush administration has not been "frank" with the American people about Iraq's financial and human toll, she asserted.
The former first lady, whose remarks were published throughout the Middle East and Muslim world, said the "stubborn and arrogant" Bush administration has refused to admit mistakes which are endangering the lives of Iraqis and American soldiers and threatening stability in the region.
Clinton told the paper, according to AFP, the U.S. is in trouble because it can't abandon Iraq but is unable to provide the necessary manpower to run the country because of its inability to garner international support.
After a December visit to Baghdad during which she sharply criticized the Bush administration, Clinton was accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Clinton insisted she had come to Iraq to tell the troops "Americans are proud" of them, but she said back home "many question the administration's policies."
She then criticized President Bush for having been "obsessed with Saddam Hussein for more than a decade."
Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based satellite news channel, broadcast her remarks immediately in Arabic translation.
I've got to wonder if maybe Asharq al-Awsat merely published comments she had made on the floor of the Senate or something.
If she really did speak to the paper, then it would be interesting to know if this Arab paper publishes Islamofascist propoganda? I will update if I find out anything more, like, for instance, maybe this isn't true.
52 British Diplomats Say Israel Is The Reason For The World's Woes
Melanie Phillips posted an article on her blog today about a letter sent by 52 "ex-diplomats," high commissionars, governors, and senior international officials, to Tony Blair about his Middle East policies. I believe this article is near definitive and, as such, presents the ideas, and facts, one would have to argue against if one wants to argue that Israeli policies are the dominant problem in the Middle East conflict:
The advanced state of Britain's utter moral bankruptcy is on vivid display today with the publication of the scream of venomous outrage by 52 ex-diplomats against Tony Blair's backing for George Bush over Iraq and Blair's failure to rein him in over his support for Israel. Their letter speaks volumes for the rancid prejudice which animates so much of the British foreign policy mandarinate, and has now unfortunately influenced the attitude of so much of the population.
It is revealing that the diplomats not only link the issues of Israel/Palestine and Iraq, but give the former priority among their concerns. This reflects the view in such circles that Israel, and specifically their perception that Israel is frustrating the creation of a Palestinian state, lies at the root of global terror and that toppling Saddam Hussein was not only therefore the wrong issue but only made Israel/Palestine worse. This analysis is to invert both history, logic and morality and -- like everything else they say -- merely recycle Arab propaganda. Israel is not the cause of Arab and Muslim terror, but its victim. That terror will not end if Palestrine is created; Palestine will only be created if that terror ends. And the terror will only end if the root causes -- the Arab and Muslim states that promote it in their genocidal desire to annihilate Israel and their wider demented animosity against the west --are confronted and faced down.
The diplomats are furious that the road map is dead, but ignore the reasons why it died. Falsely, they blame America. ‘Nothing effective has been done either to move the negotiations forward or to curb the violence’, they say. But the reason the road map died was because the Palestinians killed it. They simply refused to fulfil the map’s very first condition, that they dismantle the infrastructure of terror. Not only did the Palestinian Authority refuse to do so, but its own militias and even its security personnel continue to perpetrate such acts of terror and incite their population to murderous hatred. The diplomats make no mention of this whatsoever. Don’t they know? Do they know and yet wilfully ignore it to misrepresent the facts? Are they stupid or wicked?
Coyly, they say: ‘The legal and political principles on which such a settlement would be based were well-established: President Clinton had grappled with the problem during his presidency; the ingredients needed for a settlement were well-understood and informal agreements on several of them had already been achieved.’
But the current war of terror against Israel started as the Palestinians’ response to being offered a state of their own by Clinton, based on virtually all the territory they wanted. Yes, Clinton did grapple with this problem; and the outcome of that process was to demonstrate with crystal clarity that a state for the Palestinians was not the casus belli at all. It was rather the very existence of Israel, as made totally clear by the ramping up the Palestinian agenda of the demand for the utterly spurious ‘right of return’, more honestly described as the demand to settle in Israel (while demanding simultaneously a country of their own) in order to destroy Israel through demographic means. In other words, Clinton effectively called the Arab bluff; and the result was that the war of terror was promptly ramped up to a horrific scale.
The diplomats make no mention of this. Instead, they berate Israel and its US backer for ‘new policies which are one-sided and illegal and which will cost yet more Israeli and Palestinian blood’. One-sided, eh? That’s rich, coming from this lot. Seeking to defend one’s citizens against terror, having exhausted all diplomatic measures because of the murderous intransigence of the other side, is one-side, is it? There is nothing remotely illegal about any of Israel’s policies, either the occupation or the settlements or the decision to leave them.
I will cut in here to note that when you take the hysteria away from the notion of "Israeli Settlements," in effect, they are housing tracts built by Israeli's in an area that the PA would like to have as a Palestinian state. There are Palestinian neighborhoods in Israel. Are they "settlements?" Are they illegal, and evil?
Nor for that matter is its policy of targeted assassination illegal. Whatever these diplomats might wish, there is no law in the world which requires a state to sit on its hands while its citizens are murdered. And having castigated Israel for occupying the territories and establishing the settlements, is it not beyond perverse for these diplomats now to be excoriating Israel for deciding to get out of Gaza and dismantle some of those settlements?
The idea that the "targeted assasination" of people like Yassin or Rantisi is illegal is silly. Yassin and Rantisi clearly fit the definition of "combatants" as Anne Bayefsky noted in her article The U.N. vs. Israel:
The international legal framework, therefore, could not be clearer.
Rantissi was a combatant in a war. His killing was not "extrajudicial" because the legal term, by definition, applies only to individuals entitled to judicial process before being targeted. Combatants — including the unlawful combatants of Hamas who seek to make themselves indistinguishable from the civilian population — are not entitled to such prior judicial process. Furthermore, the manual on the laws of armed conflict of the International Committee of the Red Cross, states that civilians who take a direct part in hostilities forfeit their immunity from attack.
The overriding legal limit on the conduct of war and the targeting of combatants like Rantissi is the rule of proportionality. In the words of the Geneva Conventions, an attack on a military target "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life" is prohibited if "excessive." The likelihood of civilian casualties must be carefully considered prior to taking action.
With zero civilian casualties (the only deaths being that of Rantissi and two Hamas accomplices, one a bodyguard, the other his 27-year-old son), the Israeli action could not have been more precise, and hence, proportionate.
I love the smell of verbal napalm in the morning.
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies - Part 3
Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of the admirable honesty of the new lame duck leader of Hamas Mahmoud Zahar. This interview is from a television show on the BBC called HardTalk:
Q. You know what you're telling me? That under no circumstances will you give up violence until you've pushed Israel into the sea. That's what you want, isn't it?
Z. Who is saying that?
Q. You're saying that.
Z. I'm telling you frankly, the attitude of Islam is not to accept a foreign state in this area.
Q. So until Israel ceases to exist, you won't lay down your arms. Is that right?
Z. First of all, we are a part of the independent Islamist - this is the attitude of thousands and millions of people ...
Q. Why do you keep on with this attitude? You are seen ... by many people in the world as a bunch of ruthless killers, fanatics, terrorists. Are you happy with that picture?
Z. We're not happy - [but] these people are seeing Islam as an enemy, as a terrorist, but this is a historical mistake. Because Islam is a supreme power in this area, sooner or later we are going to achieve our power, our moral principles, our virtue, in order to implement a real state.
I couldn't be bad because I am the Supreme Power of the planet Zurktron.
Well, as I always say, you just gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth. Thanks Mahmoud.
By the way here is a
link to the video of the interview, if you want to see it for yourself.
Grandma Europa's Favorite Romance Novelist
Hat Tip to
Merde In France for making me aware of the writings of the great, and popular, French author Alain Soral. Here's his take on 9/11:
"I was in my home office writing a pen-named freelance psy-sex piece for a womens' magazine in order to put some food on the table, the phone rang and it was an old friend who I had a falling out with a few years ago, an old friend who was doing the same debilitating work under a pen-name for a different magazine. He screamed into the telephone: "switch on your TV, this is great!". I turned the TV on and it was so beautful that we put our differences aside. I then called an other friend who I had had a falling out with over some political nonsense. He had gone to Spain. On the backdrop of the same images we experienced the same communion and we buried the hatchet as well... Guys the world over who share the same feelings with those who are humilated, felt the same sense of euphoria while watching these biblical images of justice and punishment! For me, 9-11 represents the reconciliation, concerning most subjects, with all those that this mediocre life has forced me to hate because of insignificant differences... Truthfully, it was a beautiful moment of love. That should tell you how much I remember it!"
Alain Soral is a very popular writer in France. His new book is #4 on
Amazon.fr
As Sally Field said at the Oscars, "Wow, you
do hate us. You really hate us."
Grandma Europa Wanders Down Champs Elysees Babbling To Herself
From an
article in the National Review:
On a street in Paris, there is a kiosk that on the outside looks like all the other kiosks selling their wares. On the inside, just above the tourist maps and miniature Eiffel towers, there is an entire wall lined with pro-bin Laden and anti-Semitic books for sale. One book maintains that Jews run the Saudi government. Another praises bin Laden and his cause and violently attacks the U.S. and Western "values" in general.
The name of that street is the Champs Elysées. The kiosk sits right by the chic Louis Vuitton store just about ten-feet away.
In a country where freedom-of-speech laws are much stricter than in the U.S., the radical stance of this vocal minority of Islamic fundamentalists is virulent and often unabashedly public. Even more worrisome is that it is often connected with officially recognized Muslim organizations.
The Union of Islamic Organizations of France is the largest umbrella organization of French Muslim groups and has obtained more seats than any other in the "Conseil Français du Culte Musulman" (CFCM), supposedly the leading voice of the more than five million Muslims living in France. Tariq Ramdan, grandson of Hassan al Banna — founder of the Muslim Brotherhood — has been a frequent guest of the UIOF's annual national congress meeting in Le Bourget, a suburb north of Paris. The UIOF has had longstanding ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. Outside the conference you can buy books with titles such as "The Sharon Protocols" and "The Jews Follow the Protocols of the Elders of Zion."
The other current of hate speech in France comes from the far Left, and takes the form of pure revisionist history. For example, the Frenchman Thierry Meyssan's book 9/11 The Big Lie became the number seven top-seller in France. It claims that the Pentagon was not hit by American Airlines flight 77, but by a missile. According to Meyssan, the CIA, with the aid of bin Laden himself, helped coordinate the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to give the U.S. a pretext to go into the Middle East to secure oil. Meyssan even declares that Bush and the bin Laden family are business partners.
Together, these two currents — Islamic fundamentalism and left-wing anti-American revisionism — are proving lethal in France. Islamic fundamentalism provides the ideology and revisionism helps to provide the "justification."
I've never seen such a kiosk in America. I've seen homeless, or hippy types, or street preachers, set up cardboard boxes and spout this kind of nonsense. And sometimes they might have something they sell. But, man, this description is beyond the pale.
The Jews might control most of the world, but they sure don't control the Champs Elysees.
We'll Let Israel Do Our Dirty Work
Here (from a World Net Daily article) is an example of the hidden, filthy hands of the dirty Americans sitting behind the scenes, working the strings, like an
evil puppetmaster:
While Iran announced plans to begin building a heavy-water reactor that can produce weapons-grade plutonium, Israel began drawing up plans to demolish it – much as it destroyed an Iraqi nuclear facility more than a decade ago.
Sources in Israel say the attack could come before the end of summer ...
"Wait a minute," you say. "What is Pastorius trying to pull on us? We don't see the name of America mentioned once."
Now really, do you want to tell me you don't think the U.S. would
love to see this done?
I've got two words for Israel: "Let's Roll."
Interesting Theory
I have always suspected that Flight 93 was shot down by the U.S. military. World Net Daily published an article making that very case. I don't know whether these facts are accurate. In addition, I don't really know what we stand to gain through speculation or, even, actual revelation of the truth. But, just for your prurient interest here's a
link.
The President issued the order. I think that is a documented fact. I believe it would have been the correct thing to do. I also have always thought that one of the few victories we had that horrible day was the whole "Let's Roll" story about the passengers getting together to take control of the plane.
For me that was always a hollow victory because I never
really believed it. But, like parents telling their kids about Santa Claus, I always thought it was a beneficial myth.
If this World Net Daily article is accurate, and the facts come to light, we'll be having Congressional hearings of a magnitude never seen before.
I've heard liberals say that America loves to fight wars. Yes, we do especially against ourselves.
Lame Duck Identified
An
article from AP announces that Israel has identified the new leader of Hamas:
JERUSALEM - Israel identified the new, secret Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip (news - web sites) as Mahmoud Zahar, a 53-year-old Egyptian-trained physician, and signaled Monday he won't be targeted if the militant group halts attacks on Israelis.
Hamas, however, refused to reveal the name of its leader for fear he will be assassinated like his two predecessors.
If I were Mahmoud (and I'd like to take this opportunity to announce to the world that I am not) I wouldn't go anywhere without a cherubic little kid in one arm and a cute little puppy in the other.
Egyptian State Paper: Jews Control All Terrorism In The World
We already knew the Jews were good at business, and that they control the media and the world's banks, but now the Egyptian (government-owned) daily newspaper
Al-Gumhouriyya has the new scoop that:
'The Zionist Jews are Behind All the Violent and Terror Operations that have Occurred Everywhere In the World'
"If you want to know the real perpetrator of every disaster or every act of terrorism, look for the Zionist Jews. They are behind all the violent and terror operations that have occurred everywhere in the world. [They do this] first of all in order to slap [the label of the attacks] on the Arabs and Muslims, and second to harm them, distort their image, and represent them to the world as terrorists who endanger innocents. What is even more dangerous is that after every terror operation they perpetrate, they leave a sign, clue, or traces meant to show that the perpetrators are Arab Muslims.
"Their most recent operation was the bombings in Spain. Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes said a videocassette in Arabic was found near one of the Madrid mosques, and in it the military spokesman of the Al-Qa'ida organization took responsibility for these attacks.
"It is obvious that the Jews are the ones who placed these things, in order to prove to the entire world that the Arabs and Muslims are behind the bombings.
'It Is the Jews, with their Hidden Filthy Hands, Who Play their Part with Expertise In Order to Harm the Arabs and Muslims' Their black history is the best possible proof that hatred toward the Arabs and the Muslims fills their hearts and blinds their eyes. They are behind all troubles, disasters and catastrophes in the world."
The writing is a little purple, but his point is clearly made.
Those Jihad Calendar Girls Are So Fine
Big hat tip to Little Green Footballs because without them I wouldn't get half this info. The man over there is a great person to spend so much of his time acquiring and disseminating the truth about the Middle East situation. Thanks to you, sir.
Anyway, today he has a link to a Jihad Calendar which was apparently confiscated from some Arab schoolteachers at a Ramallah checkpoint.
Go
check it out.
Update: The calendar was posted for sale on Ebay. They just took it down. I guess that's not a surprise considering how hot those Jihad Calendars girls are. Ebay is not Maxim Magazine, for God's sake. I'm sure somebody will have it cache'd. So, when I find it I will repost it. Until then, I guess you'll just have to take my word for it.
It Tops Topps
Agence France Press
reports that Palestinian children are collecting "Intifada Cards" the way American kids collect baseball cards.
NABLUS: While kids worldwide collect pictures of Hollywood stars or soccer champions, the craze in the Palestinian city of Nablus is a sticker album depicting scenes of the bloody intifada.
The cover sports a picture of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem with the words, intifada album, written in flaming stones while the back is a less aggressive watercolor of the disputed holy site by David Roberts.
The well-crafted glossy album is dedicated by the governor of Nablus and bears 229 numbered rectangles where the players have to stick the pictures. Prizes such as televisions, computers or cash will be awarded to the first who complete the album.
"My favorite is the number one picture, because you can see Al-Aqsa Mosque and there's a masked fighter holding a gun," said Ibrahim Aswad, a 12-year-old from Nablus' refugee camp of Ain Beit al-Ma.
"I like these stickers because they show places we know and I also know some of the people on the pictures," said his friend Saleh, who carries his dog-eared, beat-up album everywhere he goes and has already collected 212 cards.
Abu Yasser, who owns a little convenience store and is the neighborhood's intifada cards retailer, points to a copy of this season's soccer sticker album gathering dust on a shelf.
"It may be sad, but the kids don't care about soccer here. Our soap opera is the intifada," he said. "What is happening in this conflict affects all of us, so this is like a big collective photo album for the Palestinians.
"I don't mind the scenes of violence in the album, at least this game keeps them off the streets," said the father of four, who admits the game has become a favorite family activity.
Family fun? I don't know about that, man. Collecting pictures of overpaid sports stars? Alex Rodriguez makes $25 million a year and the stars of the Jihad make, er, get 72 virgins. Looks like capitalism is ruining sports everywhere.
London Independant Reports on Rising Anti-Semitism in Britain
The London Independant ran an
article the other day on rising anti-Semitism in Britain:
MPs have warned that the "virus" of anti-Semitism is beginning to infect mainstream politics in Britain, as figures show a record number of attacks on Jews last year.
The former cabinet minister Stephen Byers said yesterday that the "line is now being crossed from legitimate criticism" of the Israeli government into "demonisation, dehumanisation of Jews and the application of double standards".
In a debate in the House of Commons, James Purnell, chairman of Labour Friends of Israel, criticised caricatures and cartoons of Jews in the media as dangerous. He said: "Today overt anti-Semitism is still taboo, but anti-Semitism is a virus that once again has started to infect our body politic."
The warnings come after an unprecedented number of attacks on Jews in Britain last year, including desecration of synagogues and cemeteries. Jewish women walking down the street have been attacked by strangers, and Jewish schools and community centres have been put on a high state of alert.
Attacking women? Jeez, what kind of self-respecting racist would do that?
Now, follow the logic of these next two paragraphs closely:
There were 375 attacks in Britain last year, part of a rising number of anti-Semitic incidents within Europe which has been blamed on the far right and Islamic extremists. The attacks have been linked to unease about Israel's policies towards the Palestinians and its campaign of assassinations and enforced curfews.
Yesterday,
MPs warned that anti-Israeli feeling should not spill over into criticism of Jews in general, many of whom do not support the policies of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon.
Ok, so you read that one paragraph there saying "attacks have been linked to unease about Israel's policies" and it seems like the writer is making a distinction between "unease" with Israeli policies and Israel and Jews in general. But then, you read the next paragraph and Member of Parliament are warning that "anti-Israeli feeling should not spill over" because not all Jews support Sharon?
But, those Jews who do support Sharon are fair game?
Am I missing something here?
Anyway, there are more important points in the article. Read on:
Stephen Byers, a former transport secretary who chairs the committee on anti-Semitism, said that anti-Israeli criticism should not be used as "a cloak of respectability" for racist views.
Mr Purnell said memories of the Holocaust had largely inoculated Europe against anti-Semitism for 60 years, but some people on the extreme left had allowed themselves to find "some extremely strange bedfellows" in their criticism of Israel. "During the anti-war protests there were some really terrifying pictures of individuals dressed up as suicide bombers holding banners with the Star of David and an equals sign to a swastika," he said. "This apparent embrace of such symbols by the anti-war left is absolutely astounding."
We've got the same problem
here in the U.S..
Weekly World News Has A "Suggestion" For Europe
Hat tip to Merde In France for making me aware of
this article. Weekly World News is an important journal breaking stories crucial to the development of Western Civilization. For instance, one earthshaking scoop was their April 2003 revelation (complete with photos) that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were sharing a "Gay Love Nest."
Anyway, now they have this "scoop." I'll just call it a "suggestion":
Member nations of the European Union have announced plans to discontinue their status as individual countries in order to merge into one giant theme park!
The new park will be called EuroWorld and will cover the entire continent of what is now known as Europe. The decision was made by the EU countries in response to their collective realization that no one in Europe has had an innovative idea in well over a century.
With nothing new to offer visitors, the European countries decided to stop pretending they were still relevant, and to start celebrating their colorful pasts.
"Our stagnant continent has been a virtual museum for decades," explains an unnamed EU representative. "Many could argue that we already were nothing more than an amusement park. The decision to legally become a large theme park is really only a formality."
Each country will now be an exhibit within the park. For example, what was once known as Germany will now be the Germanland exhibit. Only traditional German foods such as bratwurst, sauerkraut and beer will be permitted in Germanland.
The citizens of each European country will now be considered "Euro hosts." The Euro hosts will be required to dress in traditional ethnic outfits from their respective homelands to better entertain visitors.
Thus, Germans must wear lederhosen at all times, Scots must wear kilts, and so forth.
"It's better this way. I remember vacationing a few years ago in Holland and nobody was wearing wooden shoes. And very few of them lived in windmills. I was outraged and demanded my money back from my travel agent," comments sociologist Alan Kennedy, a consultant to the EU for the theme park initiative.
Admission tickets to EuroWorld will actually be one-week passes that allow visitors access to each exhibit.
Much of the entertainment for visitors to EuroWorld will come from creative new activities that incorporate established European traditions.
For example, there will be bungee jumping from the Eiffel Tower in Paris, waffle juggling in Brussels and prostitute races in Amsterdam.
Because of the relatively large size of EuroWorld, it is expected to become a significant competitor to the Disney theme parks in Florida.
Amusement park consultant Dee Hamel explains, "Disney has an advantage because it is an established name and has been in business for more than 20 years. It is also in close proximity to a number of decent hotels.
"EuroWorld needs to establish its own identity and not be simply another cliched theme park with ferris wheels and people dressed like animals. And they cannot possibly allow mimes and expect anyone to want to go there."
Hamel also believes that EuroWorld will need new accommodations. "The park will need to upgrade the antiquated hostels and bed-and- breakfasts found in European cities.
"Nobody wants to go to an amusement park all day and then stay in a crowded hostel with other malodorous tourists. Especially French travelers, as we all know of their aversion to bathing."
Many experts agree that the reason Europe has become an intellectual wasteland is that all of the industrious and motivated European citizens had the good sense to emigrate to the United States over the past 100 to 150 years.
"The cupboard was left bare, so to speak," notes respected historian Dr. Peter Sanvorth. "While the best and brightest of the Old Country found their way to America's shores, left behind were buffoons like Jacques Chirac and madmen like Adolf Hitler.
"It saddens me that the continent that once developed the printing press, experienced the Renaissance, and built beautiful cathedrals and cities has reached this point of intellectual bankruptcy," says Dr. Sanvorth.
"With no new European ideas, inventions or architecture, all that's left is their history. So why not celebrate it with a giant theme park? I think it's a great idea."
Sometime You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies - Part II
Farouk Kaddoumi, the PLO's "foreign minister" (that means he's holed up in Tunisia) was interviewed in the Jordanian newspaper Al-Arab the other day. Via the Jerusalem Post , he offers us the wisdom of his
enlightenment:
In response to a question what does Arafat mean when he talks about the continuation of the struggle, Kaddoumi, who is one of the few PLO leaders still living in Tunisia, said: "Yes, the national struggle must continue. I mean the armed struggle.
Commenting on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip, Kaddoumi said: "If Israel wants to leave the Gaza Strip, then it should do so. This means that the Palestinian resistance has forced it to leave. But the resistance will continue. Let the Gaza Strip be South Vietnam. We will use all available methods to liberate North Vietnam."
Let me think about that one for a moment. There's South Vietnam and there's North Vietnam. That's pretty much all of Vietnam, right? So, he's saying ...
no Israel at all. Hmm, well, you just gotta love your enemy when he tells the truth. Read on:
Kaddoumi revealed that the PLO leadership has entrusted him with being responsible for the "portfolio" of supporting the Iraqi resistance against the US-led coalition forces in Iraq. "There is no doubt that the Palestinian revolution supports the Iraqi resistance and we have seen demonstrations in the occupied Palestinian territories in backing the intifada and resistance in Iraq," he said. "I'm in charge of this issue and I condemn the American position."
Kaddoumi welcomed the establishment of an armed group in Iraq named after slain Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin, saying this would increase pressure on the US. He described the new anti-American group as an "excellent phenomenon."
Why Farouk, that
is excellent. With an enemy like you who needs the CIA, FBI, or the "9/11 Hearings" to connect the dots. Read on:
Kaddoumi said that, contrary to what many people believe, the PLO charter was never changed so as to recognize Israel's right to exist. "The Palestinian national charter has not been amended until now," he explained. "It was said that some articles are no longer effective, but they were not changed.
Good job, Farouk. I
do love you. I could listen to you talk all day. The major media (NYT, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc.) don't give us this much truth. The thing is, the truth has been staring us in the face for all these years, but we don't see it.
After all, the
PLO Charter, calling for the destruction of Israel, is on the U.N. website.
But, I am glad that Farouk gave us the reminder.
Went Down To The Crossroads ...
With that ungodly talent, clearly
he has made a deal with the devil.
Yes, that's right. That is actually from the John Kerry For President website. Well, Clinton played the sax, so what can you say. The thing is, I got the sense (maybe it was the stupid black sunglasses he wore on the Arsenio Hall show) that Clinton knew it was a joke. Kerry looks like he's at "Rock n' Roll Fantasy Camp."
Of course, it could just be a photo-shopped image.
I Wish I Was In Jack's Club
Jack, over at
Jack Of Clubs, posted some comments about my article on Jonathan Ariel and Maariv International - whoever they are. As usual, Jack just clubs me. I mean, the dude is so smart.
You can probably tell, from reading my blowhard postings, that I'm an arrogant guy who thinks he knows everything. But then, I have this friend Jack who reads my stuff, and analyzes it so effortlessly, and finds so many things that I have clealy left out. It's just embarrassing. Because, you know, I try so hard and I'm so convinced that I'm brilliant, and then Jack comes along and takes my opinions and kind of spins him on his finger, and runs them up and down his outstreched arms a few times like he's the Meadowlark Lemon of Critical Analysis and ...
Oh well, as Steve Martin said, "Some of us have a way with words and some of us, uh, oh, I don't know ... not have way, I guess.
So, anyway, let's get to the point. I wrote a scathing fisk of a Jonathan Ariel article suggesting that "nuking Pyongyang" was a good, even moral, way to stave off the genocide Kim is committing on the people of North Korea. Jack's response:
I share Pastorius' dismay at the logic of this statement. While I am not generally more opposed to a nuclear strike than any other necessary act of war, Ariel has failed to make the case that what he proposes could actually be necessary. Let us be clear: he is proposing a preemptive nuclear strike in order to decapitate the North Korean leadership. His moral case seems to be based on the sentence, "Pyongyang is a restricted city, populated only be the leadership and the Communist party faithful." If this were literally true, then I would have no objection. If the city were indeed entirely populated by "the willing accomplices and profiteers of Kim’s crimes", then they have indeed forfeited the status of civilians and have become legitimate military targets.
But can such a situation ever be the case? Are there no waitresses or bus-boys in the city? No gas station attendants or housekeepers? No prostitutes? I am willing to take Mr. Ariel's word that all such people would be vetted for party loyalty; that is a well known characteristic of dictatorships. But also characteristic is the fact that many people are forced to claim loyalty in order to survive. Our experience with ex-Baathists in Iraq is a good illustration of this principle. It is all very well to laud those martyrs who are willing stand up to an evil regime, but to condemn those who are too weak to do so as willing collaborators is beyond the pale.
It may very well be that a nuclear conflict with North Korea will become justifiable, but the burden of such a decision is far heavier than Mr. Ariel seems willing to acknowledge.
See what I mean. I actually was kind of vaguely feeling all those points as I was writing my article, but I didn't actually write them down. And since close only counts in horseshoes and, well, "nuking Pyongyang," then I guess my vague feelings weren't really worth much.
Thanks to Jack for actually putting those thoughts into words because that's really the human truth to the story. Jonathan Ariel thinks that it's ok to kill hundreds of thousands of bus boys, gas station attendants, ballet dancers, little league ballplayers, future humanitarians, etc.
Oh, and by the way, I've been given security clearence that it's ok to reveal his true identity. He is
the Jack. You know, the one with the big round plastic head and the cone-shaped nose, from all those fast food commercials.
Warning: Possible Lie in The Major Media
Yahoo is carrying a
story today, from Reuters, accusing the Israeli Army of tying a 13 year old boy to the hood of a jeep in order to use him as a human shield as they drove down a street in the West Bank. If this story is true, and for all I know it very well might be, then the IDF is guilty of a horrible abuse of power and they deserve to be condemned.
However, there are some things about this story which are questionable:
BIDDO, West Bank (Reuters) - When older Palestinian boys started throwing stones at Israeli border police in the flashpoint West Bank village of Biddo, 13-year-old Muhammed Badwan went along to watch.
He ended up on the hood of an Israeli jeep, at least one of his skinny arms tied to a wire mesh screen that blocks the windshield from incoming stones, according to a photograph of the purported incident distributed by an Israeli rights group.
The problem is while there is a photo accompanying the story it is not the photo of the little boy. Instead, it is a Reuters stock photo of Ariel Sharon looking to be in full child-eating mode.
This is a new motif Reuters has been empoying lately (very well documented by Little Green Footballs). They write a story, based upon the quotes of Palestinian "passersby," accusing Israel of this or that atrocity and they accompany the article with a photo of Sharon in this or that angry pose. It's actually kind of funny, if you don't take into consideration the actual intent.
Moving on, in the interest of fairness, read this quote:
"I was scared when they got me at first. I thought they would put me in prison...I was scared a stone would hit me," Muhammed said, nursing a split lip a week after his hours-long detention. Stone throwing mostly stopped when he was on the jeep.
"I cried on the hood of the jeep, and when I saw my dad."
The truth is, this quote from Muhammed has the sting of real experience. It doesn't sound like the kid is lying. But, of course, he still could be. As I said, I have no idea.
But, the thing is, where is the photo? Why would you publish an indictment like this and not include the photo? It must be a very dramatic photo. So, it would help sell papers, and get more eyeballs on Yahoo, etc.
And then there is this:
A left-wing Israeli rabbi who said he too was detained as a human shield when he tried to intervene to free Muhammed Badwan last week said he planned to press charges.
Why don't they tell us the name of the "left-wing rabbi?" Every other person quoted in the story is named. That's curious, isn't it?
But then again, you have this:
"It is very depressing and very sad to see that we have come to this position where this is what we do. There is disbelief," said Rabbi Arik Ascherman, head of Rabbis for Human Rights, which distributed the picture, taken by a foreign photographer, of Muhammed strapped to a jeep.
A Rabbi is distributing the photo. Of course, we don't know this Rabbi, but that would
seem to be an unimpeachable source.
And in conclusion, the 13 year old victim, Muhammed Badwan, offers the wisdom of a child:
Muhammed, though said he still wanted to throw stones at soldiers...
I guess that's what they mean by a "cycle of violence."
When You Get Old It's The Simple Things In Life That Count The Most
Mark Steyn has an
article which goes a long way to explaining Europe's lethargy in the face of direct threats to it's existence:
One reason (why America is so diffferent from Europe) can be found by taking a trip to the multiplex to see the new Starsky & Hutch movie, based on the old Seventies cop show.
Starsky & Hutch is one of a zillion Seventies retreads around these days. They’re all the same: S&H opens with Barry Manilow, but it could as easily have been the Starland Vocal Band or the Partridge Family or the Village People. And after the song come the cheesecloth shirt jokes and the flyaway collar jokes, and afros and discos and Tab.
That’s the difference. If you’re American, the Seventies mean tank-tops, Charlie’s Angels and Jimmy Carter. If you’re Mediterranean, the Seventies mean Franco, Salazar and the Colonels. Not so funny. In Madrid and much of the rest of Europe, the day before yesterday means dictatorship. The men and women who run Spain today grew up under Franco ...
For many Spaniards, the desire to reach an accommodation with the forces of history is natural – indeed, the default mode.
So, three days after their fellow citizens got blown up, they shrugged to the Islamists, “You’re right. We’d rather sit this one out. Go blow up the Anglo-Saxons.” “Don’t mention the war,” John Cleese instructed Manuel the Spanish waiter in “Fawlty Towers”. Manuel has no intention of mentioning the war, and if the British are foolish enough to keep doing so they can take it up with al-Qa’eda themselves.
Just over a year ago, in one of those wretched Security Council performances before the Gulf War, the French Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin, turned to Colin Powell and offered the umpteenth variation of the familiar argument that, if we Europeans are resistant to ze idea of war, it is because we have seen so much of ze horrors of ze war. The reality is the other way round: the reason they’ve seen so much of the horrors of war is because they’re so resistant to the idea of it - until it’s too late and conflagration is all that’s left.
If one had to cast the great Continental fatalistic shrug in a less jaded light, one would do it this way: the Second Republics and Third Empires, Fascists and Communists and European Unions come and go; they’re mere political forces. The ancient buildings, the old vineyards, the big stinky unpasteurised cheese your village has made for centuries and which the wimps at that Yankee Federal agency responsible for regulating all the taste out of American food won’t even let into the country: this is the essence of a man’s identity; the political fashions of the day come and go, but underneath you endure. By contrast, an American’s sense of himself as an American is much more explicitly political – it’s about First and Second Amendments, or, according to taste, a “woman’s right to choose”. The United States is a political project in a way that Spain – imperial, Fascist, monarchist, republican, pacifist, Euro-federalist, your-ideology-here-ist – isn’t.
I, being a stupid American, honestly never thought about it that way. However, Steyn actually trivializes America's experience in the seventies a bit with that vamp about Charlies Angels, etc.
Here's what I think of when I think of the seventies; middle-aged men in crew cuts and white t-shirts calling people "niggers" and "faggots," long-haired young people carrying signs protesting the Viet Nam War and getting shot at by police who were convinced of "My country, right or wrong," Richard Nixon's paranoid, flatulent face filling up my TV screen when I wanted to watch Andy Griffith or Scooby Doo, the frightened look on my parents face as bills crushed them and interest rates soared into double-digits, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Elton John, John Lennon and Jesus Christ, all long-haired "faggots," seeming to make more sense than any adult that I ever met.
Well, how's that for a memory of the seventies? Yes, I was just a kid, but I remember that stuff and I'm still angry about it. The truth is, while we don't have a dictatorship haunting our dreams, we did have a really sick society. Things are much better now, in my opinion. The world has become a much better place.
But, clearly Steyn has a point. In America, our memories are not of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Communist governments elected into power, or grabbing power by force. We do not have those horrors weighing on our minds.
And, just as I said that I took refuge primarily in rock n' roll music, Europeans do seem to take refuge in the small aesthetic blessings of life. And that's why we Americans love Europe so much. We love going there and hearing people wax rhapsodic about wines, and cheeses, and paintings, and sculpture, and architecture, and all these things that most of us tend not to really contemplate and enjoy in our busy, daily, capitalist lives.
But there are two things we Americans always seem to forget about Europe;
1) Our experience of Europe comes when we are on
vacation, meaning we're relaxed, having a good time. That's no way to acquire a world view.
2) Europe's history is, truly, a mixture of wine and cheese and Hitler and the French Vichy collaboration with Auchwitz.
I've always suspected that, for some old people, senility is as much a case of not wanting to remember as it is not being able to remember.
Europe is senile and I can't say that I blame them.
Jonathan Ariel and The People at Maariv International - Whoever They Are -
Ought to Be Ashamed Of Themselves
Thanks be to God that whoever it is that runs Maariv International does not have too much power in this world. And let's pray they never acquire much. In an article which rivals any of the stupidity that I have quoted from the Arab and European press, the Maariv International writer, Jonathan Ariel, makes a moral case for dropping a nuclear bomb on the city of Pyongyang.
And Maariv International published this, for God's sake.
What makes this article doubly apalling, and frightening, is the fact that it starts out so reasonably. I actually thought I was reading the words of a sane man.
Check this out:
Ten years after the Rwanda genocide, Holocaust Day is a fitting occasion to see just what, if anything humanity has learned from the Holocaust.
The most important achievement is how we view sovereignty. Historically sovereignty has been viewed as sacrosanct, allowing any regime to do as they please within their own borders, which were inviolate.
This is no longer the case, We have, especially over the last decade or so, witnessed several cases in which the international community decided that sovereignty could be violated for a greater good.
The best example is, of course former Yugoslavia. Initially the response to Serbia’s attempt to create a “Greater Serbia” by ethnically cleansing Croats, Bosnians and Albanians from those parts of Yugoslavia they wanted to annex as part of Serbia was timid and craven, and it looked as though fifty years after the Holocaust Europe was going to once again allow its soil to be soaked with the blood of victims of genocide. Once the West belatedly woke up to what was going on in its own backyard, things began to change. The US assumed leadership, saving Europe from the ignominy of its own political and military feebleness.
So far, so good, right?
"However it is not clear whether this marked the hesitant beginnings of a new world order, or whether it will go down in history as a footnote, a one time exception to existing rules ..."
Yeah, yeah, ok, I'm with you, so far, Mr. Ariel.
"The other post Holocaust horrors, such as Rwanda and Cambodia occurred before this precedent was set, and do not shed light on this issue.
What could determine the answer to this question is North Korea, a Stalinist state carrying out a policy of state sanctioned terror and genocide against what its regime perceives as internal enemies."
Yes, it does seem like North Korea is the next test, or perhaps Iran. Although, I must note that you didn't mention Iraq as a further example. After all, Hussein
was carrying out a slow genocide of his own people as well, and the United States
did intervene without having been attacked.
"Continuing appeasement of Pyongyang will be a giant step backwards from the Balkans. Getting rid of the regime will show that the world has undergone a watermark change for the better in learning and internalizing the lessons of the Holocaust."
Yes, yes. That makes sense. But, just watch where he goes with it.
"The fact that North Korea may have a few primitive nuclear bombs is no reason to treat Kim any differently from Milosevic. Pyongyang is a restricted city, populated only be the leadership and the Communist party faithful. Nuking the entire city, if that is the only way to rid the world of an unspeakable abomination, would be more than justified. The willing accomplices and profiteers of Kim’s crimes are as guilty as he is, and since there are no innocents in the city, there is no problem. Such an act would also send the ultimate lesson civilization has to send if it is to survive, namely that genocide is unacceptable, and he who lives for it by virtue of the bomb, shall die by the bomb."
WHAT THE HELL?!? We didn't nuke Milosevic.
I've tried to read some sense into that statement. I've tried to consider it from different angles. Like ok, so, let's look at it this way. We can't just march in with an army because Kim might nuke them, but then he'd be nuking himself, so that doesn't make sense. Or like, we can't just bomb the city because Kim might shoot off a nuclear weapon into South Korea, but we don't know if he would because he must understand Mutually Assured Destruction as much as the next guy ...
WHAT THE HELL?!?!?*
I can only conclude that there is something seriously wrong with Jonathan Ariel, and the publishers of Maariv International, whoever they are. I hope someone will tell me.
Listen, God created humans in His image. Therefore, we have free will and life is sacred. To take that free will and sanctity away from hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings is evil.
Jonathan Ariel quotes the Talmud to back himself up (actually one of my favorite passages):
"The Talmud says “he who is overly merciful to the cruel ends up being cruel to the merciful”. Every day we spare Kim and his cohorts, we become accomplices in the unspeakable cruelty being inflicted on the North Korean people, who are suffering selective genocide at the hands of their regime, including the ultimate use of gas chambers to expedite the process, 59 years after Auschwitz was liberated."
There would be other ways to do it. An invasion, a strategic, targeted, long-term bombing campaign. We
must try other options first. You can't just presuppose that "the madman will use his nuclear weapons so we have to beat him to the punch."
Sometimes I wonder if the fact that there has not been a nuclear weapon used for close to sixty years now has somehow made them seem less real to people and, thus, more of a potential option. I don't think we should ever consider nuclear weapons as a preemptive option.
* Now, in the interest of fairness, I will note that Mr. Ariel prefaces his recommendation of "nuking Pyongyang" with the qualification "if that's the only way to rid the world of an unspeakable abomination." But, if Mr. Ariel thought there were other ways he would have entertained them first, rather than jumping right to the nuclear option. He might defend himself by saying his language was only meant to provoke thought. However, I would suggest that, just as we don't use words like "nigger" or "kike" to provoke thought, maybe we should not use phrases like "nuke 'em" to provoke thought either.
Newsflash: New York Times Reports the Truth
Albeit, the
headline is a little weak.
The New York Times actually published an article about the propoganda abuses in the Arab world:
BEIRUT, Lebanon - Quick. What is the name of the Palestinian village near what is now the Israeli city of Ramla that was destroyed in 1949 and replaced by a town called Yavne?
Too difficult? It's Yibna. Try another.
What structure built of gray sandstone in 1792 became the source of all oppressive decisions the world over?
This one should be easy: the White House.
If you answered both questions correctly, you might be prime fodder to compete on "The Mission," a game show running on Al Manar, the satellite television channel of Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese group.
Contestants from around the Arab world compete each Saturday night for cash and the chance to win a virtual trip to Jerusalem. To heighten the drama, points won by the finalists translate directly into steps toward the holy city that are flashed onto a map of the region.
The show is a novel way for Hezbollah to promote its theme - that all Arab efforts should be concentrated on reconquering land lost to Israel, especially Jerusalem.
"Any program at this television station must present the idea that the occupation of Palestine must end," said Ihab Abi Nassif, a 28-year-old high school physics teacher who is the show's host. "That is the core issue, which is why we work day and night to keep it vivid in people's minds."
The game show, begun last fall, is a tad more subtle than the channel's other offerings outside its fairly straightforward news shows. The program "Terrorists," for example, plays endless loops of film from Israeli attacks that killed civilians. "Sincere Men," drawing its name from a Koranic verse about the strength of the faithful when facing battle, profiles either Hezbollah fighters who undertook suicide missions or those in waiting.
Funny, I'd swear Hezbollah is a mainstream political party in Lebanon with ten percent of the seats in the governing council. How could it be that they are so extreme?
Some critics label Manar pure propaganda. They suspect that Hezbollah's backers, Iran and Syria, use the relatively free speech of Lebanon to promote hatreds they would not dare pronounce at home.
"Its television programs show that the Jews are bad, the Europeans are bad, the Americans are bad," said Waddah Sharara, a sociology professor at Lebanese University.
There is no doubt that Manar is popular among Shiite Muslims, especially in Lebanon, but it is hard to gauge the show's overall popularity.
"These kinds of programs are very important, repeating the issue of the Palestinians, keeping it vivid in our minds, keeping it alive," Dr. Ghararah said. "It is like commercials. When there are so many commercials about a toothpaste, for example, when you go to the supermarket you spontaneously think about it and buy it. The same with Palestinians. We always have to remember the Palestinian cause, and that is what Manar does."
But, to be fair,
all our TV shows promote globalization and American hegemony.
The Jews May Not Control The Whole World But They Invented Damn Near Everything
IsraPundit has posted a great article about
why it is important that Israel survive and prosper:
Here is a capsule of accomplishments you may not be fully aware of. I thought you might find these statistics interesting.
The Middle East has been growing date palms for centuries. The average tree is about 18-20 feet tall and yields about 38 pounds of dates a year. Israeli trees are now yielding 400 pounds/year and are short enough to be harvested from the ground or a short ladder.
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:
The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.
Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.
The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel.
The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.
Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.
Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.
The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.
Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined.
Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.
Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people --as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.
In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the U. S. (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).
With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world -- apart from the Silicon Valley, U. S.
Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.
On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech startups.
Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia, to safety in Israel.
When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.
Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship -- and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.
Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.
Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.
Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.
An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.
Israel's Givun Imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.
Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.
Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.
A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct -- all without damaging surrounding skin or tissue.
An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert..
All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth.
It seems like Israeli's are almost as smart as Grandma Europa thinks she is.
Michael Powell - King Of All Media - Part II
The King is on his throne. Let all the earth keep silence before him.
Michael Powell uttered some
holy pronouncements at the NAB convention today:
Michael Powell, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, said he does not support a bill that would take away a broadcast station's license after its third indecency violation.
Well, that seems like good news. But, you've got to wonder if maybe it's because, if he can find some sucker who will keep violating his proclamations at $500K a pop, he might as well not kill the goose that layed the golden egg.
But wait, there's more:
He also suggested he would support extending decency regulations from broadcasters to other media, such as cable and satellite, if the move were supported by lawmakers.
Asked if he would support legislation extending content regulations to cable and satellite, he said: "I think the government should be exceedingly conservative about any regulation of content for anyone."
Oh, for God's sake.
Just a couple weeks ago he was asking for this power, now he indicates he doesn't really want it but, like Frodo Baggins, he will carry the ring to Mount Doom if he
must.
But wait, there's more:
He also added: "I don't generally support the extension of content rules unless Congress supports a statement asking us to do so."
What's the matter Michael? Gandalf didn't have to
ask Frodo. Just suck it up and carry the ring already. Please? Pretty please with sugar on top?
But wait, there's more:
Powell also labeled as a "red herring" a proposal by Mel Karmazin, the president of Viacom Inc., for more specific decency statutes. Viacom owns both CBS, which aired the controversial Super Bowl half-time show with Janet Jackson, as well as Howard Stern's radio show.
So, Michael Powell accuses Mel Karmazin of requesting a clear ruling, "raising a red herring?" Nowadays, if you ask the King to tell you what you can and can't do, the King says you are only trying to divert him from doing what HE wants to do.
And then he says this:
"You do not want the government to write a red book of what you can say and what you can't say," Powell said.
What, is he threatening us?
"You don't want to see me go and define you out of existence, do you, slave?"
Michael Powell has clearly gotten
way too big for his britches.
The U.N. vs. Israel
Great
article from Anne Bayefsky from National Review:
Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, as well as the European Union, Canada, and Australia.
The 1988 Covenant of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, speaks for itself. It begins "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." It continues: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors." Its violent message is invoked in the name of defeating the "plan of World Zionism" "embodied in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." In Rantissi's words of July 2001: "I urge all the brigades to...target the Israeli political leaders and members of parliament...";
Rantissi himself (and others, such as Yassin) was named by the State Department as a "specially designated global terrorist." Last month the Bank of England froze the assets of Rantissi because "the Treasury have reasonable grounds for suspecting that...Rantissi, is or may be a person, who commits, facilitates or participates in" "the commission of acts or terrorism."
As soon as Rantissi took over the leadership of Hamas on March 23, 2004, after the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) killed Yassin, he called for further bloodshed, "The doors are wide open for attacks inside the Zionist entity."
Israelis keeping the grim statistics have counted at least 425 Hamas attacks killing 377 Israelis and wounding 2,076 in less than three and a half years of violence, including 52 separate suicide attacks.
The international legal framework, therefore, could not be clearer.
Rantissi was a combatant in a war. His killing was not "extrajudicial" because the legal term, by definition, applies only to individuals entitled to judicial process before being targeted. Combatants — including the unlawful combatants of Hamas who seek to make themselves indistinguishable from the civilian population — are not entitled to such prior judicial process. Furthermore, the manual on the laws of armed conflict of the International Committee of the Red Cross, states that civilians who take a direct part in hostilities forfeit their immunity from attack.
The overriding legal limit on the conduct of war and the targeting of combatants like Rantissi is the rule of proportionality. In the words of the Geneva Conventions, an attack on a military target "which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life" is prohibited if "excessive." The likelihood of civilian casualties must be carefully considered prior to taking action.
With zero civilian casualties (the only deaths being that of Rantissi and two Hamas accomplices, one a bodyguard, the other his 27-year-old son), the Israeli action could not have been more precise, and hence, proportionate.
The United Nations response to the legality of the killing of Rantissi (and Yassin) is therefore enormously revealing.
U.n.demns Israel's assassination of...Yassin...[E]xtrajudicial killings are against international law." On April 17, he used the identical words to condemn the "assassination of Rantissi."
Almost immediately following Yassin's death (along with eight others at least four of whom were also Hamas terrorists), on March 22, 2004, the U.N. Human Rights Commission convened a special sitting. This move was despite the fact that the commission was already in session, and at that very moment set to consider the only country-specific agenda item at the commission for the past 34 years — on Israel. The suffering of Yassin's victims, or the current genocidal plight of Sudanese in the Darfur region — reported by international agencies to involve 10,000 dead in the past year, and which may now have reached 1,000 dead per week — didn't move the commission to hold a special sitting. But they did see fit to schedule an extra three hours to denounce Israel over the death of one man — a man who personally instigated and authorized suicide bombing, ordered the firing of missiles at Israeli communities, and repeatedly exhorted his followers to "armed struggle" against Israelis and Jews "everywhere."
Having glorified the terrorist in particular, the commission went on to sanction terrorism in general. On April 15, the commission adopted a resolution, sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which aimed to condone suicide bombing by referring to "the legitimacy of the struggle [against] foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle" and the "right...to resist." The resolution passed by a large majority.
Now, I'm going to break in here to make a point she implies, but doesn't actually state. That is,
the U.N. is telling the Palestinians it's ok to make war on Israel and, at the same time, telling Israel it is not ok to retaliate.
What kind of sense does that make, U.N.?
It goes on:
Shortly thereafter, resolutions which would have criticized Zimbabwe, China, and Russia (in relation to events in Chechnya) were either blocked by procedural maneuvers or voted down. The total tally of country specific votes coming from the 2004 Commission now stands at:
Israel-5
Rest of the World-4
(the other states being Belarus, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Turkmenistan).
If the U.N., and it's resolutions of condemnation, were a realistic gauge, that would mean Israel is responsible for 55% of the evil in the world in 2004.
But, when I think about it, there are probably a lot of people who actually agree with that idea.
The Shot Heard Round The ... well, around my den, anyway
Dennis Prager has written a beautiful article. This article should be a clarion call for the growth of humanity in the 21st century. Unfortunately, I believe it will pretty much fall on deaf ears. Those who agree will agree. And those who don't will think he's a naiive old coot. A blowhard.
Check it out:
If you love goodness and hate evil, this is a tough time to stay sane.
Israel has killed Abdel Aziz Rantisi, the Hamas terror leader, and almost every nation in the world – and the nations' theoretical embodiment, the United Nations – have condemned Israel for doing so.
World leaders and the world organization have said almost nothing about Communist China's ongoing destruction of one of the world's oldest civilizations, Tibet. World leaders have said almost nothing about the Arab enslavement and genocide of non-Arab blacks in Sudan. But they convene world conferences to label Israel, one of the most humane and decent democracies on earth, a pariah.
In order to retain my sanity, I ask the reader's indulgence as I use this column to express personal thoughts.
I have contempt for "the world." I cherish and admire countless individuals, but I have contempt for "the world" and "world opinion." "The world" has never cared about evils inflicted on human beings. The communist genocides meant nothing to humanity. The Holocaust meant nothing. With almost no exception, the mass atrocities since World War II have likewise absorbed humanity less than the Olympics or the Miss World Contest.
I have contempt for the United Nations. It is one of the great obstacles to goodness and decency on this planet. Its moral record – outside of a few specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization – is almost entirely supportive of evil and condemnatory of good. It is dominated by the most morally backward governments in the world – those from the Arab and Muslim worlds, the communists during their heyday and African despots. It appointed Libya, a despotic, primitive state, to head its Human Rights Commission, whose members include China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan. Neither the United States nor Israel sits on the Commission.
By the way, I left this part in because I think it's important for people to know who sits on the on the Human Rights Commission. However, to my knowledge the fact that Libya is the chair is merely a function of the bureaucratic system of the U.N. The chair rotates and it was Libya's turn.
It's a shame that countries like Libya, China, Saudi Arabia and Sudan are on the Commission at such a precipitous time in World History, but it's not because they were chosen.
Read on:
I regard the European Union with similar revulsion. With little opposition, Europe murdered nearly every Jewish man, woman and child in its midst, and a half-century later provides cover for those in the Middle East who seek to do to the Middle East's Jews exactly what the Nazis did to the European Jews. For the European Union to condemn Israel's killing of a Hamas leader – when Hamas' avowed aim is another Jewish genocide – is so loathsome as to board the incredible. For Germany and France (who, unlike America, have almost never shed blood for the liberty of others) to do everything they can to undermine America's attempt to liberate Iraq is similarly repugnant.
As for the international news media and journalists, I regard most of them as aides to evil. This is not new. The 1932 Pulitzer Prize – American journalism's highest award – was given to Walter Duranty of the New York Times for reporting from the Soviet Union. In his reports, Duranty repeatedly denied Stalin's forced starvation of Ukrainians that led to the murder of more than 6 million of them. The same "newspaper of record" deliberately toned down reporting on the Nazi annihilation of Jews 10 years later so as not to appear "too Jewish."
The Soviet decimation of Afghanistan was so little reported in the international media – especially radio and television – that when I talked about its scope and horror on my radio show in the 1980s, listeners kept wondering if I was telling the truth – they had never heard anything about it.
In the last years of the Saddam Hussein regime, according to John Burns of the New York Times, major news reporters refused to write stories about Iraqi mass murder and atrocities lest the Saddam regime remove their press credentials. For most journalists, and their newspapers and television stations, it was better to lie for Saddam and have a bureau in Baghdad than to tell the truth but have no Baghdad bureau.
And not one international news organization calls Hamas or any of the other Palestinian terror organizations "terrorists."
I love learning and revere the title of "professor," but with few exceptions, universities, too, merit contempt. The vast majority of professors who take positions on social issues are moral fools. They teach millions of students that America and Israel are villains and that the enemies of those decent societies are merely misunderstood victims who are often justified in their hatred. And they loathe the American Judeo-Christian value system that has made the United States the world's land of opportunity and beacon of liberty.
In sum, I feel that I am living in a world that is morally sick. Good is called bad, and bad is called "militant," "victimized," "misunderstood" and "the product of hopelessness," but rarely bad. Only those who fight the bad are called bad.
Good job Mr. Prager.
Free Speech Limits - Broadcasters Fight Back?
I'm not a lawyer but, I've got to say, I don't see anything in this article indicating that the broadcasters have made much of a case for themselves. Check this out:
U.S. broadcasters on Monday struck back at the government's crackdown against indecency on the airwaves, warning regulators that harsher policies were threatening free speech on radio and television.
A coalition of more than 20 broadcasters, artists' groups and media organizations filed a petition on Monday asking the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) (FCC (news - web sites)) to reconsider a profanity ruling that is part of what some commentators have called a new sexual McCarthyism.
The petition, signed by broadcast network owners Viacom Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group as well as the Screen Actors' Guild and other groups, charges the FCC has expanded its authority beyond constitutional limits and that broadcasters are being coerced into self-censorship.
That's true. They are going beyond their constitutional limits. My question is how? I know my answer. What is their answer? Maybe the writer of the article just didn't want to go into the legal mumbo jumbo. But, the problem with that is the people need to know.
Writers and broadcaster, if they want to win this battle, need to find a way to make this issue "sexy." They need to simplify the issue and turn it into an exciting battle for the people of the U.S. They need to make the people of the United States sit up a little higher on their couches and say, "Yeah, yeah, screw you F.C.C., we've got the right to free speech in this country and, unless you have a law to back you up, your rulings don't mean jack."
From what I can tell from this article, the Broadcasters instead are framing the article in such a way as to tell the F.C.C. how their rulings are negatively effecting
them.
Who cares?
That's like a salesperson going into a meeting with a client and saying, "If I don't make this sale I'm not going to be able to buy a new Mercedes." The client doesn't care about that. He cares about what the product is going to do for him.
In this case, if the F.C.C. is the client, then the question is, what do they care about? What they care about is their existence and their funding.
I say you've got to kick them right in the testicles. You've got to show the FCC for what they are, an almost irrelevant and useless bureaucratic organization which, in a ridiculous, absurd, and Napoleanic grab for power, is trying to redefine itself as our countries mother, threatening to "wash our mouths out with soap." You've got to make the case to the people that the F.C.C. is a government agency gone mad. That they are breaking the law and trying to take the people's rights away from them.
You've got to make the case that the FCC really only exists to take care of licensing issues and technical issues regarding bandwidth and wattage. That's what the F.C.C. was originally established for.
If this case is made clearly, in a way that causes the people of the U.S. to get angry, then the FCC will get scared. They will start to think, "We better back off here, because if we don't we'll be back where we were 35 years ago, just filing licensing paperwork. If they take away our authority to monitor profanity then our jobs won't be glamorous anymore. Stars won't suck up to us."
Go to this
link and click on "Fun Moments" to
see Michael Powell getting to meet big stars, because that's what's important to him.
Hats Off To The Daily Telegraph of London
Since I've been ripping on Europe so much lately, I figured I better give credit where credit is due. I mean, let's face it, there are many good people in Europe, and there are quite a few anti-Semites in the U.S.
Hats off to the Telegraph of London for publishing
this Barbara Amiel editorial:
Targeted killings are counter-terrorism and as such they are not an activity any civilised human being can relish. Still, there is a moral distinction between counter-terrorism and terrorism, best described as the distinction between acts of war and war crimes. A further distinction on grounds of utility can be made: the targeted killings ordered by Israeli prime minister Golda Meir after "Fedayeen" terrorists killed 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics eliminated eight Arab operatives of varying importance but not the masterminds behind them. The deaths of Yassin and Rantissi, on the other hand, were a blow to the brains of the West Bank Hamas operation.
Yassin, bizarrely described by Westerners as the "spiritual leader" of Hamas, certainly embodied the spirit of Hamas: he called on all Muslims to kill Westerners "everywhere", declared that Israel would disappear by 2027, and forbade any peace initiative or dialogue with Israel. He was successful. Between December 2003 and January 2004, the Egyptian government convened three meetings with Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to discuss a suspension of violence as a prelude to peace negotiations. Hamas refused any ceasefire. The talks failed.
Moral indignation over the deaths of Yassin and Rantissi remains impossible to fathom.
The Palestinian cause is an honourable one, but Hamas and similar groups, such as Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad or Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, have no interest in an honourable two-state solution. Apologists for these groups routinely condemn suicide bombers and then describe them as part of "the cycle of violence in the Middle East" which would stop if only Israel would address their grievances. No doubt. Their grievance is the existence of Israel.
During his life, Rantissi vowed to take every inch of Israel by blood, accused then-Palestine Authority prime minister Abu Mazen of thrusting "a knife" into the Palestinian dialogue by offers to restrain the intifada, and called for "convoys of suicide bombers" with "thousands of sophisticated explosive belts".
If you are against Israel's security fence, in favour of the Arab so-called "right of return" (a demographic weapon of mass destruction which no Israeli government could accept) and opposed to Israel's withdrawal plans, the only possible end you have in mind is the total elimination of the Jewish state. In effect, the return of land by Israel is good news if your purpose is to create an independent Palestinian state but bad news if you want to destroy Israel.
All the same, one would expect that with Hamas weakened by the assassinations, Yasser Arafat might see the opportunity to come out of the rubble, take a bath and become the leader of an actual, functioning state. Palestine as a political entity has never existed. It has been an area owned or ruled by Turks, Egyptians, Lebanese, British and Jordanians. In a democratic election, it is most likely that Arafat would be elected and in any event would be the new nation's titular head of state. But he seems unable to give up the "struggle" and metamorphose from terrorist into statesman ..."
I concur.
Anti-Semitic Cartoons in Major European Media
The
Jerusalem Post has an article about disgusting and stupid anti-Semitic cartoons in major European newspapers:
One easy way to capture the essence of anti-Semitism succinctly is to examine European political cartoons.
The demonization of Jews has historically included accusations of deicide, religious infanticide, blood lust, and – post World War II – Nazi-like behavior. Some present-day cartoons reflect classic 21st-century caricatures of key anti-Semitic motifs.
The cartoons, appearing in mainstream papers in different European countries, also demonstrate how acceptable anti-Semitism has again become in European society.
In April 2002, the Italian quality daily La Stampa published a cartoon about the IDF's siege on the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. It showed an Israeli tank turning on the infant Jesus, who asks: "Surely they don't want to kill me again?"
In the same month the Greek daily Ethnos, close to the Socialist Party, depicted two IDF soldiers (with stars of David on their helmets) dressed as Nazis stabbing helpless Arabs. The caption: "Do not feel guilty, my brother. We were not in Auschwitz and Dachau to suffer, but to learn."
In 2003 the British Independent daily printed a Dave Brown cartoon showing Ariel Sharon as a child-eater. This fits neatly into the anti-Semitic libel that Jewish ritual required the use of the blood of Gentile children. Perhaps it is no coincidence that this accusation originated in England during the Middle Ages.
An examination of what happened after Brown's caricature was published shows how mainstream anti-Semitism has become.
In response to protests, the UK press complaints commission officially cleared cartoonist Brown. In fact, he later won the UK political cartoon of the year award for 2003 from the Political Cartoon Society. The competition, held on November 25, 2003, was hosted by The Economist. Labor MP Claire Short, a former minister, presented the award.
Isn't Europe just so sophisticated and nuanced in it's thinking? Read on:
The anti-Semitic concepts presented in cartoons such as those above also manifest themselves in statements by European politicians and intellectuals.
THIS CAN be demonstrated by looking at "Holocaust inversion," which turns Jews into Nazi-like persecutors Palestinian Arabs. It is an important element of the new anti-Semitism targeting the State of Israel.
Since the 1980s several high level European politicians have made radical Holocaust-manipulating and anti-Semitic declarations.
For instance, in 1982 Greek socialist prime minister Andreas Papandreou compared Israelis to Nazis. Nowadays senior members of the Greek Socialist Party often use Holocaust rhetoric to describe IDF actions. In March 2002, parliamentary speaker Apostolos Kaklamanis referred to the "genocide" of the Palestinians.
In April 2002, Franco Cavalli, the Swiss parliamentary leader and a member of the Social Democratic Party (part of the government coalition), claimed that Israel "very purposefully massacres an entire people" and undertakes "the systematic extermination of the Palestinians."
Norbert Bl m, a former German Christian Democrat minister of labor, wrote to Israeli ambassador Shimon Stein referring to Israel's Vernichtungskrieg against the Palestinians. This is the Nazi expression for "war of extermination." Bl m repeated this in an interview with the weekly Stern.
That's disgusting. It is Holocaust Minimalization, which, in my book, when committed on this level, is almost the equivalent of Holocaust Denial. Isn't Europe just so clearly a more tolerant and compassionate society? Read on. It just gets better and better:
European intellectuals such as British poet Tom Paulin have made various classic anti-Semitic statements. For example, Paulin told an Egyptian newspaper that Jewish settlers in the West Bank are Nazis who should be shot dead
Isn't this sounding familiar, Europe?
Portuguese Nobel Prize winner Jose Saramago, a communist, compared the blockaded Palestinian city of Ramallah to Auschwitz.
When did we last hear you so openly express your contempt for Jews, Europe? Can you remember? Oh, wait, I forgot. Here I am asking a senile old Grandma to remember something that happened 60-70 years ago.
What am I thinking?
Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos Voices Concern
Over the New Anti-Semitism
Tom Lantos, a Democratic Congressman from California who is given high marks by environmental groups (I note this because, in our inverted world, these days it is usually the conservative Republicans who are friendly to Jews), displayed insight on Middle-East affairs during a ceremony commemorating Holocaust Remembrance Day in Los Angeles
yesterday:
Lantos noted what he called a rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and defended recent military actions taken by Israel, including the assassination of leaders of the Islamic militant group Hamas.
"People are perfectly prepared to commemorate the Holocaust, but they won't recognize our right to prevent the next Holocaust," Lantos said.
He's right. For whatever reason, the news media, and people in general, are too willing to grant legitimacy to Anti-Semitic terrorists like Yassin and Rantisi calling them "insurgents" and "freedom fighters." To my mind, calling for the death of a people makes one a racist. A racist should not be given any authority or respect by civil society. It should not be difficult to make such moral distinctions.
Patriots Must Act
At some point, whether it is during or after the War on Terror is concluded, we, the people of the United States, may have to have a little war on terror of our own. The terror of which I am speaking is that which
can possibly be afflicted on us by our on government.
Now, I must say that I am sorry for sounding alarmist, but I would like you to read
this article by Nat Hentoff.
On April 28, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in two cases that New York Times reporter David Stout noted are likely to result in rulings of "profound importance, drawing the lines between the powers of courts and the administration and, perhaps, affecting the civil liberties of Americans in ways not yet imagined." (Emphasis added.)
The justices will hear the cases of two American citizens, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla, who have been held as "enemy combatants" in Defense Department prisons on American soil indefinitely, incommunicado, without charges, and without the continual Sixth Amendment guarantee of access to a lawyer.
Bush's solicitor general, Theodore Olson, had tried for months to persuade the high court to not even hear these cases, insisting that "the Constitution leaves these core political questions to the president as commander-in-chief. . . . The courts have no jurisdiction . . . to evaluate or second-guess the conduct of the president and the military."
It was George W. Bush, without going to the courts or to Congress, who, by himself, decided that Hamdi and Padilla, though American citizens, were entitled to none of the fundamental due process rights in the Constitution. No previous president has done this.
The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi are two examples of the Bush Administration stepping over the line of power which is granted them by election. As with the issue of free speech where the FCC and John Ashcroft are attempting to define free speech when no specific law grants them the power to do so, the Bush Administration has attempted to define an "enemy combatant" and what to do with said "combatant" without having the legislation to back up their decisions.
While I generally like Bush as a President, I must say I believe he is off on this.
We are a nation of laws. One of the greatest things about our country is even the President (in theory) is beholden to the law.
Let's make sure that idea and practice is continued. If the Supreme Court does not take care of this, then the people must. We must insist on legislation from our Congress that defines the notion of an "enemy combatant" and what to do with such a person.
Hamas Shows Some Smarts
According to
Associated Press, Hamas has appointed a new leader, but refuses to name him for fear the IDF will kill him.
Forgive me for finding this funny, but let's face it, Mossad is one of the most sophisticated intelligence organizations in the world. I mean, come on, do they really think Israel won't be able to figure it out?
If they really want to show some smarts, maybe they should try telling Israel:
"We've picked a new leader of Hamas, and his name is Ariel Sharon."
Ah, hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah.
Maybe He'll Get 73 Virgins
I mean for God's sake, Rantisi was one of the best at what he did. Doesn't he deserve even more than the common, everyday shahid?
Fox News reports that Abdel Aziz Rantisi has been killed by an Israeli helicopter.
Imagine the nerve of those Israeli's. They kill people who swear to detroy their nation. Tsk tsk tsk.
Thanks For The Memri
There is a very important article, posted at Memri.org, about
anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism promoted by the Arab state-owned press. I quote just a small section of the article which talks about an Arab conspiracy theory about September 11th:
Dr. Gamal 'Ali Zahran, head of the political science department at Suez Canal University, wrote in Al-Ahram shortly after September 11th: "At the WTC, thousands of Jews worked in finance and the stock market, but none of them were there on the day of the incident. Out of 6,000 killed, of 65 nationalities from 60 countries, not one was a Jew!" Dr. Zahran later wrote: "There were many rumors, and open publicity, that the Jews, who were huge stockholders in the airlines and insurance companies, sold their stocks at the highest possible prices some 10 days before the attacks on America. After the stock market began functioning again, on September 17 … the Jews competed amongst themselves to buy [these] stocks at the lowest possible prices, or waited until the stocks reached their minimal value and then acquired them, for tremendous profits. There is no doubt that this can expose their involvement in the crime. This demands covert investigation by U.S. government bodies far from the official investigative bodies."
Columnist Muhammad Abd Al-Fattah Muhsin also wrote in Al-Ahram blaming Israel for September 11: "Israel, and the Jewish lobby behind it, have managed to drag American society into launching a hate campaign against Arabs and Muslims, after they pinned the blame for terrorism on them. They have depicted the Arabs and Muslims as the ones behind the tragic events of 'Black Tuesday.' Yet if we browse through the pages of history, we find obvious clues [indicating] that terrorism is originally 'made in Israel'…"
A comprehensive article also appeared in Al-Ahram by Ahmad Abu Zayid, titled 'The Jews are Behind the Explosions in America.' In it Abu Zayid counted 14 "pieces of evidence" in support of the theory that Israel and the Mossad were involved in the September 11th attacks, and cites other examples which appeared in Al-Ahram as evidence. [10]
That's Arab state-owned press. If such a theory were touted in American or European society the progenitor of the theory would be scorned out of normal society. That is what should happen.
In the Arab world, on the other hand, such theories are openly promoted by the government itself. Not since Nazi Germany has it been true that a government would be involved in such disgusting propoganda. The world needs to wake up to this reality. If we do not, then we are repeating history and it is a shame on us.
Stupid Americans - It's Not "No War For Oil." It's "No War," For Oil
The French say "No War," and the
reason is oil, as revealed by
FrontPageMag.com, and Kenneth Timmerman's new book,
The French Betrayal of America:
FP: President Bush's critics say Iraq was a war for oil. You seem to agree, but in your new book, you claim that war was being waged by French president Chirac. Could you explain this to our readers?
Timmerman: If you read the French press, or the glowing accounts of Chirac's opposition to the U.S. effort to build an international coalition to oust Saddam Hussein that appeared here in America, you might actually believe that the French were standing on principle.
I reveal that Chirac was defending something quite different when he sent his erstwhile foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, around the world to buy votes against America at the United nations. Chirac was determined to maintain Saddam Hussein in power so that two extraordinarily lucrative oil contracts, negotiated by the French, could go into effect. Very little has been written about this until now.
The deals were negotiated separately by CFP Total and by Elf Aquitaine during the mid to late 1990s. At the time, both companies were state-controlled. They have since been privatized and combined into the world’s second largest oil giant, TotalFinalElf.
Through my sources, I obtained a copy of one of these contracts. It spans 154 pages, and grants the French exclusive right to exploit one of Iraq’s largest oil fields at Nahr al-Umar for a period of twenty years. Under the deal, the French were given 75% of the revenue from every barril of oil they extracted – 75%! That is absolutely stunning. Not even during the pre-OPEC days were foreign oil operators granted such extravagant terms.
I discussed the contract with an independent oil analyst, Gerald Hillman, who estimated that during the first seven years alone, it would earn the French around $50 billion. Elf-Aquitaine negotiated a virtually identical deal with Saddam to expand the gigantic Majnoon oil field as well. Put together, those two deals were worth $100 billion to the French. That’s 100 billion good reasons for Mr. Chirac to keep Saddam in power.
FP: The contracts were dependent on Saddam?
Timmerman: That’s correct, although I am sure the French are trying to put pressure on the Iraqi Governing Council to honor these scandalously corrupt deals.
Because of the United Nations sanctions, the French were allowed to do some initial scoping out work on the oil fields, but they couldn’t begin actual production until the sanctions were lifted. So this was a clear quid pro quo. As Hillman told me, what the French were saying in this contract was very simple: “We will help you get the sanctions lifted, and when we do that, you give us this.” And that is precisely what the French were trying to do at the UN. I’ve called these $100 billion deals from Saddam to Chirac the largest bribe ever paid in history. It was Chirac’s War for Oil.
Now, that's what we 'muricans call some real fancypants nuancin', eh boy?
Grandma Europa Is Playing Nude In The Park Fountain
FrontPageMag.com has an interesting
article about a new French theory on the origin of Islamism (which is a nicer name for the militant Islamic ideology I call Islamofascism):
"Whence comes the phenomenon known as fundamentalist Islam or Islamism? Some French analysts from a range of disciplines (international affairs, Orientalism, security studies, journalism) have come to an agreement: it comes from. . . the United States. Despite the inherent implausibility of viewing a movement engaged in a sustained attack on Americans as a diabolical U.S. plot, this argument has considerable persuasive power. It presents Islamism as an American attempt to retard progress in Muslim countries and divide them from their natural allies in Europe.
Such ideas come at once from the Right and the Left, representing both nostalgia for the French empire ...
America is "the last empire" in the view of these analysts, and that explains its aggressive policies. Paul-Marie de la Gorce, a leftist author with a Gaullist perspective on foreign affairs, believes that "the American empire is the only empire in the world today, it is an exclusive hegemony, and it is the first time that such a strange phenomenon occurs in human history."
Worse, the United States is a "totalitarian democracy," writes Alexandre del Valle (the pen-name of Arthur Dupont, a French civil servant). It is a lone superpower intent on preventing any other power from emerging and determined to control Europe. Islamism is one whip used against Europe ...
Richard Labévière, a French-Swiss television reporter, makes the same point in a recent book, ostensibly a work of investigative reporting.
Without seeing the CIA's hand every time history moves faster, and without falling into a paranoid interpretation of the "grand conspiracy," our investigation always ends up identifying more or less direct American responsibilities, more or less converging interests, more or less controlled instrumentalization in many Islamist theaters of operations.
Gallois believes the United States, by its very nature, must be on the side of the Islamists: "Islam much resembles the capitalist conception of society that prevails in the United States," he asserts in a recent book.12 Labévière also finds a harmony between an America bent on hegemony and radical Islam:
Islamism is fully coherent with the market economy. The theological-political order required by Islam fully conforms with the requirements of American capitalism. America's imperial design feeds on a weakening of any principle of sovereignty and territorial organization of the national bodies politic. This disappearance of political sovereignty foreshadows the untrammeled rule of an uncontrollable globalization [mondialisation] run by business mafias and religious fanatics."
Boy oh boy, I don't know whether to be unhappy that they're on to us, or to be happy that, for once, the Jews aren't getting blamed.
But, I do have to hand it to those French thinkers, they really know how to turn a phrase. America is a "totalitarian democracy." That is awesome. Awesome.
We should just start calling ourselves that. It's so badass.
Answer: Because The Kurds Are Not Fighting Against Jews
The Blog
Red Letter Day poses a good question:
Why do the Palestinians get to jump ahead of the Kurds?
I was thinking about this, and the Kurds meet all of the qualifications to get a state. They are a cultural and national group with strong ties to the land on which they live. They've been persecuted mercilessly for a long time (much worse then the Palestinians, FWIW), and even better, they have quietly gone about building the institutions of statehood and a civil society pretty much on their own.
So, if you want to talk about ethnic groups that deserve a state of their own, the Kurds ought to be at the top of anyone's list.
Oh, one other thing. The Kurds have never blown up any busses full of civilians, never desecrated religious shrines, never mutilated 'enemy' corpses, never machine-gunned elementary schools, never sent teenagers in bomb vests to kill other teenagers at restaurants and coffee shops, and as far as I know, they have never tried to make a bomb filled with rat poison or HIV+ blood.
Thanks to Red Letter Day.
The War On Terror Defined
There are liberal writers and policians who support the War On Terror and, even, the Iraq War. Among them are people like Christopher Hitchens, Norm Geras, Roger Simon, and, most obviously, my main man, Tony Blair.
Add New York Times columnist Paul Berman to the list. In an elegant and persuasive
article he defines and defends the War:
"The war in Iraq may end up going well or catastrophically, but either way, this war has always been central to the broader war on terror. That is because terror has never been a matter of a few hundred crazies who could be rounded up by the police and special forces. Terror grows out of something larger — an enormous wave of political extremism.
The wave began to swell some 25 years ago and by now has swept across a big swath of the Muslim world. The wave is not a single thing. It consists of several movements or currents, which are entirely recognizable. These movements draw on four tenets: a belief in a paranoid conspiracy theory, according to which cosmically evil Jews, Masons, Crusaders and Westerners are plotting to annihilate Islam or subjugate the Arab people; a belief in the need to wage apocalyptic war against the cosmic conspiracy; an expectation that, post-apocalypse, the Islamic caliphate of ancient times will re-emerge as a utopian new society; and a belief that, meanwhile, death is good, and should be loved and revered.
A quarter century ago, some of the extremist movements pictured the coming utopia in a somewhat secular light, and others in a theocratic light. These differences, plus a few other quarrels, led to hatred and even war, like the one between Iran and Iraq. The visible rivalries left an impression in some people's minds that nothing tied together these sundry movements.
American foreign policy acted on that impression, and tried to play the movements against one another, and backed every non-apocalyptic dictator who promised to keep the extremists under control. The American policy was cynical and cruel. It did nothing to prevent those sundry movements and dictators from committing murders on a gigantic scale.
Nor did the policy produce anything good for America, in the long run. For the sundry movements did share a common outlook, which ought to have been obvious all along — the paranoid and apocalyptic outlook of European fascism from long ago, draped in Muslim robes. These movements added up to a new kind of modern totalitarianism. And, in time, the new totalitarianism found its common point, on which everyone could agree. This was the shared project of building the human bomb. The Shiite theocrats of Iran pioneered the notion of suicide terror. And everyone else took it up: Sunni theocrats, Baathist anti-theocrats of Iraq and Syria, the more radical Palestinian nationalists, and others, too.
The only long-term hope for tamping down the terrorist impulse was to turn America's traditional policies upside down, and come out for once in favor of the liberal democrats of the Muslim world. This would mean promoting a counter-wave of liberal and rational ideas to combat the allure of paranoia and apocalypse.
Some people argue that anti-totalitarian revolutions can never be brought about from outside. The history of World War II says otherwise.
The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction. Iraq was a logical place to begin because, for a dozen years, the Baathists had been shooting at American and British planes, and inciting paranoia and hatred against the United States, and encouraging the idea that attacks can successfully be launched against American targets, and giving that idea some extra oomph with the bluff about fearsome weapons.
Nobody can doubt, however, that even in its planning stages, the invasion and occupation of Iraq were depressingly bungled. The whole thing was done in an odd mood of hysteria and parsimony, a bad combination. It is tempting to conclude that, all in all, we would have been better off staying out of Iraq altogether — and maybe this will turn out to be the case.
But everyone who feels drawn to that conclusion had better acknowledge its full meaning: the unavoidable implication that we would be better off today with Saddam Hussein in power; better off with economic sanctions still strangling the Iraqi people; better off with American army bases still occupying Saudi soil (Osama bin Laden's original grievance against us); and better off without the progress on weapons proliferation in the Muslim world
Entire populations around the world feel a personal dislike for America's president, which makes it difficult for even the friendliest of political leaders in some countries to take pro-American positions.
But the bigger problem has to do with public understandings of the war. People around the world may not want to lift a finger in aid so long as the anti-totalitarian logic of the war remains invisible to them. President Bush ought to have cleared up this matter. He has, in fact, spoken about conspiracy theories and hatred (including at Tuesday's press conference). He has spoken about a new totalitarianism, and has even raised the notion of a war of ideas.
But Mr. Bush muddied these issues long ago by putting too much emphasis on weapons in Iraq ...
Somebody else will have to straighten out these confusions, then. I think it will have to be the Democrats — at least those Democrats who accept the anti-totalitarian logic."
The thing is, Tony Blair has already eloquently spoken for this position. I don't think anyone could have been more forceful or eloquent than Blair.
Well, anyway, thanks Paul.
Your Brain And The Internet - Why Absolute Free Speech Is Absolutely Important
Yahoo Reports that the FDA has approved a "Human Brain Implant Device":
BOSTON - For years, futurists have dreamed of machines that can read minds, then act on instructions as they are thought. Now, human trials are set to begin on a brain-computer interface involving implants.
Cyberkinetics Inc. of Foxboro, Mass., has received Food and Drug Administration (news - web sites) approval to begin a clinical trial in which four-square-millimeter chips will be placed beneath the skulls of paralyzed patients.
If successful, the chips could allow patients to command a computer to act — merely by thinking about the instructions they wish to send.
It's a small, early step in a mission to improve the quality of life for victims of strokes and debilitating diseases like cerebral palsy or Lou Gehrig's. Many victims of such ailments can now survive for long periods thanks to life support, but their quality of life is poor.
"A computer is a gateway to everything else these patients would like to do...
and the computer is the gateway to the internet. Are you with me here? It is becoming obvious that, in the future, our brains will be melded with computers through the use of such implants. Therefore, it is also obvious that eventually our minds will be connected to the internet via wireless technology. We will be able to access
all known information at all times.
Now, the thing is, such a seemless integration of brain, computer and internet, will have profound effects on the way human beings
can think about, what they
will think about, and what they can accomplish. Such a profound effect will be clearly be seen as a a distinct advantage and will quickly come to be viewed as an imperative.
In other words, a technology, which gives one person such a profound and elemental advantage over another person who does not have access to the technology, will come to viewed as a
necessity for basic human life.
Such technology will come to be viewed as a human rights issue. It will be the right of every human that their brain is linked to the internet.
When a child is born, the second thing the Doctor will do, after he slaps the baby on the butt, is implant a set of chips.
Human beings will know no other reality than that of "access to all known information at all times."
Great. However, the problem is there will always be people like
John Ashcroft who will try to dictate what information people should have access to. In a world where the human brain is seemlessly melded with the internet that would mean
the John Ashcroft's of the world would be attempting to dictate what people are allowed to think about.
In addition, if a particular brain went offline, and actually thought about something that was not allowed, it would be, presumably, immediately detectable.
It would be a thought crime.
Now, the truth is, such detection of an individual's thought processes could be avoided through the use of encryption. However, we know that encryption is not foolproof. So where does that leave us?
Such a melding of brain and internet would change human life in a fundamental way. Humans would have to rethink everything about their world. Issues would emerge which we are not able to conceive of currently.
It would be interesting, and probably important, to start trying to think them through now. When the atom bomb hit us, we had not begun to think through it's implications. Luckily, that has not bit us in the ass to date.
There's no reason for us to believe that we will be so lucky with other emerging technologies.
This is only the beginning...
Oh Jeez, You Lucky Guys - Take It, For God's Sake - Take It
Bin Laden offers a truce to Europe.
DUBAI (Reuters) - A purported audio tape by Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), aired on Arab television Thursday, offered a truce to Europeans if they pulled troops out of Muslim nations but vowed to continue fighting the United States and Israel.
The voice on the tape, which sounded like that on previous broadcasts believed to be genuine, also said that the March 11 train bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people were retaliation for Spain's role in Iraq (news - web sites), Afghanistan (news - web sites) and with the Palestinians.
"I offer a truce to them (Europe) with a commitment to stop operations against any state which vows to stop attacking Muslims or interfere in their affairs," the voice said.
"The announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land ..."
Hmmm, I wonder what he means by "our land?" Do you think he means everywhere in the "Arab World?"
Yes, that's what he means, and that's why the War on Terrorism is the same as the "Intifada" against Israel. Check out my article
Guardian - Liar, Lunatic or Stupid? Sheikh Yassin wanted Jews out of Israel, BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR LAND.
That's what these nutjob Islamofascists think, if they have had control over a land for a period of time then it is their land for all time. In fact, Bin Laden is on record calling Spain "Andalusia" because that's what it was called when it was Islamic territory, therefore it still is Islamic territory and always will be, so we'll still call it Andalusia. Understand?
"Then why is he offering Spain a truce?" the Euro mindset asks. Well, that's a cute question, Europe. Let's read further, shall we?
"The announcement of the truce starts with the withdrawal of the last soldier from our land and the door is open for three months from the date of the announcement of this statement."
Sounds like a good deal, Europe. I advise you to take it. Take it, for God's sake.
A Stern Reminder On Free Speech
The FCC says Howard Stern violates "Community Standards." However,
He's the number one rated personality in almost every market in which he airs.
This means that the community's "Standard" is they like him.
Thus, he can not be "violating Community Standards."
That's hard to argue with.
Hat Tip: Baba Booey
Are We A Nation Of Laws Or A Nation Of Standards?
I wish some reporter would pose the above question to Michael Powell and John Ashcroft. The FCC mandate indicates that they are to judge indecency by posing the vague question of whether a given communication
violates "Community Standards."
The problem with that, as I have stated before is there is no law. It's just a standard. I have heard it said that the great thing about Democracy is that it's built on laws and that nobody is above the law.
However, if a few people (like Michael Powell and John Ashcroft, who are not elected representatives of the people) are defining "Standards" then they are above the law, are they not?
Our Jenin
Ok, so now
we're being accused of a "Jenin Massacre." One could never say for sure until the facts are in, but I can almost guarantee you this is another "Jenin Myth."
"Shells slamming into houses. Bodies buried in the gardens of homes. Snipers in mosque minarets. Iraqis who fled Falluja after a week of fighting say they are haunted by the scenes in the city last week.
"I could see many bodies in the streets. Hundreds were lying in the street. Relatives were too scared to get them," said Samir Rabee, who escaped Falluja with relatives and eight other families in the back of a refrigeration truck.
"Many of the bodies were buried in the sports stadium and others were buried in the gardens of homes."
To accuse a people of committing an atrocity when they have not is a kind of war crime in itself. Of course, they would get off on an insanity plea, so why bother.
Good reporting Reuters.
Easter Message
My sister-in-law brought her boyfriend to church today. He is a Unitarian and I don't think the issue of the reality of Jesus Christ is a big thing for him. He's a real good guy, but he has said to her he doesn't really understand her perspective as an Evangelical Christian.
I myself have not asked him what he thinks. But, since he was sitting in our church for the first time today I wondered what his impressions were.
Our Pastor was quoting the verse where Christ said He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and that no man comes to the Father but through Him. And he was saying that this is the Truth. And that with Truth there are not two ways. There is only the Truth and any other error.
That must have freaked the boyfriend out because he knows us all as intelligent, sensitive, tolerant people. But now he knows we go to a church where the Pastor says these things, and he sees that we agree because - as silly as it may seem that agreement is shown through such little rituals - we do things like close our eyes during prayer and communion, sing along with the songs, and answer our Pastors call that "the Lord is risen," with our own "He is risen indeed."
He is?
Well, yes, I do believe that. And I believe it is the central fact of all of our live, and it is the central fact of history.
But, I was not always so convinced.
I "became a Christian" when I was thirteen. I put that in quotation marks because when I "became a Christian" it wasn't so much that I came to know the Lord - because I had always known of God and Jesus as a reality in my life - as it was that I was old enough at that time to understand the message that I needed God's forgiveness and that Christ's death on the cross was the atonement for my sin.
But, I must say, as I got older I became extremely unhappy with what I thought of as the Church. Comments like John Lennon's, "Jesus was ok, but his followers were a bit thick," began to make a lot of sense to me. I looked around me and saw a lot of people not following the rules I had been taught; not being good to each, not being sober or chaste, not being honest. My idea of "the Church" was the hypocrites I saw around me. I should have been looking at myself.
I went off to college, studied Philosophy and Religion and stopped going to Church altogether, although if anybody ever asked me, I still identified myself as a Christian. I always believed that Christ was the Way, but without a connection to the liturgical aspects of church, and without the encouragement of my fellow hypocrites/Church members, I gradually fell away from believing in a "Historic Jesus."
I became a kind of Jungian Christian, believing that the fact that the "Christ story" resonated with people of all lands and cultures meant that "Christ" was a reality in some ethereal plane, even if he had not walked on the Earth and touched the lives of fellow humans.
As a Jungian Christian I also, as you can imagine, became much more lax in my morals because I was basically walking around with a philosophy that said, "Whatever resonates is true." And I can tell you that when I was in my twenties what was resonating most for me was my male member and all it's narcissistic demands.
When it comes to the apostascy of people in their twenties, I don't which comes first the chicken or the egg. Do we fall away from God and thus become more immoral, or do fall away from God
so that we may become more immoral (i.e. "have a good time")?
Who knows?
Anyway, as the story goes for most people it also went for me. Emptiness piled on top of emptiness, and gradually I realized I was a disappointed, unhappy, angry guy who wasn't living up to his ideals.
One day I was driving down the street listening to
Dennis Prager on the radio and he said something like, "I'm a Jew, but I know that we needed Protestantism for Democracy to be born."
Now, I don't want to try to quote him extensively on a radio monologue I heard that I heard probably 7 or 8 years back, so I'll just tell you what I came to make of his thoughts.
I came to realize that everything that I believe is worthwhile in this world is built on one of two things:
1) The love one human being shows another,
and
2) Judeo-Christian philosophy/theology.
Now, clearly there are people who love one another all across the face of this world. As the Bible says, "Beloved let us love one another, for love is of God and everyone who loves is born of God and knows god."
But, that's just the world of interpersonal relationships, and that world rarely effects the broader world of political power. And, of course, political power, if wielded without wisdom, is the cause of the a large part of the world's misery.
And that's how Prager got me to return to my fundamentalist Bible-believing roots. Because, when I thought about it, I realized that Protestant Christianity was the birth of Democracy precisely because it says that each individual human being has a direct relationship with the God of the universe. We can talk to Him and he can talk to us. We are all priests. We do not need any other priest, imam, witch doctor, etc. as an intermediary.
In addition, I realized that Judeo-Christian philosophy says that life is created by God and that it is therefore "good." It is something to be cherished, not withdrawn from. Life is beautiful when lived with the wisdom of the Word of God. Life is good when you dream of what you want and create.
This is in direct conflict with the philosophy of Buddhism which says that Life is Pain and the way to enlightenment is
detatchment from desire. And what happens when you tell a whole culture full of people that they should detatch from desire from the time they are born?
What happens is you produce a land full of people who will not give voice to what they want. Great, huh?
Listen, I don't want to go through all the religions of the world and put them down. That's not the point. As I said, I studied philosophy and religion in school and I love religion and it's pursuit of the eternal and ineffable. My favorite religions, other than Christianity and Judaism, are Hinduism (particularly Ramakrishna and the
Atman is Brahman variety), and Sufi Islam.
So, there I was, in my early to mid-thirties, when I realized that I had to get back into the
ground of my religion, because the
particulars of Christianity are important.
When it says, God created the heavens and the earth and saw that it was good, that's important. It means that life is to be cherished. It means that God values matter and color and beauty.
When it says that God created man in his own image, that's important. It means that man is to be a creature that values matter and color and beauty. It means that we have free will and that we have the power to be creative like God, albeit just working with the materials he has provided.
So, to find my grounding I bought the 1928 Edition of The Book of Common Prayer and I read through all the verses of the Morning and Evening Prayers over and over. They tell the entire story of the Bible. I read the prayers, praises and psalms over and over. They slowly became a part of me. And slowly I found that my religion which I had discovered to be so important to the world around me, was becoming important to me again.
It had to. It would have been very ignorant of me to have looked at the fact that all that I valued in the world was created by an ideology in which I refused to have faith.
But, getting back to the original poing of this post, my sister-in-laws boyfriend does not have all the background that I do. He never was grounded. He's just an intelligent and creative, college-educated person who works in the music industry who, I would imagine, brings all the usual prejudices that go along with that kind of life, to church with him.
What must it be like for him to hear somebody say that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and that's that? He must think to himself,
"These people all seem so reasonable. They seem like good people. They are my friends, but what the ...?"
I came back to God through a philosophical route. How would he come to know God? What route would help him understand? Maybe it would be seeing people do music and dance for the glory of God, and doing it with joy and serenity, even if they are not the best performers in the world. Maybe it would be through watching our family and how we interact.
He is a loving person and so I believe he knows God already, in a sense. However, I now believe it is important to know God on an intellectual level as well. To think about Him, who He is, and to make a choice about Him, a step of faith.
What an encounter.
Is It Really Porn If It's So Small All You Can Do Is Laugh?
That's my
question to John Ashcroft.
I've already gone into the Freedom of Speech issue in a previous post called
Michael Power - King of All Media? I don't intend to go into it much further here. Suffice it to say, I don't think the government should be dictating content in means of communication that require choice on the part of the consumer, meaning one would have to access it through a purchase.
Anti-Semitism at Toronto's York University
York University in Toronto, Canada hosted a seminar called "From Ground Zero to Islamophobia: Who Are The Victims." The seminar was sponsored by a number of campus groups including the Middle Eastern Student Association, Muslim Action Network, the Muslim Student Association, the Pakistani Student Association, and the Pakistani Student Federation.
Speaker Mohammed al-Asi
imparted this wonderful meditation on the almighty power of the "Jewish lobby":
The "Jewish lobby" in the United States "was very disturbed that Muslims were beginning to stand up and their voice was beginning to be heard. Something had to be done about this." The lobby hit upon a great idea: "something that would jolt public opinion into perceiving everything that is Islamic as terrorist." Mossad and the CIA infiltrated "Islamic combatant groups" in Afghanistan and were the forces behind the attack on September 11, 2001. QED.
One might be tempted to think, "Ok, so they invited a speaker to campus and he let loose with some crazy stuff." But, I think we should look again at the title of the seminar. Interesting, right?
And then maybe we should consider
this and
this and
this.
Give Me Some Of That Thar Perspective, Wouldja Ali?
I know we Americans lack the gift of nuance that our more complex brothers and sisters over in Europe have, so I'm going to have to go outside to get a little rational analysis on the current goings-on in Iraq.
Iraq the Model, a blog written by an Iraqi named Ali, gives some much needed perspective:
Despite the tragic loses on the part of the coalition forces and the innocent Iraqis who were accidentally trapped in between, I think that what's happening in Iraq now (al-Mahdi army revolt) will end up in a good way for Iraq. Why do I say that?
This was bound to happen. It was in the air since the 9th of April 2003.
So what’s good about this riot? As I said this is a very old dream that is strongly rooted to the conscience of the majority of the Shea’at. And with the freedom of speech and with the defeat of the Arab Sunni and with the support and motivation from Iran, this was bound to happen. It could’ve been worse if a leader with more brains and popularity than this clown carried it.
This riot should be and will be crushed sooner or later, because of the ignorance of the leadership and the lack of support of the majority of Iraqis including Shea’at which made those fanatics resort to terrorizing the people to show that they have the support of the Iraqis like their demand for a general strike which was associated with clear threats.
Another good outcome of this riot is that it showed that the influence of clerics including Sistani, is much smaller than they and their followers were claiming. I’ve heard it from most of the Shea’at that the whole Iraq supports Sistani and that the Americans don’t dare to defy him! They really believed their illusions. Now it appears that the fatwa of Sistani didn’t have any significant effect on the Americans’ determination to end this riot, nor it convinced the fanatic Shea’at to stay calm. Even the GC paid no attention to him and showed readiness to use force if it is needed.
When this riot will be crushed, and it will be, Sistani and all the clerics will no longer seem as strong as they seemed before, and once they see the 'wholly' name Al-Sadir in handcuffs, they will think a million times before committing a similar stupidity in the future.
This will certainly not happen tomorrow, nor will it happen soon after crushing this riot, but certainly the results will make Iraqis aware of the fact that their leaders are actually not as smart and strong as they look, and that their religious, tribal and ethnic groups will not provide them with their needs. Once that happen they will start to reconsider their goals and their loyalty and the voice of reason, logic will certainly be more heard once the horns of ignorance get silenced or ignored by the majority.
Damn, we'll have to get them Euros to come on over here and build some colleges for us. Then maybe we could do some cogitatin of our own, eh boy?
Maybe We Are Getting Close
Alot of people around the world have wondered, "What does Iraq have to do with the War on Terror?"
Well, beside the fact that everybody knows that Hussein's regime
knowingly harbored terrorists and funded Palestinian terrorism by
giving $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers... you mean beside just those measley facts, right?
Well, ok, here's my theory. I believe Bush knew that he could make a legal case for the invasion of Iraq before the U.N. Other than the already vanquished Taliban, there was no other terror-supporting regime for which Bush could make a legal case. So, while it is true you could say that Hussein did not perfectly fit the Islamofascist model, I believe Bush thought he could draw all the other Islamofascist regimes out into the open by invading Iraq. By that I mean, Bush believed that countries like Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc. would give him a reason to "change their regimes" and clean their clocks as well.
I think
he has finally done it.
US intelligence officials believe that Iran's hard-line and fiercely independent security services are providing support -- either directly or through proxies -- to outlawed Iraqi militia forces loyal to Shi'a Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr that have been clashing with the US-led coalition during the past week, current and former US government officials and analysts said yesterday.
"We know on the ground that there are many hundreds and probably thousands of Iranian intelligence agents spreading money to their favored forces," said Larry Diamond, who returned from Iraq on Saturday, where he served as a senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority. "There are multiple signs all over. Iran has been funding and arming several radical Islamic militias, not just Sadr's, with different elements of the Iranian power structure aiding different groups."
One defense official who requested anonymity but has access to the latest intelligence reports added that Iran is "not providing official government support, but that doesn't preclude that individuals are coming across the border with government acquiescence."
Go ahead pick on big bad Satan my darling little Islamofascists. And for any of you Euros out there just waiting to ask the question, "Yes, America does intend to invade the whole world."
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
Islamic Jihad leader Mohammed Al-Hindi
got it right when he told reporters in Israel,
"Our message to the world, to our brothers in Iraq, we are fighting against the same enemies, the same occupation, we are fighting in the same battle. Our people in Palestine and our brothers in Iraq are slaughtered by the knife, the knife of Bush and Sharon."
That's right Mohammed. This War is between free Democratic societies like the U.S., Israel, Britain, France (whether they like it or not), Spain (again, whether they like it or not), Germany (again), Japan, Australia, Italy, etc. and Islmamofascists like you.
Glad to hear one side understands the nature of this War. It will be a good day when our side finally does. However, I fear what it might take for us to come to that understanding.
Twenty Things You Need to Know About Jews, But Were Afraid to Ask, According to a Completely Insane Racist
Sheikh Sakr, the former head of Al Azhar University's Fatwa (a fatwa is a Islamic legal proclamation) Committee, was asked the simple question, "What, according to the Qur'an, are the Jews main characteristics and qualities?"
Here are some of the, uh, finer points of his
answer.:
1. "They used to fabricate things and falsely ascribe them to Allah. Allah Almighty says: 'That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They knowingly speak a lie concerning Allah.' (Al-'Imran: 75)
8. "Giving preference to their own interests over the rulings of religion and the dictates of truth. Allah says [to the Jews]: '… When there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?' (Al-Baqarah: 87)
11. "They are known for their arrogance and haughtiness. Allah tells us about this in the verse that reads: 'The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones.' (Al-Ma'idah: 18)
12. "Utilitarianism and opportunism are among their innate traits. This is clear in the verse that reads: 'And of their taking usury when they were forbidden it, and of their devouring people's wealth by false pretences.' (An-Nisa': 161)
13. "Their rudeness and vulgarity is beyond description. Referring to this, the Qur'anic verse reads: 'Some of those who are Jews change words from their context and say: We hear and disobey; hear thou as one who heareth not, and Listen to us!, distorting with their tongues and slandering religion. If they had said: We hear and we obey; hear thou, and look at us, it had been better for them, and more upright. But Allah hath cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not, save for a few.' (An-Nisa':46)
14. "It is easy for them to slay people and kill innocents. Nothing in the world is dearer to their hearts than shedding blood and murdering human beings. They never give up this trait even with the Messengers and the Prophets. Allah says: '… And [they] slew the prophets wrongfully.' (Al-Baqarah: 61)
16. "They never keep their promises or fulfill their words. Almighty Allah says: Is it ever so that when ye make a covenant, a party of you violates it?' The truth is, most of them believe not.' (Al-Baqarah: 100)
19. "Miserliness runs deep in their hearts. Describing this, the Qur'an states: 'Or have they even a share in the Sovereignty? Then in that case, they would not give mankind even the speck on a date stone.' (An-Nisa': 53)
Do I need to say that this guys a racist? The thing is, Sheik Sakr is a respected legal thinker in Islam. Something is wrong when a society respects a person who spews such racism. What is wrong? I don't know. I truly don't have an explanation. I can only say that Nazi Germany was sick in a very similar way.
Maybe one way to look at it is that societies are like biological organisms. They can become sick and diseased.
We should never be tempted to look at this kind of disease through postmodern, multi-cultural goggles and say, "Well, it's not bad. It's just different." It is bad.
We would never tolerate this kind of racism in our society, so why do we tolerate it in Islamic societies? I have a theory. I think maybe a lot of us in the West quietly think to ourselves, "we can't expect anything more from those people."
I say that that kind of thinking is also racism. The people who live in the Islamic countries of the world are just as intelligent as any of the other peoples of the world. And we can, and must, expect them to develop civilized societies.
Cousin Nidra Sends a Letter to Say She's Worried About Grandma Europa
Nidra Poller moved to France 32 years ago. Recently, she sent a letter home to tell us of some of the strange behavior Grandma Europa has been exhibiting lately.
What happened? The sea change began on September 28, 2000, when the domestic repercussions of Arafat’s prefabricated "al-Aqsa" intifada in Jerusalem struck me in a dizzying instant of recognition. I was hardly alone. Stunned and dazed, the formerly integrated, assimilated, liberated, progressive, and (in some cases) indifferent Jews of France found themselves—ourselves—thrust out of the body politic and herded into a virtual ghetto. In the years since then, things have only gotten worse, much worse.
Here I stand, endowed with an intimate knowledge of French language, thought, and reality—and on the threshold, perhaps, of France’s, even Europe’s, downfall.
I never thought of myself as an expatriate ... Instead, I’d been a "European," picking up after a brief interruption not exactly where my family had left off—not Budapest, not Przemysl, those were places we would not go back to—but Europe and all it could boast of. Beautiful cities that are really lived in, monuments at every street corner, savoir faire, craftsmanship, savoir vivre, boutiques, refinement, manners...
And . . . the Shoah? I came back to be European and, irony of ironies, Europe is showing me why my grandparents left.
...How can I explain to French grandchildren ... that I cannot entrust them to their native land? But how can I lead them to safety if I myself do not know how to go home?
I used to run back to the U.S. for visits of ten days, just to see my family. Then I would return to my true love, Paris, and to my real life. That delicious sweet buttery butter, the perfect bread, our local open-air market.
I loved speaking French, couldn’t wait to get back to it, loved my favorite boutiques, my fashionable clothes, my daily elegance.
I’m being treated to a poignant lesson in European and Jewish history. The 30’s: why did they stay? Why didn’t they run for their lives? Couldn’t they see what was happening?
I am, or was, the first American-born generation in a family that fled Europe before World War I: a lesson in the wisdom of leaving before it is too late. Now I am the first stage in the story of a three-generation "French" family. Why don’t people just pick up and go while they still can? It’s always the same. There is an ailing grandmother, a son in medical school, a daughter who just got married, a business too good to throw away and not good enough to sell. There are in-laws and obligations and unfinished business and . . . hope. Hope that it will all blow over.
Jews are being persecuted every day in France. Some are insulted, pelted with stones, spat upon; some are beaten or threatened with knives or guns. Synagogues are torched, schools burned to the ground. A little over a month ago, at least one Jew was savagely murdered, his throat slit, his face gouged with a carving knife. Did it create an uproar? No. The incident was stifled, and by common consent—not just by the authorities, but by the Jews.
Some Jews are simply frightened; they are reluctant to take the subway, walk in certain neighborhoods, go out after dark. Others, clearly identifiable as Jews, are courageous and defiant. Many, perhaps the majority, show no outward signs of Jewishness and do not seek to know the truth about the rampant and increasingly violent anti-Semitism all around them. If you are Jewish but do not defend Israel or act too religious or look too different, you are not yet a target—so why insist on monitoring the danger when daily life is so delicious?
And the lies so tantalizing. A thick, hand-knit comforter of prevarication spreads itself over the French population. Every morning, instead of waking people up, the press tucks them in. France has become a nation of sleepwalkers. You sense it with particular sharpness after a visit to the U.S.
France is in fact an adversary of the United States—as is its right, after all. But the French honestly believe their country is behaving like a reasonable ally, and there is no way to convince them of the contrary. They are hooked up to an intravenous flow of lies about the United States, ...
I don’t see signs that any of this is about to change.
Will the pacifist and pacified French stand up and defend their nation? Or will we have to leave?
That is what it boils down to. Things have gone from shouting "death to the Jews" to firebombing schools and synagogues, to persecution, attacks, even murder. We have Muslim rage in schools, hospitals, and courtrooms. Police headquarters are attacked, hospital personnel beaten, judges threatened. The Republic is under siege, and what are the French doing about it? They are trashing America.
For me, the monuments are crumbling. The glistening golden dome of Les Invalides. The châteaux and the triumphal arches... How can so much beauty cover such deep cowardice?
We are not free in France. I know the difference. I come from a free country. A rough and ready, clumsy, slapped together, tacky country where people say wow and gosh and shop at Costco... A native land I walked out on with belated adolescent insouciance. A foreign land where I was born because Europe vomited up my grandparents as it is now coughing up me and mine.
If only the accusations bandied about so mindlessly by the French talking heads were true: American imperialism, Washington’s insatiable drive for hegemony, the Yankee need to dominate the world, and all the rest, the whole stars-and-stripes version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Give me empire, my dear Yanks. Come over here and colonize this place so that I can put my suitcases back on top of the closet, keep my swishes and furbelows, my adopted family jewels and Continental airs, and live to a ripe old age here in the center of Paris, in the middle of nowhere.
Of course, her piece is mostly just opinion. Sure, it's true there have been a lot of violent anti-Semitic attacks in Paris in the past few years. Sure, it's true Europe is once again ignoring the truth of it's problem. Sure, it's true that it's ok in Europe to say that America is controlled by a secret cabal ... oh wait, it's not a secret anymore, it's the Jewish Lobby, Wolfowitz, Pearl, etc.
That doesn't mean it's time to consider leaving Europe, does it?
Syrian Television Show: Jews Use Arab Childrens Blood in Passover Matzoh
Proving that the moral-equivalence crowd (in the Middle-East debate) clearly just have trouble making intellectual distinctions, Syrian TV posits that Jews use Christian childrens blood in Passover matzoh:
The Syrian-produced Hezbollah TV series Al-Shatat, which ran earlier this year during Ramadan, represents a long line of Syrian blood libels. In the 20th episode of Al-Shatat, a "rabbi" states, "we want the blood of a Christian child before Passover, for the matzos." A neighborhood boy named Nathan, who looks to be about eight years old, is brought into the room, his throat is slit as he cries "Mama, Mama" and his blood is poured into a metal basin. The next scene has the rabbi wishing a "Jewish man" a good Passover and offering him matzo — "tastier and holier because it was kneaded with pure blood."
This is on TV because these people believe this kind of stuff. Just like the Germans during the time of the Nazi's believed this stuff. Here in America when someone comes out with this kind of racism, they are scorned and shouted out of the public arena. In Syria they give you a budget to produce a TV show and then run it on the national network.
I can't really decide how to think about this one. Is this stupid and silly, or is it evil? How about all three. The thing is they really believe this stupid blood libel.
We need to pity these people, but we also need to realize that people who believe these types of things are
dangerous.
Go
read the article over at National Review.
Prager Poses a Great Question
Dennis Prager poses a great question in his
column this week:
Islamic terror is caused by Muslims, not, as Islamic and leftist apologists would have it, by the non-Muslims against whom it is directed. In our morally confused world, Spain, Israel and America are blamed for having their men, women and children blown up: What did these countries do to arouse such enmity among otherwise tolerant Arabs and Muslims?
Palestinian terror provides the answer. About 25 percent of Palestinians are Christian, yet if there are any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers, I am unaware of them. Now why is that? Don't Muslim and leftist apologists incessantly tell us that the reason for Palestinian terror is "Israeli occupation and oppression"? Why, then, are there no Palestinian Christian terrorists? Are Christian Palestinians less occupied?
Wow. Checkmate in three moves.
Judas Took Christ's Place On The Cross
Let's see now Christianity teaches that Christ took the blame for our sins by coming to this world to die for us. He hung on the on the cross in our place.
Islam, on the other hand, teaches that Christ did not hang on the cross, but instead,
Judas took His place.
But there are crucial differences between the New Testament accounts portrayed in the movie and what Islam teaches.
"In Islam, we do not believe that he got crucified at the end," said Ranim Khalifa, 17, a senior at Schenley High School. Muslims believe that when Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane for God to deliver him from death, God took him directly to heaven. There was no crucifixion or resurrection, only an ascension.
But Muslims believe that God made it appear to Jesus' enemies that they had killed him, Mogahed said. The Quran provides no details, but the most common theological explanation is that Jesus' betrayer, Judas, was made to look like Jesus and was crucified in his placed.
When Khalifa explained that to her Christian friends, "they were taken aback...
As well they should be.
Israelly Cool Is, Well, Really Cool
Today is Israelly Cool appreciation day.
Here's something else from the Aussie in Israel:
AP are carrying this headline:
Funnily enough, I do not recall AP ever carrying the headline "Arafat Reneges Vow Not to Harm Jews."
Good point, I actually read that headline over several times and never even thought about that. Thanks for putting it into perspective.
Dad, Grandma Europa Keeps Babbling About How Someone Named Amerigo Stole Something From Her. Who's Amerigo?
The
Guardian, in a decidedly unguarded moment, bares the depth of European resentment over America's dominance. (By the way, a big tip of the hat to Israelly Cool)
The architecture of the Iraqi town of Falluja bears little resemblance to the narrow alleys of Gaza's impoverished refugee camps. Detached two-storey homes with palm trees and small shaded gardens behind their sand-coloured front walls stand along wide streets, looking as comfortable as suburbs anywhere.
But as residents ushered reporters into their homes a few days ago, shortly before this week's attack on four American security guards (though mercenaries might be a better term), it was clear that deep communal anger was lurking here, and had reached boiling point. They wanted to show the results of several US incursions over four days and nights last week.
Rockets from helicopter gunships had punctured bedroom walls. Patio floors and front gates were pockmarked by shrapnel. Car doors looked like sieves. In the mayhem 18 Iraqis lay dead. On the American side two marines were killed. It was the worst period of violence Falluja has seen during a year of occupation.
So this week's retaliation comes as no surprise. The cycle of violence that US troops unleashed looks and feels increasingly like Palestinian rage in the face of excessive force by an occupying power.
In Falluja there are tactical differences. Few Iraqis see a need to resort to suicide, nor do they primarily choose to target civilians. The US base three miles from town produces a ready flow of potential military victims, supplemented this week by private contractors working closely with the occupation authorities. Military convoys trundle through or near Falluja every day. The usual tactic is to ambush them with homemade bombs, followed by grenades and small arms fire when the survivors jump out of their vehicles. Then the resistance runs off into the suburban side-streets.
The American response is heavy-handed and indiscriminate. "The US is indirectly supporting the resistance by targeting innocent people. It makes us more sympathetic to the resistance," Shaban Rajab, 45, a taxi-driver, told me.
For Tha'ir Turki and his family the Americans piled insult on injury. They were attending the wake for their father, who had been killed on Thursday, when more grim news arrived. "Don't go home," a group of neighbours warned them. "The Americans are there." The grieving family had to sleep with friends.
"Even if there was some resistance among people here, what have we done? Our women and girls are not part of it," said Tha'ir Turki, as he showed the chaos the marines left after sleeping in his house. Cupboards were ransacked, a computer had gone, and empty brown bags which once contained army rations littered every room. He was particularly upset at finding them in his teenage sisters' bedroom. Little jewellery boxes were scattered across the dresser, their lids off. Women's clothes had been pulled out of drawers.
Not many of Falluja's people are former Baathist loyalists, as the Americans say, nor have the Americans produced evidence of large numbers of foreign "jihadis". They are ordinary families, driven by nationalist pride, and increasingly by a desire to retaliate when their homes and neighbourhoods are violated and their relatives and friends killed.
Gee, ordinary families, do you think? I know that after church my family and I usually head off to the park down the road for a picnic and some little pasttime, like
this.
But, what this article really all comes down to is the Europe's fear that they have lost their power to America. Well, they have and it was a
long time ago.
And then we had to go and rub their noses in it again by ignoring the lunatic power plays of France and Germany on the great and terrible equalizing/threshing floor of the U.N.
So now we've got Grandma Europa wondering around her welfare subsidized apartment, with her stockings all frayed, and hanging around her calves, hardly even aware we are sitting on her couch with the tea she just made for us And she's babbling about some man, from her past, named Amerigo, and how he stole from her some unnamed treasure.
We're gonna have to start seriously considering putting Grandma in a home.
A Little Of The Hair of the Dog That Bit Ya, Europe?
I actually don't think Europeans are really motivated to action by anti-Semitism anymore. Theirs is a exhausted anti-Semitism. That doesn't mean I don't think there is a problem with anti-Semitism in Europe. I think there is. I also think there is a problem with anti-Semitism in the U.S., although not to the same degree.
The reality is, Europe is too hung over and disgusted with herself after her last all-night orgy of Jew-Killing (commonly known as the Holocaust) to really get up the will for any new Jew-Killing.
However, that doesn't mean they aren't asking for a little "Hair of the Dog."
The new anti-Semitism is, in my opinion, Islamofascist in origin, and is granted power and legitimacy by European tacit complicity.
Here are examples of what I mean.
From
Reuters:
Hatred of Jews and Muslims has taken root in France, with anti-Semitism behind most racist crime and hostility towards Islam on the rise, a national human rights commission says in its annual report.
The final version of a controversial European Union report issued on Wednesday blamed "young, disaffected white Europeans" for the rise in anti-Semitic violence. An earlier version had blamed Muslim youths for the rise in attacks on Jews in Europe.
"Anti-Semitic violence is taking root and getting worse," Thoraval said of the situation in France after presenting his report to Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin.
Anti-Semitic violence accounted for 72 percent of the hate crimes and threats registered in France last year
Ladies and Gentleman, think about that.
France's population is almost 10 percent Muslim and a little less than one percent Jewish. And yet 72% of attacks are against Jews?
Then from an
article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:
The headline findings contradict the body of the report, which says most of the 193 violent attacks on synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher shops, cemeteries and rabbis in France in 2002 - up from 32 in 2001 - were "ascribed to youth from neighbourhoods sensitive to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, principally of North African descent. The percentage attributable to the extreme right was only 9 per cent in 2002," it said.
The report on Belgium said most of the firebomb and machine-gun attacks on Jewish targets were a spill-over from the Palestinian intifada.
The EU suppressed a report last year by German academics concluding that Arab gangs were largely responsible for a sudden surge in anti-Jewish violence, allegedly because the findings were politically unpalatable.
Victor Weitzel, who wrote a large section of Wednesday's far more detailed study, said the latest findings had been consistently massaged by the EU watchdog to play down the role of North African youth. "The European Union seems incapable of facing up to the truth on this," he said.
Europe's willful ignorance of the source of the problem serves to aid and abet the spread of anti-Semitism.
I just hope they don't go too far with the Hair of the Dog. You know how it is all you Christian Junkies out there, you have one to take off the shakes, and that one leads to two, and two to three, and then, before you know it, you don't feel the disgust and despair anymore.
You're partyin.
The Passion of the ... What the...?
I wonder if my fellow Christians will be happy to know that
The Passion is doing well in the Arab world.
"In Egypt, where the film opened to large crowds Wednesday, "it's getting a very special treatment," said Mustafa Darwish, a film critic and former president of the Egypt Censorship Authority.
So far, the film has been released uncensored in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.
A longstanding ruling from Al Azhar University -- the ultimate spiritual authority for Muslims worldwide -- forbids the depiction of prophets in movies, and Muslims consider Jesus Christ a prophet. But authorities have made an exception for the controversial film depicting the final hours of Jesus' life.
Darwish and other observers say allegations raised by U.S. Jewish groups may have actually encouraged the film's welcome in the Arab world.
"They (the censorship authorities) think the film is anti-Semitic. That's why they are giving it such privilege," Darwish said".
Let me hear a big collective Homer Simpsonesque, "Dohh," from the American Christian community.
And then further on down in the article,
"I encouraged the movie because it withholds from Jews their claims that they are innocent of the Christ's blood," said Mohiy el-Din Abdel Aleem, a professor of media and journalism at Al Azhar University, when asked why Al Azhar had not objected to the movie.
Habib Malik, a professor of history and cultural studies at the Lebanese American University in Beirut, said the allegations of anti-Semitism that have surrounded the film are undoubtedly part of the film's appeal in Lebanon.
"Word got around that this movie was upsetting a lot of people in the Jewish community in the West, and people here are predisposed to be anti- Israel, and anti-Jewish in general, and I think that's one of the reasons why people have flocked to see it," said Malik ..."
It's hard to believe you can take, what you think of as, a message of love to another part of the world and find that it will get twisted into a confirmation of hatred.
We can't say we weren't
duly warned by the Jewish community.
