Saturday, May 08, 2004

The Arab Bruce Springsteen

An article from Egypt Today tells of pop singer Shabaan and his racist, anti-Semitism. Surprise, surprise, he's a big hit:


He Hates Israel, Too

Meet Islam Khalil, the brains behind “I Hate Israel” and makwagi crooner Shaaban Abdel Rahim’s other political hits

By Yasmin Moll

The middle-aged shaabi singer — who once said in a television interview that he likes his suits to match his upholstery — came into the national spotlight in 2001 with his hit song “Ana Bakrah Israel (wa baheb Amr Moussa)” — “I hate Israel (but I love Amr Moussa)” — dedicated to the man who was then Egypt’s foreign minister and is now head of the Arab League.

Since then, Shaabola (as he is known to his devoted fans) has proven he’s no one-hit wonder, having become a regular fixture at the five-star weddings of Egypt’s elite. This despite the fact that his knife-scarred face, greasy hair, strange taste in attire — not to mention his lack of real singing ability — makes him a questionable pop idol at best and a laughing stock at worst.

His fans counter that Shaaban’s “ingenious” lyrics make up for any shortcomings. The singer regularly touches on hot-button issues in his albums in a way that simplifies complex political and social problems for the average Egyptian, they claim. Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Anthony Shadid, writing for the Washington Post, even singled Shaaban out as “another sign of the emergence of Arabic pop music in recent years as an arena for dissent and protest over Israeli and US policy.”

The real man behind the message, however, is not the illiterate Shaaban, but Islam Khalil, an Arabic teacher at an elementary school in Qalyoubia.

Khalil, who has been writing lyrics for Shaaban since 1991 and is responsible for all of the singer’s political hits, is angry that some critics think he is no different from his uncouth musical partner.

The truth of the matter is that they’re nothing alike, Khalil claims.

“It’s tough working with Shaaban sometimes, because he doesn’t know how to think. I am the only one who thinks in this partnership,” claims Khalil, who began his artistic career writing musical scores for plays. “Look, I am not a political specialist or anything. If I sat in a political debate, I wouldn’t know what to say, to be honest. I just write about what I see in the news and how I feel about it.”

Khalil says Shaaban’s appeal lies in the no-holds-barred lyrics he croons: “If I got anyone off the street and told him to sing ‘I hate Israel,’ he would have been a success like Shaaban.

“Shaaban says things that no one else dares too, even though we all feel them,” says Khalid Abdallah, a security guard in Nasr City. “That’s really the only thing he has going for him.”

That American lawmakers have openly condemned Khalil’s lyrics as anti-Semitic only heightens Shaaban’s appeal, many say.



But, of course, all our Pop Stars are pushing America's Imperialistic Hegemony

Friday, May 07, 2004

Love Means Never Having To Say You're Not Sorry

Thanks to littlegreenfootballs for making me aware of this:


Bush Apology Sparks Torrent of Global Goodwill
IMAMS: "YOU HAD US AT 'SORRY'"


Washington - The recent apology of US President George W. Bush for abuses by American military prison guards continued to reverberate around the globe today, as the White House was again inundated with with a flurry of "apology accepted" notes from world media, governmental leaders, and Islamic fundamentalist clerics.

Typical of the responses was a personal note from Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad, who wrote "aww, dude, you know I can't stay mad at you," saying that the apology had prompted him to immediately dismantle his country's secret nuclear weapons program. In a postscript, Assad added, "good luck to the Rangers this year."

"Now was that so hard?" joked Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat in an email to Bush. "Now get out of here ya knucklehead, before we have to do one of those awkward man-hugs."

The apology also prompted an outbreak of gratitude in the Arab street, as hundreds of thousands of Muslims took to the streets Friday in an impromptu demonstration of thanks. In Gaza, a cheering crowd estimated at 30,000 waved American flags and banners reading "No Prablem Bosh" [sic], while in Damascus throngs gathered in the Square of the Martyrs chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A".

"I used to dream about dying in a glorious fireball of martyrdom," said Ali Ahmed Amoud, 23, a marcher in the first annual Infidel Appreciation Days parade in Nablus. "But that apology was so nice and sincere, it just seems kind of petty to keep nursing a grudge."

In Tehran, the ruling council of Iranian clerics ordered a "national day of celebration and family fun" to commemorate the historic apology. "The Great Satan has given our honor back, so it's time to move on and let bygones be bygones," said Ayatollah Rafinstani in a nationwide radio address. Rafinstani also announced Iran's immediate nuclear disarmament, and cautioned celebrants not to drink and drive.

In Cairo, local clerics were equally enthusiastic and appreciative of Bush's gesture. In his weekly Friday sermon, Egyptian Imam Muqtaba Salim urged followers to show their appreciation by "reaching out and hugging a Zionist."

"Sure, they're a little pushy and abrasive, but c'mon guys -- let's take a deep breath and count to ten before we go all 'martydom operations,'" said Salim.

Perhaps the biggest reaction to the Bush apology occured in Saudi Arabia, where leaders of the fundamentalist Wahabbist sect issued a rare commendation of the president.

"It's just been such a catharsis for all of us," said Imam Abdelkarim Matwalli, prayer leader of the Grand Mosque in Medina, choking back emotion. "All we really ever wanted was a simple 'I'm sorry,' and Mr. Bush delivered. Thank you, America."

The president's apology was no less well-received in Europe, with dozens of newspapers blaring effusive, pro-Bush headlines. The Parisienne Le Monde declared "All Is Forgiven, George" while the Manchester Guardian lionized Bush as "an Apologizer for the Ages"; the tabloid Sun carried a simple "Dubya, We Lubya" above a flattering photo of the president festooned with garlands.

The apology also appeared to have created a thaw in the United States' sometimes icy relationship with continental political leaders. French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhardt Schroeder issued a joint communique welcoming the United States "back in the fold of civilized nations," and vowed to introduce a UN resolution asserting the US right to exist, following scheduled week-long pro-Bush demonstrations across Europe.

Newly elected Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero also commended the President's contrition, and said that "I would gladly once again pledge Spanish troops to the War on Terror, if the whole terror thing ever becomes a problem again."

Domestic reaction was generally favorable, led by Congressional Democrats who drafted a resolution prasing the President's "bold, thoughtful groveling for world peace," and calling on Bush to "stop beating yourself up." Progressive websites such as DemocraticUnderground, Daily Kos and BartCop urged readers to "forgive, forget, and send a nice thank you card to the White House."

Despite the outbreak of world geopolitical harmony, not everyone was satisfied with Bush's overture. In a scathing OpEd in today's New York Times, columnist Thomas Friedman demanded an additional apology from the President.

"Fess up, Mr. Bush," said Friedman, "that was my idea."



Couldn't have said it more sarcastically myself.

You're Not Paranoid If They Really Are Coming To Get You

A BIG THANK YOU, in advance, to Israel, for always doing what needs to be done.


WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The United States has been examining the prospect that Israel will attack Iranian nuclear facilities in an attempt to prevent the Islamic republic from completing an atomic bomb as early as this year.

U.S. analysts and government sources said the Bush administration has discussed the prospect of an Israeli air strike at several levels of government. They said the issue has been examined in terms of the diplomatic, military and security implications for the United States, particularly its military presence in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region.

The issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program was discussed by President George Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon during the latter's visit to the White House on April 14. The sources said the two men were alone during the brief discussion in an effort by the president to gauge a likely Israeli response to the completion of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

"It would be intolerable for the Middle East if they [Iran] get a nuclear weapon," Bush said after meeting Sharon.



Israel will be saving the world's butt when they do this thing, but, of course, they will receive condemnation from every corner of the world.

Grandma Europa Is Having A Flashback

Thanks to the A Double Izzle (Allah) for making me aware of this article from the Jerusalem Post. It seems they are having some flashbacks in the Netherlands:


Something's rotten in the land of Anne Frank

In Holland, this week marks Remembrance Day. This year's proceedings take place against the disturbing backdrop of a new wave of anti-Semitic violence that is sweeping not just The Netherlands but the whole of Western Europe.

In France and Germany, this new violent anti-Semitism has been around for almost a decade now. In Holland, however, violent incidents used to be just that: incidents, rare disturbances in an otherwise tranquil society. But lately, something is rotten in the land of Anne Frank.

In Amsterdam, a Turkish man, apparently mistaken for a Jew, was verbally abused and beaten up by two Arab immigrant youths. A Jewish retirement home was firebombed. Observant Jews no longer feel safe wearing yarmulkes in public. Anti-Semitic slogans appear on Jewish graves and synagogue buildings.

Even the Remembrance Day services themselves are no longer safe. In Amsterdam, Arab immigrant (mainly Moroccan) youths disrupted last year's proceedings by shouting slogans like "Hamas, Hamas, pump the Jews full of gas"; by burning a flag that had been lowered to half-mast; and by playing football with some of the commemorative wreaths. In a separate incident, guests at another memorial service - including a Holocaust survivor - were physically harassed by a gang of Arab immigrant teenagers.

Dutch politicians and social policy experts are gradually coming round to the view that this problem needs to be taken seriously. So far, however, their efforts at tackling it have been disappointing, to say the least. Perhaps their intransigence has something to do with the fact that it isn't their old b te noir, the extreme Right, that is behind this latest outburst of anti-Semitic violence. For as the Amsterdam-based Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI) has pointed out, the new anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly an Arab immigrant phenomenon. And even in post-Pim Fortuyn Dutch society, where anti-Islamism is now a mainstream political sentiment, accusing Arabs of anti-Jewish racist crimes is still a major taboo.

INSTEAD OF naming, shaming, and punishing the perpetrators of these crimes, the Dutch political class prefers to "gain a deeper understanding of the motives of the criminals." The Amsterdam Social Services Commissioner Ahmed Aboutaleb thinks he has found this root cause of Arab anger: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Basing his argument on the old maxim that if a Jew gets harassed it must be because he's done something wrong, Aboutaleb claims that Arab immigrant youths "sometimes develop anti-Semitic feelings because they (or their parents) strongly sympathize with the Palestinian cause." He also urges people to make the distinction between "normal street talk" and real anti-Semitism which, according to him, is a much rarer phenomenon.

No wonder, then, that the Dutch police don't know what to do with the case of the Turkish immigrant rapper zg r Korkmaz and his group NAG (Nieuwe Allochtone Generatie - New Immigrant Generation). In his song "F***ing Jews," Korkmaz warns the "f***ing Jews" that immigrants are "comin' to kill" them. After CIDI's director Ronnie Naftaniel filed a complaint against him, Korkmaz reported to his local police station. But the police, who probably couldn't decide whether these lyrics were an expression of genuine anti-Semitic feelings or just normal street talk, sent him away without even charging him. "I don't understand," Korkmaz said. "I was here to make a statement because I feel CIDI is right. My lyrics were completely over the top." Instead of singing "kill all Jews," he would have preferred to have sung "kill the Jews that are in Israel's government and are responsible for the slaughter of Palestinian babies."

Korkmaz's song is a hit among Arab immigrant schoolchildren. He is obviously an idiot, but he was on to something when, in the course of complaining about being "unfairly singled out" by CIDI, he observed that "Holland is full of Jew-haters, and the Internet is full of songs like mine."

Through the Internet and satellite television, Arab youths are in fact exposed to a daily diet of virulently anti-Semitic propaganda in which Muslims are called on to kill Jews and destroy Israel.



I love how they can't decide if it's anti-Semitism or just tough street talk. I guess that's what you call "nuanced thinking." I sure am glad Europe is so sophisticated, and that they've moved beyond war.



Jewish Memorial Desecrated in France

Just one week after 127 Jewish gravesites were spray-painted with swastikas and German anti-Jewish slogans, Reuters reports it has happened again:


... (Vandals desecrated) a memorial to the French Jewish soldiers who died during World War One, in the Fleury-Devant-Douaumont cemetery near Verdun, in eastern France, May 7, 2004. Tombs were sprayed with swastikas and Nazi slogans one week after another 127 tombstones were desecrated with Nazi slogans in a Jewish cemetery in the western city of Herrlisheim-Hattstatt.


Go here for photo.

Melanie Phillips Drops Some Science


Melanie Phillips comments on, and quotes from, an article on by Bret Stephens in the Jerusalm Post today about Israel's plan for unilateral disengagement in Gaza.:

Phillips
Stephens argues not on the basis of the self-destructive utopianism of the left, but from hard-headed pragmatism. Negotiation with the Palestinians is not an option as there is no peaceful partner to negotiate with; staying put in the disputed territories is not an option because demography will soon rob Israel of its democratic character.

Stephens:
... let's concede for the purposes of this argument that at some point Israel will be pressured into relinquishing control over the Strip's ports of entry and Gaza will become a 60-kilometer long armed camp, all gun sights trained on Israel. That's exactly the situation Israel faces on the border with Lebanon. What keeps Hizbollah from launching its missiles? The answer is, they are deterred by the threat of a conventional military response. Hizbollah may have been a relatively effective guerrilla outfit so long as Israel's presence in southern Lebanon gave it the opportunity to wage guerrilla warfare. But Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon deprived Hizbollah of that option and transformed it into what it is now, a relatively small conventional militia. The same goes for the Palestinian front: Withdrawal would mean Palestinians could no longer wage the terrorist war against Israeli civilians at which they're so expert. If they chose to fight, it would be on terms that overwhelmingly favor Israel. Palestinians, keen calculators of what they can get away with, know this, which partly explains their pronounced ambivalence about disengagement.'

Phillips
In other words, withdrawal makes military sense. And surely once this is understood in Gaza, it must be applied to the West Bank too. Ehud Olmert, the deputy PM, showed he understood all this when he said a few months ago that Israel had to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank; and it was a fair bet from that point on that Ariel Sharon agreed.

Such is the scale of the irrational hatred in Britain of Sharon, however, that his withdrawal plan has been viewed either as a scam or has even been opposed -- by the very people who scream six times a minute about Israel's 'illegal' occupation. Those of us in favour of withdrawal can disagree -- and no doubt will -- about how much of that territory Israel should ultimately retain. But the fact is Sharon's policy -- to which he appears to intend to stick, despite the ridiculous referendum-that-wasn't -- offers the best chance in decades to break the murderous stalemate in the Middle East.



Just thought the points were interesting. It seems to me the unilateral disengagment plan is a good idea. If you personally were fighting against a little wimp who you could obliterate with the sweep of a hand, but you didn't want to be brought up on charges, wouldn't you just unilaterally disengage? Isn't that the only option?

Israel has fully intended to trade land for peace this whole time. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. They haven't tried to take back the deals they made with Jordan and Egypt. But the thing is, if the PLO will not negotiate then it is best just to build a wall and completely separate. Then, maybe, just maybe, Israel can put it's full effort into tech and bio-tech, etc. The whole world would be a better place for it.

Ooh, Provocative Title From Charles Krauthammer

Has Charles Krauthammer's editor been telling him he's got to hep up his act, or what? Today's article from Krauthammer is actually very important, but carries the stupid title "This War Is Also About Sex":


WASHINGTON -- On Sept. 11, America awoke to the great jihad, wondering: What is this about? We have come to agree on the obvious answers: religion, ideology, political power and territory. But there is one fundamental issue at stake that dares not speak its name. This war is also about -- deeply about -- sex.

For the jihadists, at stake in the war against the infidels is the control of women. Western freedom means the end of women's mastery by men, and the end of dictatorial clerical control over all aspects of sexuality -- in dress, behavior, education, the arts.

Taliban rule in Afghanistan was the model of what the jihadists want to impose upon the world. The case the jihadists make against freedom is that wherever it goes, especially America and Europe, it brings sexual license and corruption, decadence and depravity.



I will cut in here to explain why I think the title is stupid. It's because the War is not about sex. It's about SLAVERY. What the Taliban imposed on women, and what is imposed on women in many of the countries of the Middle East, is slavery. That's it. They don't have choice over what they wear, whether to get an education, who to marry, whether to work. That is slavery. Yes, there is the aspect of gender, but the problem is slavery.

Read the book Roots by Alex Haley, or just remember, if you can, the TV miniseries. Everything they did to Kunta Kinte and his progeny is done to women in the Arab world.

SLAVERY.


The appeal of this fear can be seen in the Arab world's closest encounter with modernity: Israel. Israeli women are by far the most liberated of any in that part of the world. For decades, the Arab press has responded with lurid stories of Israeli sexual corruption.

The most famous example occurred in the late 1990s when Egyptian newspapers claimed that chewing gum Israel was selling in Egypt was laced with sexual hormones that aroused insatiable lust in young Arab women. Palestinian officials later followed with charges that Israeli chewing gum was a Zionist plot for turning Palestinian women into prostitutes, and ``completely destroying the genetic system of young boys'' to boot.



Sometimes these Arab conspiracy theories are just so funny that I tend to forget about their menace.

Next, Krauthammer makes a very important point.


Which is why the torture pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison could not have hit a more neuralgic point. We think of torture as the kind that Saddam practiced: pain, mutilation, maiming and ultimately death. We think of it as having a political purpose: intimidation, political control, confession and subjugation. What happened at Abu Ghraib was entirely different. It was gratuitous sexual abuse, perversion for its own sake.

That is what made it, ironically and disastrously, a pictorial representation of precisely the lunatic fantasies that the jihadists believe -- and that cynical secular regimes such as Egypt and the Palestinian Authority peddle
to pacify their populations and deflect their anger and frustrations. Through this lens, Abu Ghraib is an ``I told you so'' played out in an Arab capital, recorded on film.



That's right Mr. Krauthammer. It's a disaster. While I don't agree with the media's characterization of what happened at Abu Ghirab as being torture, I do believe that, for a culture of men who are psychologically wired with an Honor/Shame program, this is psychological torture. The reality is, it is humiliation. But their manhoods are built on sand, so it is experienced as torture. Our media likes to believe it. I wonder what that says about those in the media. Hmmm.


It is no accident that jihadists around the world are overwhelmingly male. It is very rare to find a woman suicide bomber. And when you do, like the young woman who blew herself up in Gaza killing four others last January, it turns out that she herself was a victim of sexual subjugation -- a wife accused of adultery, marked for death, who decided to die a martyr rather than a pariah. But die she must.

Which is what made one aspect of the Abu Ghraib horrors even more incendiary -- the pictures of American women soldiers mocking, humiliating and dominating naked and abused Arab men. One could not have designed a more symbolic representation of the Islamist warning about where Western freedom ultimately leads than Thursday's Washington Post photo of a uniformed American woman holding a naked Arab man on a leash.

... exactly as bin Laden would have scripted it.



A very penetrating analysis from Mr. Krauthammer.

By the way, sir, where did you get that name? Did you, by any chance, make it up? I wish you'd write an article about your name.

Terrorist Television

FrontPageMag.com posted an article today about how the terrorist organization Hezbollah has it's own TV network. And it's popular:


Symptoms of a sick culture are not difficult to find in the Middle East. State-sponsored (and popularly embraced) anti-Semitism, violent fundamentalism and barbaric treatment of women and minorities are endemic in the region. For many years now the world has been waiting for a generational break between the fundamentalists and a new intellectual class borne of increased access to information and technology longing for a society based on acceptance, truth, and diversity.

As satellite dishes becoming more prevalent throughout the Middle East, Western pop culture and news are becoming the hook that tugs at the heart strings of those who hope to be free but have only known oppression. (Look at polls of young Iranians’ positive views of America, for example.) That success has been countered by the dark forces of Islamic fundamentalism.

There are suicide bomber trading cards, video games where children can control a “martyr” on a mission to kill Jews, and the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah even has it’s own satellite channel, al-Manar (“The Beacon”), founded in June 1991. One of the Syrian/Iranian funded network’s newest and most popular programs is a game show called, “The Mission.” Contestants answer questions about the American-Zionist conspiracy for points. For every question a contestant answers correctly, they are allowed to move another step closer to the goal of Jerusalem on a large map. Sixty points lands a contestant on the holy city while the Hezbollah anthem plays in the background. The refrain “Jerusalem is ours and we are coming to it” rings out as the contestant collects a $3,000 check.

“’The Mission’ follows a standard game show format, with contestants quizzed about history, literature, geography, science and the arts,” according to a recent New York Times article. “But at least half the questions revolve around Palestinian or Islamic history, and at least one contestant is usually Palestinian.”

Throughout the show, the host praises the exploits of suicide bombers and pleads for viewers to keep the faith that one day Arabs will “recapture” the land stolen by the Jews.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is about the most kind-hearted programming the channel has to offer.

Another show, “Sincere Men,” profiles suicide bombers.

The station was the first to break the story that 4,000 Jewish World Trade Center employees were warned about the September 11 in advance and didn’t show up to work that day. The attacks themselves were perpetrated by, “Jews, Israel, and Mossad,” of course. Before the 2000 pullout of Israeli forces from Lebanon, the station aired live pictures of attacks against Israeli soldiers and broadcast threats against the Jewish state in Hebrew.

Part of that resistance is against America now, particularly coalition troops stationed in Iraq. The station makes time in its programming now for pictures of gruesome scenes from Iraq. “The people of this region will receive you with their rifles, with blood, with martyrdom, and martyrdom operations,” a Hezbollah official warned Americans during one broadcast. “Today, as the region fills up with hundreds of thousands of American troops, our slogan was and will remain ‘Death to America.'“



We've got TNT. They've got TVT.

Thursday, May 06, 2004

Some Thoughts On Multiculturalism and Assimilation

Thanks to Melanie Phillips for making me aware of this article, by Emanuelle Ottolenghi, from the Jerusalem Post. Ottolenghi says Europe's multicultural ideal has planted the seeds of it's own destruction:


Europe's liberal elites believe multiculturalism is the alternative to America's imperial calling in the Middle East. They doubt democracy can be exported to the Arab world and loathe American arrogance in imposing its own values on a different culture. They criticize current American "imperialism," proposing their multicultural vision instead.

Perhaps Europe is right in its skepticism of American adventures. But it is wrong in presuming that multiculturalism offers a better alternative. There is, in fact, no multicultural society outside the West. And even in Europe, multiculturalism is under pressure.

As people migrate to, are absorbed by, and integrate into Europe, Europe is changing: As homogeneous nation-states give way to a supranational community of multicultural post-national states, the liberal gospel is already causing a backlash because it preaches inclusion of all by deriding the deeply entrenched ethnic and religious identities of some.

The real question is not how long before Europe can become a universal community of unburdened individuals. Rather, it is: What are Europe's limits of tolerance and willingness to accommodate diversity?

Social cohesiveness rests on common values, which are in turn a product of shared memories. Multiculturalism and cultural relativism obliterate that shared patrimony in favor of political correctness. But a collective vision of the future cannot emerge from denial of the past. A people forgetting its history will forsake its collective future.



The only people who will remember their history in such a society are religious people, primarily Jews and Muslims, with a few of the more educated Christians thrown into the mix. Religious people will remember their history because they share a collective myth by which to measure themselves in the world. Of course, the power of the myth is made even stronger when it is in written down and it's dispensation is ritualized, as it is with Judaism and Islam.

(Side note: Christianity's myth is, of course, written down. However, Christianity suffers from the problem that it's only alive and growing branch, the Evangelical branch, is not formally ritualized in it's dispensation of the tradition.)

Such is the dilemna for secularists multiculturalists. If they want multiculturalism, and a socity where we forsake history for inclusion, then they doom themselves to cede their secular society to the most religious of people.

Being that I am a person who believes in the separation of church and state, in other words a secularist, I am adamantly opposed to the kind of fanatical multiculturalism described in the above article.

The great philosopher-king (drunken, impotent rock star) Jim Morrison said, "The West is the best. Just get here and we'll do the rest." I agree with the first line, but not the second.

I believe in multiculturalism to a point. I believe that the West can handle immigration, even lots of immigration. However, I believe there is an undetermined amount of immigration that we can handle. I don't think there has ever been any serious effort put into determining what exactly is the process of assimilation. This is probably at least partially the result of the fact that we could not even come up with a definition of "assimilation" in the first place.

But, the reality is, if you have a society, a culture, a tradition, which you want to preserve, you must define what it is that created that culture, and then define assimilation accordingly.

From there, one must look at the reality that other cultures, by virture of their similarity or differences with our culture will produce people who are easier, or more difficult, to assmililate into Western culture. This needs to be taken into account when accepting immigration from various cultures.

Jeez, is that too much to ask for?

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

First They Came For The Jews, And The Media Said Nothing
Then They Came For The Christians And The Media Said Nothing
Then They Came For The Blacks
And Sold Them Into Slavery
And The Media Still Said Nothing


The Boston Globe reports:


IT IS HAPPENING again. A government of murderous ideologues is committing genocide, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing while the international community either pretends not to notice or laments its own inability to stop the slaughters.

Sudan's National Islamic Front regime has waged a war of atrocities against the Christian and animist peoples of southern Sudan since 1983. Two million people have perished. Thousands of black Africans have been captured in militia raids and sold in slavery to Arab masters in the north.

Now the regime in Khartoum is perpetrating massacres and ethnic cleansing in two new areas of the country. United Nations reports tell of more than 1 million people being driven from their homes in Darfur, the western region of Sudan. In Darfur, the victims of the regime, which is led by Lieutenant General Omer Bashir, are themselves Muslim, like the government-backed militias known as the janjaweed who are burning their villages, raping women, and murdering men. In a recent alert from Human Rights Watch, the executive director, Kenneth Roth, says: "These militias work in unison with government troops, with total impunity for their massive crimes."

The UN emergency relief coordinator for Sudan, Jan Egeland, said Friday: "The number one humanitarian drama in the world right now is not in Iraq and not in the Palestinian territories. It is in Darfur."

Human Rights Watch reported last week on separate massacres of villagers in western Sudan. In one raid, 136 men of the Fur ethnic group were "taken in army lorries to nearby valleys where they were made to kneel before being killed with a bullet in the back of the neck." In another area of Darfur, 72 men were executed in the same way. And in a third mass killing reported by Human Rights Watch, 65 men were murdered.

Often Sudan's Air Force bombs the villages to be ethnically cleansed by its militia partners. And all the while, the regime in Khartoum has been maneuvering to keep international monitors from entering Darfur to witness the horrors there.

Since early March the regime has opened yet another campaign of extermination, this one in the Mid-West Upper Nile region of southern Sudan known as the Shilluk Kingdom. More than 70,000 villagers have been displaced, their family members killed and their villages burned by militia groups acting for the Islamist rulers in Khartoum.

Those rulers have been putting off signing a peace accord in Kenya to end the war in southern Sudan. Incredibly, President Bush recently certified Khartoum's "good faith" in those peace talks. Instead, Bush should be rallying the rest of the world to sanction and isolate Khartoum if it does not cease its genocidal acts and permit international monitors to intercede in Sudan's killing fields.



Two Million Christians and Animists Have Been Killed In Sudan In The Past Twenty Years By the National Islamic Front. Untold numbers of black African Christians have been kidnapped and sold into slavery by Arab Muslims. Untold number of children, boys and girls, have been raped. Google it; Sudan - massacre - christians - child rape - slavery.

And you know, I've got to say, I can kind of understand why they want to kill us Christians. You know, we are always going around evangelizing like we know the truth and no one else does. But why would they want to kill the Animists. I mean, just because they make cartoons? I know they have regualtions against idolatry and graven images, but jeez.

First They Came For The Jews And I Didn't Speak Up ... Then There Was A Jihad Against Christians

AllAfrica.com reports that there is a "Sharia project" against Christian churches, aka Jihad against Christians, aka Islamofascist Nazi Regime.

Governor Ahmed Sani of Zamfara State, has ordered the demolition of all churches in the state, as he launched the second phase of his Sharia project yesterday.

Speaking at the launch in Gusau, the state capital, Governor Sani disclosed that time was ripe for full implementation of the programme as enshrined in the Holy Quran.

He added that his government would soon embark on demolition of all places of worship of unbelievers in the state, in line with Islamic injunction to fight them wherever they are found.



One thing I can say for Governor Sani, the man knows his Holy Quran.

Andrew Killgore Is An Interesting Man

Joel Mowbray has an interesting article on FrontPageMag.com today wherein he talks about the "open letter to President Bush denouncing U.S. support for Israel, and discusses it's author Andrew Killgore.

I haven't read the letter itself, so I don't want to discuss it. However, Mowbray does point out some interesting things about Killgore:


Killgore may or may not be an anti-Semite, but he certainly could be mistaken for one. That is a strong statement, to be sure, but it seems a fair assessment after spending some time at the website for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, of which he is the co-founder and publisher.

The site’s front page keeps a counter only of foreign aid money given to Israel. It calls for ending all military aid to Israel, though there is no similar call for ending the exact same level of aid given each year to Egypt for the same purpose, an arrangement that has existed since the Camp David Accords in 1978.

Killgore’s website also has a “Neocon Corner,” where he and others castigate one Jew or another for their sinister loyalties to Israel. (One execption was a hit piece on Dick Cheney.) Typical is a recent column on Richard Perle, former head of the Defense Policy Board. In the course of 800 words, Killgore refers to Perle as: a “fervent Zionist,” a “dyed-in-the-wool Israel-Firster,” part of the “Zionist lobby,” “always active in Zionist organizations,” the “Prince of Darkness,” and a “Zionist ideologue.”

On its webpage listing 27 “charitable organizations” are several with which no reasonable group would affiliate. Many are well-known for their radical Islamist agendas, and two in particular should have raised red flags: the United Palestinian Appeal and the Kinder USA, both “charitable” organizations who share leadership with the Holy Land Foundation, which was closed in December 2001 for allegedly funneling money to Hamas.



Well, I went to Killgore's website and it clearly does focus on the Israel-Palestinian Conflict, with some foray into Iraq. I can not find the "NeoCon Corner" but, then again, I have trouble finding my shoes in the morning. If it's there I do not see it.

Anyway, Killgore's site does feature the aid to Israel counter at the very top of the page. It's the first thing you see. I must say, it seems to me that if you call yourself a "Report on Middle East Affairs," and then disproportionately focus on Israel, you're being less than even-handed. The Middle East has problems that far exceed anything going on in Israel. Islamofascists might not agree, but they should ask themselves questions like:

1) Has Israel ever used poison gas on Palestinians?

2) Has Israel killed as many Palestinians in it's defense against the Intifada, as the King of Jordan did when he ordered a killing spree that left 8000 Palestinians dead in a few short weeks back in 1970?

3) Has Israel ethnically cleansed Palestinians as Kuwait did after the Desert Storm War when they showed a third of a million Palestinians the door?

4) Why is the King of Jordan afraid the Palestinians will move back to Jordan as a result of the building of the wall?

5) Are women who live in Israel slaves as they are in much of the Arab world?


I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

First They Came For The Jews And Then They Came For...


Jack over at Jack of Clubs wrote an important post today where he points out how, in Nigeria, Christians are having their villages attacked and their churches burned down. See the article "Freedome Fighters in Nigeria":


First a question: what do you call a group of people who take up arms to prevent another group from imposing its value system? Freedom Fighters? OK, now read this article. This is a breaking story, so not many have covered it, but so far I have not seen the double-F word being applied to these people. Note also, this paragraph:


Although the motive was unclear, the attack came a week after Hausas launched an attack on the Tarok village of Kawo, burning churches and inflicting an unknown number of casualties.


What exactly is unclear about the motive? Could it be that this is part of a larger reaction to the imposition of Sharia, or muslim law, in Nigeria. A related story from the Guardian seems to suggest that this is the case:


New sharia regulations give the state authorities the power to demolish any "illegal structures", which Christians fear will be used to tear down their churches. They also call for businesses to close five times a day for Muslim prayers.


My prediction: these Christians who are trying to defend themselves from the imposition of a hostile religion, will not be seen as freedom fighters, if they get any attention in the press at all. Look at how long it has taken the situation in Sudan to make the news, and even now it is not considered a major story. But these African countries are the first line of defense against a militant Islam that would like to take over the entire continent.



Thanks Jack. And, by the way, that's a very clever catch phrase you came up with; "double f-word." I will use that in perpetuity.

Here's the article to which Jack linked.

British Columnist Has Been Reading His Copy of The Protocols Too

The respected British author Anthony Sampson is making an effort at dragging his countryback into the dark ages along with the Arab world. This is from a post by Melanie Phillips called The Oldest Hatred Revisited:


The latest egregious addition to the ranks of those who are spreading the poisonous libel of the 'world Jewish conspiracy' is Anthony Sampson, the veteran and well-regarded author of the 'Anatomy of Britain'. Writing in the Independent on May 1 (sorry, no free on-line service provided) he wondered how the British had allowed themselves to become 'so dependent on the policies of the Pentagon'. To answer his question, he referred to the new book on the Iraq war by Bob Woodward, 'Plan of Attack', which chronicles the tensions in the Bush administration in the run-up to war. Then, out of the blue, came this:

'It was the victory of the Pentagon over the State Department which determined American policy in the Middle East, reinforced by the powerful influence of the neo-conservative cabal and the Israeli government'.

Note that word 'cabal' -- the Jewish conspiracy from the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' brought up to date once again. Moreover, so important did Sampson clearly think this sinister Jewish influence was over the war, he actually returned to the theme to finger the hapless Paul Bremer as yet another tool of the Jews, even though -- as he conceded -- Bremer was actually a State Department appointee:

'But Bremer soon showed himself closely aligned to the generals, as well as to the neo-cons in Washington and their allies in Jerusalem'.

'Their allies in Jerusalem'? In Sampson's view, the war in Iraq was a Jewish plot stretching across the world. Wherever does it come from, this demented fantasy that Israel was pulling the White House strings over Iraq? Certainly not from Woodward's book, in which Israel barely figures at all and the neo-con influence is relegated to a relatively minor factor. In his account, the main drivers behind the Iraq war were Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George W Bush himself. Not a neo-con between them.

'Regime change' in Iraq, as Woodward reminds us, was actually US policy since Bill Clinton first promulgated it in 1998. And as for Britain becoming 'prisoners of policies made in the Pentagon', Woodward also reports that Tony Blair was urging President Bush to do something about Iraq before 9/11, because he was so worried by the confluence of rogue states, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As he has often said.

None of this was reflected in Sampson's article, which went on to laud (of course) Britain's 52 revolting 'camels' (see below) and to praise the UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi's 'real independence of view' for describing Israel as 'the great poison in the region'.



Pastorius will cut in here to say that, as reported by Eursoc, the respected Brit author,
Sampson went on to praise the "independence" of the UN envoy to the region, Lakhdar Brahimi. Brahimi, an Algerian, has called Israeli policy "the big poison" in the region. He is also reported to have claimed that he has never knowingly shaken hands with a Jew.


Back to Melanie,
This article demonstrates once again that those who imagine anti-Jewish feeling is a preserve of the far-right are utterly misguided. These disgusting attitudes now course openly through the British liberal intelligentsia and establishment, from where they influence countless thousands of people because of the respect with which such influential voices are heard. Well, it's time to strip away such pretence. This is raw, ignorant, bigoted Jew-hatred, no less shocking because it uses an educated voice rather than a knuckle-duster. The world Jewish conspiracy is a disgusting smear rooted in medieval prejudice. When applied to the war in Iraq, as to everything else, it is a lie. But in Britain, alas, it is a lie which has burrowed appallingly deeply into the consciousness of the nation, with potentially alarming consequences both for the war on terror and for the Jewish people.


Cabal. Neo-con. "Allies in Jerusalem." These are code words. I applaud Melanie Phillips for being so courageous as to point out this fact. She is a respected author in Britain as well. So, to call Sampson on his anti-Semitism, when he has so artfully hid himself behind code words does take guts. Many people will simply disregard the racist origins of the words and ideas Sampson espouses and instead shoot Phillips, the messenger.

Monday, May 03, 2004

The Morning Meditation From Arab News


The A-double-izzle (Allah) let me in on this. Breathe in deeply and let these thoughts nestle into your soul:


Israel IS the problem — by both choice and design!

It has inserted itself, like a virus, into every American Congress, administration, all the media, and election campaign. And it is not only the US.

Go to South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, and you will find Israelis training rebels or government assassins on behalf of the CIA.

Go to India, and they are supporting the Indian Army and intelligence in their standoff with Pakistan.

Back to Washington, and you find Sharon’s cronies in the White House, Pentagon and Congress dictating US policies regarding the Greater Middle East, which includes Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The war in Iraq is the brainchild of this pro-Israel group of ideologists; so was Afghanistan and just about anything and everything else related to the Muslim and Arab world.

We could understand a reasonable motive, even if it was dirty realpolitik, but it is hard for us to understand how the world’s only superpower can be ordered around like an office boy and hired gun by a small country such as Israel?



It's hard for you to understand? All you need to do you idiot is go read your favorite book for the 100th time; The Protocols of The Learned Elders Of Zion.

The Arab News is a Saudi Paper funded by Saudi Research and Publishing Company, a state-owned organization. Where else in history have the leaders of a state authorized and given a mandate to the spread of such hatred? Where, oh where? Does it sound at all familiar?


Could You Stand Up For This? Would You?


Hat tip to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this article from Clifford May:


Consider what's required to wear the label: “Pro-Palestinian.”

To start, you have to appear non-judgmental about innocent Palestinian children being raised to become human bombs.

You must refer to those who send such children on suicide/mass murder missions as “political leaders” or, even better, as “spiritual leaders.” Call them militants if you must, but never terrorists.

To be thought of as pro-Palestinian, you must cite the plight of the Palestinian refugees as a key motivation for violence, ignoring the fact that there would have been no refugees had Israel's Arab neighbors not launched a war to destroy the tiny Jewish state immediately upon its birth.

Indeed, Arabs who chose to stay in Israel are today Israeli citizens, as are their children, enjoying more freedoms than do the citizens of neighboring Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia or even Jordan. Disregard all this if you want to be seen as someone who cares about Palestinians.

Supporters of Palestinians must point to the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank as another root cause of violence. Avoid mentioning that it was a second Arab war against Israel that led to the seizure of those territories which, at that time, were not called Palestinian territories. Gaza was administered by Egypt and the West Bank by Jordan and no one demanded that they be turned them over to Palestinian sovereignty.

The Israelis captured the Sinai as well. That territory, several times larger than all of Israel, was returned to Egypt in exchange for a piece of paper promising peace. Forget these awkward details.

To burnish your pro-Palestinian credentials, even as you rail against the Israeli occupation, say nothing positive about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to end that occupation entirely in Gaza and to withdraw Israeli troops and settlements from 85 percent of the West Bank. In Orwellian fashion, insist that Mr. Sharon is giving up those lands as part of a “land grab.”

While it is true that at Camp David in 2000, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered about 95% of the West Bank and Gaza, Yassir Arafat turned that offer down and initiated several years of terrorist attacks. Even so, Mr. Sharon has said he's willing to consider further withdrawal, to discuss permanent borders, though he won't negotiate with those dispatching terrorists. Dismiss all that as irrelevant -- if you want to be described as someone who sympathizes with the Palestinians.

Also, continue to insist that Israelis eventually must agree to a “right to return” – that they must let millions of Palestinians settle not just in an independent Palestinian state next to Israel but in Israel itself.

Promote this idea even if you're savvy enough to know it can never happen – just as Hindus can never re-settle in what is today Muslim Pakistan, just as Greek Christians can never re-settle in what is today Muslim Turkey, just as the million Jews forced to flee from Arab countries after World War II can never return to what were, for centuries, their homes.

In fact, Israelis with roots in Arab countries today comprise about half of Israel's population. They may understand better than anyone else that a Palestinian “right to return” would mean the end of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people, that Jews would become a minority in what would no longer be the world's only predominately Jewish state. And that's a frightening thought because, sadly, few minorities living in the 22 Arab countries and the more than 50 predominately Muslim nations enjoy anything approaching freedom and equality. Such freedom and equality may be achieved in Iraq in the years ahead -- though not if the dictators of Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia can help it, and not if the Palestinian “political and spiritual leaders” who supported Saddam Hussein and who now oppose the American “occupation” have anything to do with it.

Nor should Friends of Palestine plan for the opportunities that the Israeli withdrawals will present. Don't even think about the Israeli homes that will be turned over to Palestinian families, the hotels that could be built along the Mediterranean. Forget about foreign investors, new hospitals and schools. And certainly don't talk about cooperation with Israel. On the contrary, shrug when Hamas terrorists bomb the checkpoints through which Gazans pass on their way to work in Israeli factories. But should the Israelis respond by closing those checkpoints, complain vehemently that the Israelis are cutting off the livelihood of Palestinian workers.

The United Nations is very pro-Palestinian. That's why UN experts are not hard at work drafting a plan to give Palestinians more say over who governs them. Arafat was elected Palestinian leader – he ran exactly one time in 35 years and in that election he was opposed by a woman whose name few can recall and who hadn't a ghost of a chance. Surely, that's as much democracy as any reasonable person could desire for Palestinians.

Perhaps someday people will look back in astonishment on all this. Perhaps someday the term pro-Palestinian will be redefined to include those who would urge Palestinians to seek compromise and peaceful co-existence with their neighbors, build a real economy, and discourage their children from suicide, murder and mutilation.

Right now, however, these are wildly radical notions.




Fallujah

I have refrained from commenting on the tactics of the War On Terror because

1) I don't know what I'm talking about (which, of course, doesn't stop me from commenting on other isssues) when it comes to military issues,

2) I have believed that the U.S. military has it under control and has reasons for what they do,

3) while anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are linked (in that they both emanate from Islamofascism) the War On Terror is not really the subject of this blog (which, of course, has not stopped me from commenting on other issues).

But anyway, Andrew Sullivan posted some comments on the Fallujah situation that capture my growing sense of frustration and fear about this War:


I also know that it's easy to sit here in D.C. and pontificate while, on the ground, political compromises and military messes are inevitable. But last week seems to me to have reached a point where even hopeful, pro-war, Bush supporters like me have to acknowledge the epic mishandling of the post-war occupation. The U.S. is beginning to look both cruel and (a much bigger problem) weak. The huge propaganda victory handed to the enemy by the celebrations in Fallujah by Islamo-fascists shouldn't have happened. Nor should the disgusting pictures of prisoner abuse and humiliation simply exist in a military as professional and ethical as that of the U.S. The misconduct is unforgivable, and shows simply a lack of control of the situation. The complete disarray in Fallujah - the inability of anyone from Bremer up even to expain what's happening, let alone tell us what they're doing about it - is a further sign of drift. It is no longer unreasonable to surmise that the administration is preparing to hand over power to any U.N.-blessed Shiite or Baathist general it can find, while indicating to the wider terrorist enemy that we will buckle under to pressure. At a critical moment when Fallujah should have been the occasion for a critical wiping out of the terrorist and insurgent infrastructure, we seem to have blinked. The consequences for our future credibility, for the lives of coalition servicemembers, for the lives of Western civilians, could not be graver.


I believe he's right because the Islamofascists have indicated on a number of occasions that they believe that mercy, and a willingness to negotiate out of messy situations, are signs of weakness. Therefore, I fear that this Fallujah situation will indicate to them that we are cracking and they should take the war to us all the more.

I also fear that maybe we are cracking. Have we become too complacent in our morality and reliant upon the surgical precision of our video game weaponry? We don't want a real battle? The problem is, the real battle will come, sooner or later. Do we take it to them, or will they bring it to us?

This Fallujah situation reminds me of watching Shaquille O'Neil against the San Antonio Spurs yesterday. Shaq is so big, powerful and skilled compared to everyone else on the court. But there he was, refusing to go up and administer humiliating dunks because he knows he will only get fouled and sent to the line. So instead he shoots these pathetic little shots, trying to get the shots off before the oncoming fouls, and he misses, and misses, and misses again.

Note the result. The Lakers got humiliated.

See I told you I don't anything about military issues.

Sunday, May 02, 2004

Is Associated Press Doing Public Relations For Racist Anti-Semites?

Last night I was reading Little Green Footballs and they posted a link to an article on Yahoo (from AP) that was titled "Gunment Kill Six At Saudi Oil Facilty. The article contained the following quote:


Later, the Saudi Press Agency quoted Abdullah as telling a gathering of princes in Jiddah that “Zionism is behind terrorist actions in the kingdom. I can say that I am 95 percent sure of that.”

He said Zionism had misled “some of our sons,” but did not elaborate. Anti-Israeli sentiment runs high in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab world because of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.



Now, if you go to the link that quote has been excised and replace with the less inflammatory quote:


Crown Prince Abdullah, speaking on Saudi television, said: "The kingdom will eliminate terrorism no matter how long it takes."


What are they doing? The only truly interesting thing about the article was the fact that the Crown Prince actually made such a racist statement. Without that quote the only people who would be interested in the article are War On Terror junkies. That quote should have been the headline of the article. Think about it, a head of state makes a vicious, groundless accusation, based completely on his racism, and AP decides it's not really very important. And then later, they decide to remove the quote completely.

Just to prove that the "Prince" did say it, here's a link to the an article in an Arab paper called Al Bawaba which includes the quote.

And just in case that one disappears here's a link to an article in The Scotsman which also contains the quote.