Anti-American and Anti-Semitic Hatred On Saudi TV
Thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of these Memri.org translations
from Saudi Television:
Saudi Professor: Allah Permits Annihilating Christians and Jews
Sheik Dr. Ahmad Abd Al-Latif, a professor at Um Al-Qura University , was asked the following question on Saudi channel TV1 on May 24: "Some imams and preachers call for Allah to annihilate the Jews and those who help them, and the Christians and those who support them
Is it permitted according to Islamic law?" Professor Al-Latif responded: "What made them curse the Jews is that the Jews are oppressors
The same goes for the Christians, because of their cruel aggression against Islamic countries
while the truth is that this is a crusading war whose goal is to harm Muslims. This is why a Muslim is allowed to curse the oppressors from among the Jews and Christians
Cursing the oppressing Jews and the oppressing and plundering Christians and the prayer that Allah will annihilate them is permitted."
You know, honestly, that seems fair to me. After all, this is a free country. They can say what ... Oh wait, they don't live in a free country. Well, if they lived here, it would be alright for them to pray for our annihalation.
It would, however, embarrassingly immature, don't you think?
But wait, there's more.
Sheik Muhammad Al-Munajid, a disciple of one of Saudi Arabia's most revered religious leaders, Sheik 'Abd Al-'Aziz ibn 'Abdallah ibn Baaz , was identified in a report in the Washington Post on December 11, 2003, as running "a Web site that promotes intolerance of Christians and Jews and calls for holy war on Shiite Muslims," and was included as one of sixteen clerics associated with the Saudi embassy's Islamic Affairs Department who was stripped of diplomatic credentials.
Al-Munajid stated on Iqraa TV on April 15: "The issue is not one person, two, ten or a hundred going out with their guns to support their brothers. Defeating the infidels requires a much greater effort. It requires the mobilization of the nation. How can the nation be mobilized? I believe that the stupid acts of these Jews and Crusaders mobilize the nation. The big explosion will come! In spite of everything, it will happen!"
I remember a few weeks back Hassan Abbasi (does his name mean the abased one, by any chance), the "well-known Iranian political scientist and 'Theoretician' in the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khameini" threatened the U.S., saying,
"We have identified some 29 weak points for attacks in the U.S. and in the West, we intend to explode some 6,000 American atomic warheads ..."
I wonder if that's the same big explosion. It would be scary, if it weren't so funny. Or, is it the other way around?
Anyway, there's more:
Much of Saudi TV is based upon religious programming. Many of these programs refer to the spread of Islam throughout the world and the battle against non-Muslims. On a May 20 episode of Iqraa TV's 'Mushkilat Min Al-Hayat ' (Problems from Life), Saudi Sheik Abdallah Al-Muslih, chairman of the Commission on Scientific Signs in the Koran and Sunnah of the Muslim World League, used evidence from early Islam to support his claim that suicide bombings on enemy land are permitted according to Islamic law: "
Regarding a person who blows himself up, I know this issue is under disagreement among modern clerics and jurisprudence
There is nothing wrong with [martyrdom] if they cause great damage to the enemy. We can say that if it causes great damage to the enemy, this operation is a good thing. This is when we talk of Dar Al-Harb. But, if we speak of what happens in Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia
this is forbidden, brothers! This is the land of the Muslims. We must never do this in a Muslim country."
Dar al-Harb means "House of War." That would be us 'Murikins' for those of you keeping score at home. One of the most important distinctions the idiotic fundamentalist Islamofascists make is that of the Dar al-Harb vs. the Dar al-Islam. Two worlds. One good. One Evil. Anybody in the Dar al-Harb is worth killing.
People make alot of noise about George Bush's talk of good and evil. But, for all his simplistic distinctions (which truly I think are just tools by which he motivates people to apprehend the reality that we are at war) he, clearly, does not imply that, by evil, he means everyone in the Islamic world, nor does he mean everyone in any Islamic country, nor does he mean everyone in any of the Axis of Evil" countries.
He simply means those who would stop at nothing to destroy free democracies, and whose end goal is to set up Taliban-like societies. I think we can all actually agree that those people are evil.
I'm afraid to say it, but I think that Bin Laden has one point about us. We are shallow, lazy idol worhippers. Because, the truth is, I believe our dissension in the West has less to do with whether we can agree that Bin Laden and his ilk are evil, than it does with our disagreement over the "style" of the leadership which makes the good vs. evil distinction.
When it comes down to it, it's just a nasty spat over aesthetics. And it has a lot to do with that silly, atrocious, horrifying cowboy hat Bush is always wearing.
Anyway, let's get back to the Memri stuff:
The Coming Islamic Takeover of the U.S.
Saudis often discuss the issue of the U.S. becoming a Muslim state in the future. On a March 17 broadcast on Iqraa TV, Saudi preacher Sheik Said Al-Qahtani discussed this issue, as well as the cases in which Muslims are permitted to declare a defensive Jihad: "
We did not occupy the U.S., with 8 million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient, and let time take its course, instead of the 8 million, there could have been 80 million [Muslims] and 50 years later perhaps all the US would have become Muslim
What should a Muslim do if he is attacked in his country, on his land? In this case, there is no choice besides defense, self-sacrifice, and what religious scholars call Defensive Jihad
We attacked their country, and this caused them to wake the dormant enmity in their hearts
Especially since there is global Zionism, the enemy of Islam, and Judaism, and fundamentalist Crusaders
They interpret this whole incident as only the beginning and thus there is no choice but a preemptive strike."
Al-Qahtani added on another Iqraa TV show on May 5: "Allah said, 'prepare against them all the force and horsemen that you can.' What for? In order to strike fear into their hearts
At the same time, [we should] establish strategies for the future, even if only for the short term, and prepare
so that one of these days, even 100, 200, or 400 years from now, we will become a force that will be feared by the infidel states."
A war of demographic? Oh yeah? Well, we'll just retaliate with a war of psychographics on you, buddy.
Like this. Give us your tired, you lame, your most jihad-dreamy, and we'll give them a home in the suburbs with a TV in every bedroom and we'll just work our Infidel Jihad
Some Important Thoughts From Victor David Hanson
Here are some importants points from Victor David Hanson's National Review article
"Year Three: Where Do We Stand In This Disorienting War?":
For the first two years of this war, critics whined that we were "not getting the message out." But after Afghanistan and Iraq, the beheadings, and the bombings, most on the planet know that the choice is between civilization and barbarism. The key is not preferring the good cause in the abstract, but risking pain for the right choice in the here-and-now.
The Arab League hates us not because we are going to lose or install strongmen if we prevail, but because they are terrified we will win and sponsor consensual governments of the type that would put such ossified functionaries with blood on their hands out to pasture. Despite Abu Ghraib and whining over the West Bank, most Arabs know privately that the United States gives billions to Egypt and Jordan, does nothing while the Gulf autocracies cut production to jack up oil prices, saves Muslims in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, and Somalia, and is providing billions to Iraq at a level not seen since the Marshall Plan...
...What they are not yet convinced of, however, is whether the United States intends to stay and fight to the finish, or — as was true after the murdering in Lebanon, after the expulsion of the Soviets in Afghanistan, after the 1991 failure to take Baghdad, after Mogadishu, after mostly silence in the face of 25 years of terrorist attacks from Teheran to Yemen, and after the pull-back from Fallujah and Najaf — it will tire, find an exit strategy, and head home. That "honorable departure," of course, would leave friends and supporters to deal with local fascists, as was true in the past in the case of the Taliban, the irregulars in Sudan, the mullahs in Iran, the Hezbollah killers in the Bekka Valley, and Mr. Sadr's Mahdists...
if the pulse of the strategic, tactical, and ideological theaters suggests we can win this war, the home front is not so bright. The few hundred American lunatics who tried to explain away 9/11 (or apologize for it) turned into thousands a few weeks later who swore we either would or should lose in Afghanistan. Now they are millions who see our ongoing struggle in Iraq as either immoral or inept. George Bush did not create this cascading antiwar movement. It was rather fueled by the blood and treasure spent to eliminate the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, together with a has-been '60s generation that felt there was still one more creaky return to the barricades left in them.
...Right after 9/11, some of us thought it was impossible for leftist critics to undermine a war against fascists who were sexist, fundamentalist, homophobic, racist, ethnocentric, intolerant of diversity, mass murderers of Kurds and Arabs, and who had the blood of 3,000 Americans on their hands. We were dead wrong. In fact, they did just that. Abu Ghraib is on the front pages daily. Stories of thousands of American soldiers in combat against terrorist killers from the Hindu Kush to Fallujah do not merit the D section. Senator Kennedy's two years of insane outbursts should have earned him formal censure rather than a commemoration from the Democratic establishment.
What a litany of distractions! Words — preemption," "unilateralism," "hegemony," — whiz by and lose all meaning. Names — "Halliburton," "Chalabi," "INC" — become little more than red meat. Vocabulary is turned upside down: "Contractors," who at great risk restore power and water to the poor, are now little more than "profiteers" and "opportunists"; killers are not even "terrorists" but mere "militants." "Neo-cons" are wild-eyed extremists; "realists" are no longer cynics — inclined to let thousands die abroad unless the chaos interrupts transit of oil or food — but rather "sober" and "circumspect," and more likely Kerry supporters.
We are winning the military war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The terrorists are on the run. And slowly, even ineptly, we are achieving our political goals of democratic reform in once-awful places. Thirty years of genocide, vast forced transfers of whole peoples, the desecration of entire landscapes, a ruined infrastructure, and a brutalized and demoralized civilian psyche are being remedied, often under fire. All this and more has been achieved at the price of political turmoil, deep divisions in the West — here and abroad — and the emergence of a strong minority, led by mostly elites, who simply wish it all to fail.
Whether this influential, snarling minority — so prominent in the media, on campuses, in government, and in the arts — succeeds in turning victory into defeat is open to question. Right now the matter rests on the nerve of a half-dozen in Washington who are daily slandered (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz), and with brilliant and courageous soldiers in the field. They are fighting desperately against the always-ticking clock of American impatience, and are forced to confront an Orwellian world in which their battle sacrifice is ignored or deprecated while killing a vicious enemy is tantamount to murder.
No, we — along with those brave Iraqis who have opted for freedom — could very easily still lose this war that our brave troops are somehow now winning.
Anti-Semitic Radio In New York
FrontPageMag.com posted an article
from Phyllis Chesler this morning which details the anti-Semitic lunacy of New York's WBAI radio:
What is it about listener-sponsored radio that has turned so ugly and doctrinaire? Do the vast majority of listeners who support it believe that hate speech and propaganda are forms of political analysis or have they been brainwashed?
According to journalist Bill Weinberg, WBAI has offered blatantly conspiratorial and anti-Semitic books as premiums in fund-raising drives. In 2001, they offered Jim Marrs’ THE HIDDEN HISTORY THAT CONNECTS THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION, THE FREEMASONS, AND THE GREAT PYRAMIDS.
According to Weinberg, Marrs complains that “the broad brush of anti-Semitism frequently has been used to besmirch anyone offering a conspiratorial view of history.” Having armed himself against his mighty, imaginary enemies, Marrs then portrays the “gigantic and secretive Rothschilds banking empire” as the “cover and indirect” power behind nearly every government on earth. Although Marrs admits that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a forgery, he concludes, “the Protocols may indeed reflect a deeper conspiracy beyond its intended use to encourage anti-Semitism, one hidden within the secret upper ranks of the Illuminati and Freemasonry.”
Bizarre, unfounded charges, but obviously dear to the heart of WBAI and their listeners.
Marrs legitimizes the Jew-hatred of Henry Ford, the Krupps and Hitler as mere over-reaction to the arrogant power of “international Jewish bankers.” Finally, Marrs argues that the Jews were behind Hitler, that Hitler was himself a Rothschild and the JP Morgan banking empire is a Rothschild “front.” To the best of my knowledge, such views were never challenged on-air nor was any balanced programming on the issue of the Jews, Israel, or Palestine ever presented on WBAI.
In 2002, listener-callers on WBAI stated that “Jew” comes from “jewelry.” The view was not challenged. Another caller claimed, “in many quarters, the Jewish community is considered the spoiled brat of America.”
Ralph Schoenman is another leading-light anti-Zionist at WBAI. He is the author of THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF ZIONISM, which condemns the Jewish state and compares it to both the former Apartheid regime of South Africa and the French colonialist regime in Algeria. Schoenman also claims that 1930s Zionists collaborated with the Nazis in the destruction of European Jewry as a way of achieving a Jewish state.
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
Thanks to Melanie Phillips for making me aware of this interview
with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Queria from the Jerusalme Post:
The Palestinian Authority has no plans to dismantle the Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei announced on Sunday. He acknowledged that the group is part of Fatah and said its gunmen are entitled to play a political role in the future.
"We have clearly declared that the Aksa Martyrs Brigades are part of Fatah," Qurei said in an interview with the London-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper. "We are committed to them and Fatah bears full responsibility for the group."
Qurei said his top priority now is to safeguard the security of the Fatah gunmen who are wanted by Israel. He said they would be integrated into Fatah's institutions and would be paid salaries.
"We are working toward ensuring three issues for them on the basis of their adherence to the PLO's political program," Qurei said. "First, they have the right to play a political role within the framework of Fatah, and this is guaranteed for each member. Second, we are seeking to ensure their personal safety, because they are on the run and are wanted and threatened. We will achieve this with the help of the Quartet and the international community. Third, we will guarantee their living conditions economically and socially.
The Aksa Martyrs Brigades will not be dismantled."
Qurei has decided to step up his efforts to reach an agreement with Hamas and Islamic Jihad and has appointed former PA minister of communications Imad Falouji as his coordinator with them.
Thanks for being so forthright about all your plans, Ahmed. Geez, you just gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth.
I wonder if George Bush is aware that Mr. Queria expects his help in establising positions of power for the gunmen of the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade.
By the way, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade claims responsibility for suicide bombings of buses and restaurants which kill innocent women and children.
Oh, and here's Melanie's
Let's not forget that Qurei is the (second) PA 'Prime Minister' who was supposed to be Mr Clean Hands. Let's not forget that the EU is funding this outfit and this 'Prime Minister' -- who boasts that the Quartet, no less, will guarantee the perpetuation of the PA's subsidised terror. Let's not forget that the road map required the PA to dismantle the infrastructure of terror, which its leader now says the Quartet sponsors of that same road map must instead consolidate.
But let's not hold our breath for the British or American governments, let alone the EU or UN, to start telling us the truth about the PA -- that it is part of the axis of evil and as such must no longer be subsidised, sanitised and sucked up to, but stopped.
Judge Us By Our Enemies
Anti-Semtism and Anti-Americanism
Dennis Prager puts all the hatred in perspective
There are basically two possible ways to look at anti-Semitism. One is that anti-Semites are essentially decent folks and Jews have usually been so bad that they have merited anti-Semitic hatred. The second is that the Jews have generally been a decent people who antagonized many of the morally worst people of their time and place.
Anti-Semites would, of course, choose the first explanation. Others would acknowledge that those who have hated the Jews have usually been the vilest of their generation. Whether Roman torturers, Crusaders who massacred Jewish communities on their way to the Holy Land, Nazis or communists – they all hated Jews. The monsters of the 20th century, the Nazis, made Jew-hatred the centerpiece of their ideology. And the monsters of our young century, militant Muslims, have done the same.
Why have the Jews – always among the weakest and smallest of peoples – attracted the hatred of the most evil people? Because of what the Jews represented. The civility of the Jews' lives and the values the Jews brought into the world – especially ethical monotheism, i.e., a standard of right and wrong based on a moral and judging God – made them loathsome in the eyes of those who led particularly uncivil lives and who celebrated moral chaos and cruelty.
Turning to hatred of America, the same questions and answers apply.
Either America is evil, and hatred of it is merited, or America is a decent country and the haters are evil.
The correct explanation is so obvious that only one who already hates America or who is simply morally confused would choose the first.
To assess the veracity of this, all one need do is compare America – a country that has liberated more people from tyranny than any other, and which has been a place of refuge, tolerance and opportunity for more people from more backgrounds than any other in history – with those who hate America.
Militant Muslims hate America. These people include the Taliban of Afghanistan, al-Qaida and other Muslim terrorists, the Islamic regimes of Iran and Sudan, members of Hamas and the many Palestinians and other Muslims who support it.
Now, what types of people are these, and what societies have they made or seek to make?
To call the Taliban primitive is to insult the many primitive peoples who were light years more civilized than these totalitarians who forbade girls to get an education and prohibited women from such innocent activities as going to the zoo. They murdered anyone who loved liberty, beheaded any Muslim who converted to another religion, and blew up some of the most priceless sculptures of the ancient world because those works of art were of a different religion. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Taliban hated this country?
Al-Qaida and other Muslim terrorists seek to impose Taliban-like regimes on everyone in the world, beginning with the Muslim world. They routinely slaughter innocent people – literally slaughter, as cutting off the heads of their human sacrifices is their preferred method of murder. They are monsters in human form. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that al-Qaida and other Muslim terrorists hate this country?
The Islamic regime of Iran has taken one of the brightest nations on earth back into the darkest past of human civilization. Their great ally is the genocidal regime of North Korea. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Islamists in Iran hate this country?
The Arab Islamic regime in Sudan has killed about 1 million non-Arab, non-Muslim blacks in the south of its country. Rape and enslavement of these blacks is routine. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that the Sudanese regime hates this country?
Hamas and its many supporters among Palestinians have developed a new theology of cruelty and death – that a Muslim boy who blows himself up while maiming and murdering as many innocent Jews as possible goes to heaven where he is then sexually serviced by dozens of virgins. In the annals of the history of religion, no analogous theology of cruelty and vulgarity has ever been devised. Is it a good or bad reflection on America that Hamas and its Palestinian supporters hate this country?
One more point. When you look at the roster of the America-haters and realize that none of them hates France or Sweden, this assessment of America-hatred is rendered even more obvious. America, largely alone, calls these groups and regimes what they are – evil. America, largely alone, wages war against them. America, largely alone (with Israel), prevents them from assuming far more power.
Dennis' distinctions lack subtlety, but I think his broad generalizations serve the purpose of clarity in this case. Of course America does things that are wrong. All Western Democracies step on toes, but generally we are a force for good in the world.
There are two things you will always hear when people tell you why there is so much hatred of America, or the West.
1) We support despotic regimes such as Saudi Arabia because of our cynical realpolitik approach to foreign policy.
2) We are econonmic imperialists and we use a disproportionate amount of the world's resources.
Both of those points have some merit.
Now, think about these questions:
1) Why do we face even more criticism when we abandon realpolitik and choose to do away with a despotic regime like the Hussein government?
2) If we use a disproportionate amount of the world's resources doesn't that mean we buy
a disproportionate amount of the world's goods? Doesn't that mean that a disproportionate amount of people in poor countries around the world have jobs because of us?
Israeli Racist Anti-Arabism
WorldNetDaily posted an article
today about Israeli racist anti-Arabism:
A majority of the Jewish public in Israel – 63.7 percent – believes the Israeli government should encourage Israeli Arabs to emigrate from Israel, according to a University of Haifa poll released yesterday.
The survey, conducted by the university's National Security Study Center, also found 48.6 percent of the Israeli Jews polled said the government was too sympathetic to the Arab population. The majority of Jewish respondents, 55.3 percent, said Israeli Arabs endangered national security, while 45.3 percent said they supported revoking Israeli Arabs' right to vote and hold political office.
What's that called again? Apartheid. 45% of Israeli citizens support apartheid? That's sick.
You know, Israeli is often accused of being an apartheid state. They aren't as the following paragraph from the same article attests:
Arabs living in Israel have more rights than those living in any Arab country, including the right to vote and hold office, and Israel's Arabs have a higher per-capita income than Arabs in the rest of the Mideast.
It is worth remembering that Arabs do enjoy freedoms in Israel which they enjoy nowhere else in the Arab world. However, if 45% of Israeli's think they shouldn't be allowed to vote, maybe the Arabs ought to start worrying.
And by the way, what do they mean by Israeli's? I'm guessing they must mean non-Arab because, if I am not mistaken, Israel's population is something like 20% Arab. That brings to mind two things:
1) The premise of the poll, or at least the way it is expressed in this article, is racist itself, because Arabs who live in Israel are
2) If the poll does include the Arab population, then if you take them out that would mean that an overwhelming majority of Jewish Israeli's want an apartheid state.
What's up with this? Is there something I'm not getting?
Hizbollah and Michael Moore Form Business Partnership
What a pair. WorldNetDaily has the scoop
. Michael Moore and Hizbollah are working together:
The company distributing filmmaker Michael Moore's Bush-bashing movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" says it won't reject an offer of help from Middle East terrorist organization Hezbollah.
As WorldNetDaily reported, terrorists affiliated with the Iran-backed network last week offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates.
The movie industry publication Screen Daily reported, "In terms of marketing the film, [distributor] Front Row is getting a boost from organizations related to Hezbollah which have rung up from Lebanon to ask if there's anything they can do to support the film."
The story then quotes Front Row Managing Director Gianluca Chacra: "We can't go against these organizations as they could strongly boycott the film in Lebanon and Syria."
Terror-war supporting organization Move America Forward publicized the Chacra quote and reacted strongly against it.
"Michael Moore dismisses Americans who are upset with his film and the impact it has in undermining support for the war against terrorism," said Vice Chair Melanie Morgan. "At the same time, his distribution companies are concerned about offending the sensibilities of terrorists. That certainly gives rise to asking the question: Whose side are you on?"
This is America. Michael Moore has the right to make the film and if he brings truth to light, great. But, being willing to partner with Hezbollah is working with a sworn enemy of the United States and racist organization. Here's a quote from the Hezbollah website
At this time we are coming closer to fulfill the dreams of Imam Khumayni(A), Imam Musa as-Sadr(HA), and the Martyrs(A), and this is the restoration of al-Quds, and praying inside its mosque. This day is sooner than anyone could ever expect, and it is coming. Victory comes from no one but Almighty Allah.
It's worth noting that Islamic people already are allowed to pray in Al Quds. It's just that Al Quds is in Israel, which means only those Islamic people whom Israel allows to travel in their country are able to pray in Al Quds. That is natural. The only people who are allowed to pray in my church are those whom the U.S. allows to travel in our country. Therefore what Hezbollah really wants is either an absolute open border policy or the destruction of Israel.
Which do you think it is?