It's Time To Deconstruct Europe
I make fun of the concept of "nuance" here quite often. However, as a person who spent the formative years of my life studying (not studying
well mind you, but studying none the less) philosophy (Hume, Spinoza, Niethzche, Sartre being my favorites), and critical/social theory (Baudrillard, Marx, Weber) I developed a great respect for real nuance:
nu·ance
A subtle or slight degree of difference, as in meaning, feeling, or tone; a gradation.
Expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning, feeling, or tone: a rich artistic performance, full of nuance.
I believe nuance requires the suspension of dogmatic belief and the application of what Christians call the Fruits Of The Spirit (Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, etc.) to the ultimate end of fairness and objectivity. Nuance is not the goal. The goal is truth and goodness, or to come as close to truth and goodness as is possible given our limitations.
The problem with European nuancin' is, the nuance is the goal. In this sense, it is an endless evasion and obfuscation, expressing a desire to avoid the responsibility of making tough, dare I say it, adult decisions.
The European character has been devastated by the slime and muck of it's own doings. World War I was an absolute horror, followed shortly thereafter by World War II and it's unprecedented genocide (German and Russian) with the participation of almost the entire continent.
Since WWII, Europe has been sitting with the reality of the results of their own minds. "This is what we do when left to our own devices? " But, instead of moving on to the next question, ("Why do we do this?") they universalize their horror and lash out at the whole world. They are like a murder defending himself in a court of law. "I didn't do it. I wasn't there. And even if I was I was only doing what I was told. It was their fault. They did most of it. They put a gun to my head and made me pull the trigger."
And the most important point in their long, rambling final argument to the jury is Bushhitler. The sick minds of the Europeans have once again conjured up a monster befitting their vision of the world. But this time, it is a monster of projection, a cinematic monster. What an irony that while it is, supposedly, the U.S. that destroyed the dialectic of history, creating a self-reflexive media-dominated society, endlessly regurgitating it's own entrails as enterainment, the reality is it Europe who killed history. They had to. There really was no other choice. It was either kill history or be confronted with, and take responsibility for, the reality of their own monstrosity.
Bushitler is Europe's vomiting up of the bloody contents of their thoughts and dreams. Bushitler is a completely self-reflexive construct of the European simulacrum. Bushitler is entertainment for a Europe which has unchained itself from the demands and responsibilities of history.
As Baudrillard said,
"Today's abstraction is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror, or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being, or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality; a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it."
Europe's secular incantation of "nuance" for the purpose of evasion, has led inevitably to conjuration of Bushitler. The Bushitler construct, with one awful psycho-nuclear blast has accomplished the destruction of memory which Europe required. It has obliterated the real landscape of the world and left Europeans living in a simulacrum. A world without origin or reality.
It is time for Europe to deconstruct itself, to tear down the wall that separates them from history, responsibilty and reality. Europe has a lot to offer. The Europeans, with their belief in the continuous thread of Christianity, and their courageous Reformation, built Western Civilization. This Western Civilization, given our current circumstances in the War On Terror, is the best thing we have, and it is the only hope for the spread of freedom throughout the world.
We need you Europe. Get well soon.
French Media Lies About Kerry's Daughters Being Booed At MTV Awards
No Pasaran posted a
comment this morning stating that French TV is in full Pravda mode. The issue is that while John Kerry's daughters were clearly booed, and booed heavily, on the MTV Awards the other night, on French TV it was a bit different:
LCI, French cable news channnel, showed the Kerry sisters on the MTV Music Awards with the booing edited out and an added commentary on how Kerry is coronated by American youth.
Now, the reality is there were boos and cheers. It seemed about 50-50 to me. Both sides expressed their opinion enthusiastically, and that's why I say the booing was heavy. It was loud and clear.
The last time I saw someone booed so heavily at an awards show was Michael Moore at the Academy Awards when he delivered his "Shame on you Mr. Bush" speech.
What is wrong with the French press that they would want to hide the fact that there are Americans on both sides of this issue?
The polls show a dead heat. Now I know it's a little hard to understand logic when you are so busy nuancing everything, but what that mean is there are just as many people on one side of the issue as there are on the other.
Dead Man Blogging
IraqWarWrong
posted up today on why he filed me under "Bad People" on his blogroll. :
I just noticed that noted jazz bass player Jaco Pastorius (from what I could glean) wonders aloud (well-- in blog form,) about the way I link to him on my controversial blogroll.'
This affords me an excallent opportunity to expound a little bit (more then before) on my blogroll policy.
For, you might have wondered (like I do occasionaly)(until I remember the answer), Why do I link to a person's name (e.g. in case of Pastorius, its Pastorius) and not website "name" (in his case "cunanas" or something)?
You see, the answer is simple. It's because I like to Focus on the Person.
Let's take example. Instapundit. Instapundit is not a person. There is no person named Instapundit. "Instapundit"-- is just nonsense word (made-up relly). I don't even know what it means.
I name people not made-up things.Why should I let these people hide from they're wrongness from behind Internet sudonyms? Tha'ts cowardly. Truely cowardly.
And so anyway, the same all goes for (just learned his first name is Jaco) Pastorius. Welcome to my blogroll, noted jazz bass player Jaco Pastorius(never been a big fan in admittance, for my money best bass player will always be-- GEDDY LEE/ RUSH; #2 FLEA), even though you are wrong about what the Iraq war was, and cannot evade responsibility from you're wrongness. Why? Because I've called you out personally, by you're name, Jaco. See how that works?signed,iraqwarwrong (The Proprietor / "The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog")
You see now, this is exactly what I did not want to have happen. I didn't want people to know my true identity. That's why I only use the last name.
Now some angry person who thinks the Iraq War Is Wrong (i.e. not right) will come and stalk me when I'm out on tour with my band Weather Report. I can see the headlines already,
"Famed Jazz Musician Jaco Pastorius Beaten To Death By Thug."
But, I must say, I still admire IraqWarWrong for the depths to which he's willing to go in the name of his convictions.
Howie, We Hardly Knew Ye
I still think Howard Dean was too high-strung to be President of the United States, but Jeez, read
this. I believe the guy would have been a Prez with a sizable endowment:
The Forgotten Crisis
By Gov. Howard Dean M.D.
As everyone who reads this column knows, I strongly opposed the war in Iraq because I did not believe the president was being truthful with us about the potential dangers Saddam Hussein posed to our safety. I also criticized the president for not using institutions such as the United Nations in a cooperative way to help accomplish a goal most Americans shared, which was to limit the destructive role Saddam played in the region and in his own country.
However, I have also said that the U.N. bears a portion of the blame for the Iraq war. The U.N. did not understand that sometimes action is necessary and talk is not enough. There is often too much dithering in the European Union and at the U.N. when action is needed. The shameful reluctance of the European Union to intervene forcefully in Bosnia in order to stop genocide is one such instance. The ultimate failure of the entire world community, including the United States, to stop the massacres in Rwanda is another example.
The U.N. does not seem to learn very fast. In Sudan, Africa's largest nation geographically, a terrible ethnic cleansing has been going on for more than a year in the western Darfur region where government sponsored Arabic speaking Sudanese militias have been systematically moving black Muslim Sudanese off their traditional lands.
I just have to step in here and say I really commend Howard Dean for all of this because he is speaking the truth, with one exception; the massacre in Sudan has been going on for twenty years. During the first nineteen years Arab Muslims were killing two million (primarily) black Christians, and that was ignored. It has only been during the last couple of years, when they moved on to their black Muslim brothers (primarily Sufi, to my understanding) that the world (apparently, including Howard Dean) has finally stood up and taken notice.
Howard Dean for President 2008 !??!!???!????
Over one million people have been displaced. Systematic rapes, burning women and children alive, and other forms of murder and intimidation are the preferred methods of the roving gangs called the Janjaweed. These gangs, supported sometimes directly by Sudanese government forces, are burning villages and sending their populations either to mass graves or, for the lucky ones, to foul refugee camps along the border with Chad.
This spring, the U.S. pushed a resolution through the U.N. Security Council threatening sanctions on Sudan for their disgraceful conduct. The already weak resolution was watered down at the request of a number of countries, including the Europeans. Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam.
We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.
Amen, Brother. Shout it from the mountaintops.
Thanks For The Meme-iary
My measly traffic has increased by about 300% in recent days. I wondered what happened to precipitate this improvement, so I checked around and found that I have recently been linked-to by three of my favorite bloggers.
First, though, I have to say thanks to Jack, over at
Jack Of Clubs for being the first.
And then, the really exciting news is I have been linked-to, in a rather perplexing way by the Master over at
The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog. I'm listed under the category of "Bad People Wrong About Iraq War Being Right." I don't know whether to wear that as a badge of honor because I May Be A Bad Person But I'm Sure The Iraq War Was Right (i.e. Not Wrong) or if I should be distraught at the label because I so admire the Masters profound pasquinade of a particular plurality.
Additionally, it is strange that he chose to list this site as "Pastorius ?" rather than CUANAS. My suspicion is that my hackey-sac-playing-law-school-dropping-out-of friend is on to the fact that I am not the real
Jaco Pastorius, and is trying to smoke me out.
I'll say this, just so IraqWarWrong can settle down a bit, when I told my wife I adopted the name of the "Greatest Bass Player In The World" as my nom de plume, she asked, "Do you think Jaco would have agreed with you politically?" My answer, "I seriously doubt it."
It also gives me great pleasure to know that David Heddle over at
He Lives was kind enough to add CUANAS to his blogroll. Thank you.
And finally, thanks to
Strengthen The Good for adding me to their blogroll. It is an honor and a humbling experience to be acknowledged by such builders of the Kingdom.
As it says in Matthew 25:34-40:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
Anyway, thanks to all four of you. I truly appreciate the links.
France Detains Terrorists Suspects For Years Without Trial
From the
Jerusalem Post:
Contrary to general perception in Israel and the United States, the French are neither wimps nor weasels when it comes to fighting Islamic extremism.
Since 1995, when an Algerian Islamist group called GIA killed eight people with a nail bomb in the Paris Metro, there has not been a single terrorist incident in France. This is not because Jacques Chirac's government takes an obsequious line toward Yasser Arafat, or because it did Saddam Hussein's bidding at the UN, or because it undermines US foreign policy at every turn.
Rather, it is because the French fight Islamic militants in ways that would make Israeli Shin Bit chief Avi Dichter proud and US Attorney General John Ashcroft envious.
"France has taken one of the hardest lines of any Western country in fighting Islamic extremism," writes reporter John Carreyrou in The Wall Street Journal. "Other democracies, including the US, have been criticized for excessive methods, such as holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But few have been as systematic and zealous as France in attempting to stamp out Islamic militancy."
This year, eight Muslim imams have been deported from the country under a 1945 emergency law for preaching "discrimination, hatred or violence against a certain person or groups of persons." The judicial system has staged mega-trials of terrorist suspects – 100 at a time, in one instance. Suspects can be held without trial for years. Torture is not uncommon: According to a BBC report, the British High Court has blocked France's extradition request of Rachid Ramda, wanted in connection to the 1995 bombing, on grounds that "the evidence against him had been beaten out of one of the bombers by the notoriously tough French anti-terrorist police."
It would seem that France agrees with George Bush's assertion that terrorists are enemy combatants who do not fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention.
I don't support torture (and I seriously doubt that torture is a French policy, rather I believe the instance of torture mentioned was probably an aberration) but, I must say, I applaud France for their strength in dealing with terrorism ... within their own borders.
Put Two And One Together And You Get Jihad
Two In Russia The Other Day, And One In New York Three Years Ago
Not so shocking news from
Pravda today. Those two planes that went down in Russia the other day? Well, what do you know, it was terrorism:
The preliminary results of the investigation of the crash of TU-134 and TU-154 gave the grounds to say that acts of terrorism took place.
The pilots of both the planes gave SOS signals, the damages of both the planes were identical - their tails were torn in the air, and there were females whose relatives have no interest to their destiny, on both the planes...
The Gazeta obtained the details of the preliminary investigation results of the planes crash.
It was detected that shortly before the catastrophes, the pilots of both the planes pressed the alarm buttons. TU-154 which crashed in Rostov region, sent SOS signal, while Tu-134 which fell in Tula region, managed to put on the air the signal, "Attack on the plane".
The source being close to the Staff investigating the plane crashes, confirmed to Gazeta that "today all the specialist agree that both the catastrophes were caused by planned terrorist attacks" which killed 90 people.
At first, the experts on explosives were puzzled as they saw no traces of explosions in the passenger salons or noses of the planes. However, when the tail part of the TU-154 was examined, in the area where the toilet is, a piece of the edging with the illuminator had been torn away.
Experts believe this is an evidence of small explosion, and after it the tail was torn and the plain went down and collapsed into pieces. This version was confirmed by the results of the searching on the ground. In both Tula and Rostov regions the planes fell in the same way: the tail, then v fuselage, the nose part and the cockpit. Had the planes collapsed in the air with no explosions, their tails would inevitably have fallen behind. It could be brought forward only after an explosion had taken place.
As for explosives, they could be of small power v up to 500 grams of trotyl. This was sufficient for blowing up the planes. It would not be hard for the terrorists to bring explosives in size of two bars of soap, aboard the planes.
Chairman of the Commission on investigating the crashes- causes Igor Levitin said that the information is collected on passenger Jebirkhanova who had been on the plane flying to Sochi. No relatives asked about her, and no information is known on her. A similar situation is about a native of Chechnya Amanta Nagaeva who was flying on the plane to Volgograd.
The experts have a version that the martyrs put the explosives in action in the toilets. For this reason, there was no fire on the planes, and most of the bodies were neither burned no disfigured by explosion.
Let me see, a tail falling off a plane and then the plane goes down, hmmm, where have I heard that before?
NARRATOR: 1 minute 45 seconds after taking off Flight 587 crashed into the houses of Belle
Harbor killing all 260 on board and 5 people on the ground.
1010 WINS RADIO: Breaking news now on 1010 WINS. Good morning, I'm Brian Carey. American Airlines Airbus flight 587 has exploded and crashed this morning.
Well Brian, it looks like they've locked down the bridges and tunnels again, the Lincoln, the Holland Tunnels, the George Washington Bridge are all closed.
NARRATOR: At first everyone assumed it had to be terrorism. The World Trade Centre had been attacked just two months before. For the Belle Harbor community the disaster was especially devastating. It was home to many of the city's fire-fighters who had lost their lives on September 11th. It all seemed to be happening again. Then, within hours of the crash, came a startling statement.
MARION BLAKEY [National Transportation Safety Board]: It is the case that the National Transportation Safety Board is the lead agency because all information we have currently is that this is an accident.
NARRATOR: It was almost reassuring to find that the crash was an accident until they discovered this! This is the tailfin of Flight 587. It has separated from the plane before it hit the ground. Missing from the bottom is the plane's rudder. With no rudder and no fin a plane can't fly. Something or someone had clearly caused the tailfin to break off Flight 587. Nothing like it had ever happened in 70 years of commercial aviation. The question for the investigation was who, or what, had done it.
Hey, this just in from the National Post in Canada:
A captured al-Qaeda operative has told Canadian intelligence investigators that a Montreal man who trained in Afghanistan alongside the 9/11 hijackers was responsible for the crash of an American Airlines flight in New York three years ago.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents were told during five days of interviews with the source that Abderraouf Jdey, a Canadian citizen also known as Farouk the Tunisian, had downed the plane with explosives on Nov. 12, 2001.
The source claimed Jdey had used his Canadian passport to board Flight 587 and "conducted a suicide mission" with a small bomb similar to the one used by convicted shoe bomber Richard Reid, a "Top Secret" Canadian government report says.
But officials said it was unlikely Jdey was actually involved in the crash, which killed 265 people and is considered accidental. The fact that al-Qaeda attributed the crash to Jdey, however, suggests they were expecting him to attack a plane.
"We have seen no evidence of anything other than an accident here," said Ted Lopatkiewicz, spokesman for the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. "There has been no evidence found, from what I can tell -- at least that's been relayed to us -- that there was any criminality involved here. It appears, at least the evidence we have, is that a vertical fin came off, not that there was any kind of event in the cabin."
Jdey, 39, came to Canada from Tunisia in 1991 and became a citizen in 1995. Shortly after getting his Canadian passport, he left for Afghanistan and trained with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to the 9/11 commission in the United States.
He recorded a "martyrdom" video, but was dropped from the 9/11 mission after returning to Canada in the summer of 2001. The planner of the World Trade Center attack, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, claims Jdey was recruited for a "second wave" of suicide attacks.
Call me a conspiracist, but I never for one second believed that the tail of Flight 587 just fell off that day. As noted, that had "never happened in 70 years of commercial aviation." And yet, the NTSB said it did happen just two months after September 11th.
Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
Mikis Theodorakis, the Greek composer, is a fascinating man. He's, apparently, a Pandora's Box unto himself. You ask the man a question and all of heaven and hell pours out. My God. He writes beautiful music and he is possessed of every anti-Semitic prejudice every created by mankind. In fact, he's could almost be called a genius of anti-Semitism. From the Haaretz
article:
ATHENS - Twenty-four hours before the opening of the 2004 Olympic Games, we sat on the penthouse roof. The Acropolis hovered above us.
Mikis Theodorakis placed his hand on mine. And said look how beautiful. Look how beautiful. And just as Goethe wrote: It's like frozen music, the Acropolis. It dominates all of Athens like frozen music.Afterward he spoke about his music. How his music comes to him. He hears notes in his sleep. He turns on the light and jots down the notes on a piece of paper. He turns out the light and goes back to sleep, until more notes awaken him.
I'm close to the German spirit, says Theodorakis. Very romantic, but very disciplined. Swept up completely in great feelings, but hard-working and orderly. I admire Beethoven and Wagner ...
Yeah, apparently. Read on to see the beautiful Wagnerian spirit unfold:
Question: Mr. Theodorakis, on November 4, 2003 you said in this house the words that shocked Jews and non-Jews across the world. You said that the Jewish people are at the root of evil. What did you mean?
Answer: "For me the root of evil today is the policy of President Bush. It is a fascist policy. I cannot understand how is it that the Jewish people, who have been the victims of Nazism, can support such a fascist policy. No other people in the world support those policies but Israel! This situation saddens me. I am a friend of Israel. I am a friend of the Jewish people. But the policy of Sharon and the support for the policy of Bush darkens the image of Israel. I am afraid that Sharon is going to lead the Jews - just as Hitler led the Germans - to the root of evil."
Even today, 10 months later, you don't think you made a mistake when you uttered those words?"
No, but it's important for me to emphasize that I never said that the Jews are the root of evil. I said they are at the root of evil."
So you have no regrets?"
No. And I was very much hurt by the Jewish reaction to what I said. It was not a civilized reaction. I got hundreds and hundreds of poisonous e-mails from Jews all over the world. I couldn't understand this hatred toward me. I fought against racism all my life. I was for Israel. I wrote "Mauthausen." After all that, how could I become from one day to the next an anti-Semite?"
Let me explain to you the context for this reaction. Many Jews have a renewed fear of Europe. We are afraid that there is a new kind of anti-Semitism in Europe. So when you said what you said there was a feeling of thou too, Brutus. There was a feeling that even our old friend Theodorakis turned against us."
I don't believe there is anti-Semitism in Europe. There is a reaction against the policy of Sharon and Bush. I think it's artificial to think there is a new anti-Semitism. It's an excuse. It's a way to avoid self-criticism. Rather than ask themselves what is wrong with the policy of Israel, Jews say the Europeans are against us because of the new anti-Semitism. Because they don't love us. And even Theodorakis says we are at the root of evil. This is a sick reaction."
Why? In what way is it a sick reaction?"
Because this kind of reaction is relevant to the psychopathology of the Jewish people. They want to feel victims. They want to have this comforting feeling. We are in the right, we are again victims. Let's create another ghetto. It's a masochistic reaction."
The Jews are masochists?"
There is psychological masochism in the Jewish tradition."
Is there sadism as well?"
I'm certain that when Diaspora Jews talk among themselves, they feel satisfied. They feel that now, when we are so close to the greatest power in the world, no one can do anything to us. We can do whatever we like. This is why the claim of new anti-Semitism is not only a sick reaction, it's a sly reaction as well."
In what way is it sly?"
Because it really allows the Jews to do whatever they want. Not only psychologically, but also politically, it gives the Jews an excuse. The sense of victimhood. It gives them a license to hide the truth. There is no Jewish problem in Europe today. There is no anti-Semitism."
Let us go a bit deeper. Let us go back in time. When you were a child, before the Holocaust, what were your impressions of the Jews?"
The Jews of Greece were not different from the Greeks. They were entirely Greek. They loved their work and loved their family. At school they were the best. Good friends, good neighbors. No problems."
But there must have been something problematic as well. They were the other. They were different."
The Jews were picturesque. I remember that for the old women, the Jews were the ones that crucified Christ!"In 1932 I was in Ioannina. There was a very big Jewish community there. I played with the Jewish boys all the time. My grandmother was very religious. She had a room full of icons. She sang psalms. Much of my music was influenced by her religious singing. And I remember that in springtime she said to me: Now that it's Easter, don't go to the Jewish quarter. Because during Easter the Jews put Christian boys in a barrel with knives inside. Afterward they drink their blood."
Was this story imprinted in your young mind?"
It was a very powerful image. Years later, before I became a communist, I was a member of a fascist youth movement. It was a state-sponsored movement during the dictatorship of Ioannis Metaxas. We walked up and down the streets in uniform and heiled all the time. It was a bit like the Hitler Youth but comical. One day they gave me an assignment: to talk the next day about communism. I went home and asked my mother what is communism. She said she didn't know but she thinks it's something evil. What kind of evil, I asked. Evil like the Jews, she said. So I asked her if the communists also put little boys in barrels with knives and drink their blood. What do I want to say by telling you all this? These things exist. I wasn't aware of it before, but now, through your questions, I realize it is there."
Would you agree with me that for Christian Europe the Jewish people is not just another people. The Jews have a unique role in the inner theater of the European mind."
I don't know about Europe. It's different than Greece. Different religion, different culture. We don't have religious dogmas. We are not fanatic."
Do you think the Jews are fanatic?"
Something that is very negative can also be positive. If the Jews didn't have fanaticism, they wouldn't have existed. There is no evil without good. The Jews need this fanaticism. What one might call Jewish fanaticism has more to do with self-defense. It was through their religion that Jews were interconnected and kept together."
You seem to be fascinated by the Jews. Why?
"To be a community that disregards all dangers and remains true to its origins - that's a mystery. Look at France, for example. There is a huge community of Jews in France where there is a great civilization. But do the Jews become French? No. They speak the French language perfectly. They succeed in their work. But they are not French. They always think of going back to Jerusalem."
So there is something unique about the Jewish way of existence?
"It's a metaphysical phenomenon. It cannot be explained."
In your opinion, what is it that holds us Jews together?
"It is the feeling that you are the children of God. That you are chosen."
Do you think Jews have a feeling of superiority because of this intimate relationship with God?"There is that element too. Not all Jews have it. But very religious Jews do."
Is there something a bit arrogant and aggressive about the Jews?"
Yes."
Do you see in Sharon's Israel an expression of that element of the Jewish psyche?"
No, I wouldn't say that. But this question of superiority is not just a feeling. Because in the Jews' battle for self-defense they became distinguished. There are 200 Jews who won Nobel prizes. Christ, Marx and Einstein were Jewish. The Jews offered so much to science, art and music. They hold world finance in their hands. So it's only natural that they would see themselves as very strong. This gives them a feeling of superiority."
The Jews have international finance in their hands?"
They control a great deal of the world's finances... In America the Jewish community is very strong. It controls much of the economy. Certainly the mass media."
It just goes on and on in one extended symphony of anti-Semitism. It really is amazing.
Man, you just gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth.
Reuters Has A Problem With Calling Hitler A Monster
Props to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of
this. Reuters can't bring themselves to call Hitler a monster without putting the word in quotes:
By David Crossland
BERLIN (Reuters) - A startlingly convincing portrayal of Adolf Hitler in a new German movie about his last 12 days is causing controversy with critics challenging its treatment of the "monster" as a human being.
"The Downfall" ("Der Untergang"), based on eyewitness accounts and on the book of that name by historian Joachim Fest, opens in German cinemas in September and is one of the country's first attempts to characterize Hitler in a film.
Uh, wow. Pol Pot was a "monster". Jeffrey Dahmer was a "monster". Nero was a "monster". Stalin was a "monster". Charles Manson was a "monster". Idi Amin was a "monster".
We really can't be sure, can we? Better put it in quotes.
And then, if you aren't frightened enough for Western Civilization's future, there's is this, from further down in the same article:
Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel wrote: "This Hitler, who is so nice to the female bunker staff while he sends a whole people to the slaughter outside, does indeed keep awakening sympathy.
"A lonely screamer, betrayed by his followers, who stands firm until the end -- isn't that a hero, maybe not as appealing as the few positive supporting characters, but all the larger than life for that?"
They actually said it. A hero. No quotes around the word hero. Not an anti-hero. Just a hero. In the classical sense, apparently. One who has a vision for the future good beyond that of his peers, one who is willing to fight, against all adversity, and die to see his vision through to it's implementation.
Yeah, right, Hitler is a hero. In Hell.
Eichinger said it had been time for a German film on the subject.
"If you throw the spotlight on the biggest possible physical and psychological collapse of an entire civilization, namely our German nation, then it must be possible for us to tell this story ourselves. We have to," he said.
Hey Germany, your collapse was not physical, and your ability to organize and industrialize mass murder, is beyond what we could expect of a people in the throes of a complete psychological collapse.
Your collapse was a moral collapse. Repentance would be the way to deal with it.
I understand that part of the process would involve trying to understand how a human being, and a nation of human beings, could come to make such choices. I understand that this requires that one study the humanity of the culprits in some sense.
However, it's probably not a good idea to start by casting Hitler in the role of hero, in any way.
Hitler was evil because he chose to be evil. No one else is responsible for his choice. No other confluence of forces is repsonsible for his choice, and no confluence of circumstances is responsible for the choices the German people made as a whole.
It is
not part of the process of redemption that the rest of humanity understand your woes. Redemption involves you learning to give by standing up for what is right and good and beautiful in God's eyes.
John Kerry Talks About Pets and Sloppy Joes
Scoop From CUANAS
Thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of this
story from The Washington Times:
VC surfaces A new four-legged angle -- actually a dog named "VC" -- has suddenly materialized surrounding Sen. John Kerry's swift boat service in Vietnam.
In a 2004 presidential candidate questionnaire for Humane USA, Mr. Kerry was asked whether any pets have had an impact on his life.
"I have always had pets in my life, and there are a few that I remember very fondly," Mr. Kerry replied. "When I was serving on a Swift Boat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC.
"One day as our Swift Boat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat," he continued. "After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA (missing in action). Several minutes of frantic search followed, after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog."
Said Mr. Kerry: "It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed, confused but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol."
J.J. Scheele, program director of Humane USA, confirmed yesterday that her organization did, in fact, receive the above statement from the Kerry campaign.
No military records on Mr. Kerry's Web site, which aides say is a complete accounting, mention a mine exploding under his boat or any dog. The only report of a mine detonating "near" Mr. Kerry's PCF 94 was March 13, 1969, when Mr. Kerry says he was injured and a man knocked overboard.
And now, in a first for CUANAS, I, Pastorius, am bringing you a BIG NEWS SCOOP.
I have it on good authority that when Kerry was preparing to speak to the NRA recently (Did you know Kerry is a hunter? It's true. He likes to hunt deer by crawling around on the ground.) he decided it would be best if he actually became a member. On the form he filled out, one of the questions was,
"Have you ever eaten any meat which you personally hunted? If so, please elaborate."
Here was Kerry's answer:
Yes I have. Well, I didn't actually kill the meat, although I did hunt it. The story was a little more complex than that. I hunted the meat, and then it died, and then I cooked it, and then I ate it. Here's how it happened.
When I served in Viet Nam, me and the other Swifties, had a loyal pooch we nicknamed VC. His proper name was Francois, but that's another story. Anyway, one day a mine exploded underneath our boat and the force of the explosion catapulted VC one hundred feet through the air and out of our field of vision, which was obscured by the billowing smoke of huge fire that broke out on deck.
I hunted for VC in vain for over two hours until finally we got a call from another boat inquiring as to whether we had lost a dog. It seems VC had flown through the air and landed, unharmed, on the deck of a Swift Boat several hundred yards behind us. Thankfully, our furry friend had sustained only a minor shrapnel wound.
Now wouldn't you know it, no sooner than we had retrieved our canine brother, and treated his wounds, we were hit by another mine exploding directly underneath our boat. This time I watched in horror as VC flew straight up into the air tumbling head over paws. It all unfolded in a surreal slow motion. I could see the fear in his eyes, the string of drool falling from his cute little face, the terrible airborne ballet of my little doggie turning gracefully through the air as I saw the life drain from his mangled body.
Fortuitously, when VC landed, he landed in a large pot of water that sat boiling on the sterno stove. Just the moment before the mine went off, we been debating the lack of supplies for a proper dinner.
Now, when you are in the midst of battle you need to be flexible and ready to improvise and, as VC was already dead when he landed in the pot, and as my men were hungry, and yearning for a home cooked meal just like their mamas might have cooked, I decided to cook VC and make a big platter of Sloppy Joe's for all my loyal men.
I guess you could say VC served us well in life, and we served him well-done in death.
They Really Need To Learn To Pick On Someone Their Own Size
Like France Or Spain
Sometimes I marvel at the sophistication of the Islamists. Sometimes I wonder how stupid they are. Today,
they decided to pick on Russia big time.
MOSCOW - A Russian airliner crashed south of Moscow, and controllers lost contact with a second passenger jet at about the same time after both took off from Moscow, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported Wednesday. There was no word on survivors.
Witnesses reported seeing an explosion before the plane crashed about 125 miles south of Moscow, and authorities were not ruling out terrorism, the agency said.
The Interfax news agency said emergency workers spotted a fire about 600 miles south of Moscow in the region where the second plane went missing.
Do the Islamofascist fools not know what happened in World War II? Russia is relentless, under the worst of circumstances. Give them the bleakest life, the most brutal dictator, the worst weather, casualties in the tens of millions, but if you attack them, they will send an endless sea of soldiers to kill you.
The United States and Great Britain are nothing compared to Russia.
In more breaking news, the fools also bombed a bus stop outside a police station at an hour when police are regularly scheduled to exit the building.
Shepherd Smith, of Fox News, just noted that it is Wednesday in Russia and the Chechen elections are to be held on Sunday. Checneya is a region of Russia where Islamofascists are fighting fiercely to gain control. And word has been, they are supported by Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda and it's evil spawn might want to think twice before staging large scale attacks inside Russia.
Nazi's Are But Victims To The French
Really, what is happening to France? It's a seizure of madness. Check out
this cartoon.
The truth is, No Pasaran didn't quite translate the whole thing. It actually "please (s'il vous plait) don't send us to Guantanamo Bay."
What is the point of this cartoon? Lacking the apropriate labyrinths of nuance in my simple American brain, I just don't see the humor there. Is the idea that America is as bad, or worse, than the Nazi's? You know the Nazi's has this little villa in Poland called
AUSCHWITZ
you moronic caroonist. What's the name of this guy? Let's nominate him for a commendation from the U.N. Heck, let's give him the Nobel Peace Prize.
That's Le Monde. One of the two most important important papers in Paris. That's what they see fit to print.
Allah
says:
Hitler As Victim. Note the insignia on the Nazi's helmet; just makes him that much more sympathetic, eh?
Allah is referring the SS symbol which means these Nazi's are not just your run of the mill Nazi's. These are Special Services guys; the ones charged with killing the Jews, gays and handicapped people.
What do you think would cause a people to start believing that this is an accurate picture of the world in which they live?
Trendy Anti-Semitism In Paris
No Pasaran posted this anecdotal account about trendy anti-Semitism in gay Paree:
Le Monde Al-Jazira sur Seine, Libération PropagandaStaffel, and the wingnuts that read them. Overheard yesterday in a trendy eatery in central Paris patronized by a certain fringe of the national bolchevik-yuppie-green-lefty bunch slightly 'Eichmann-brown shirt' around the edges. Two wingnuts discuss the pages 12 (full page on the Jewish Center arson attack) and 13 (a quarter page about immgrants without residence permits, meaning illegal aliens, meaning illegal is the key word) in yesterday's Libération.
Wingnut no. 1 (manager of the eatery): 'You see this, full page here, quarter of a page here?'
Wingnut no. 2 ('underground' music producer): 'Not surprising, if you got money you get the full page, if you don't you can drop dead. Those people are getting on my nerves with their problems.'
This in a country where Jews are insulted on prime time TV, and where comedians who call them 'slavetraders who have gone into banking' are acquitted on charges of racism. Both wingnuts were white, French, under-35, and well-off.
They have already been overheard participating in discussions about: getting George Bush hanged (pretty standard stuff here in Paris), how George Bush's electorate (roughly half of American voters) is a menace for the planet (but wait, I thought they only hated George Bush and not the American people), and how the Al-Qaeda menace just doesn't exist (they believe that Thierry Meyssan is on to something).
The eatery in question is a stone's throw from the rue des Rosiers (Orthodox Jewish area) and the Marais (neighborhood brown shirt lobbies). No effort whatsoever is made to be discreet with regard to their views because they are not saying anything shocking. Their views are normal. This is Paris and they are mainstream. It's 1938. Only well-off leftist politically correct thinkers are capable of spewing such horrors.
This is only an anecdote, of course, but it is supported by the Bushhiterisms of the French media's headlines. So, I believe it.
Coming Down The Mountain - One Of Many Children
I found a blog that looks pretty cool. It's called
Coming Down The Mountain. It's written by a woman from South Africa named Neritia. She sums up the mission of her blog by saying:
my journey is up and down the mountain. different seasons and different places. highs and lows. grace and mercies. as Nora Neale Hurston said...there are years that ask questions - and years that answer. my time has come to search for answers to the questions that repeat themselves no matter where on the journey i am.
I guess that's all of us. Anyway, here's an excerpt from a story she shares:
About 3 years ago, as I was getting ready to leave for work, there was a knock on my front door. I remember it as though it happened this morning!I was in a rush and as I opened the door I saw a thin and dirty little boy standing in front of me. He looked at me and smiled, but I was so irritated and rushed that I didn't even notice the beauty of his smile. He asked for food.I barked something in the line of...Why aren't you in school? Go home and go to school!
As I closed that door and walked back to my room I clearly heard...which of you, when your son asks for bread will give him a stone [Matt 7:9]?
Ashamed is not a strong enough word to describe how I felt at that moment. I ran back to the front door, pulled open the door and started down the road to find the boy. Half way down the road he heard me yelling for him to come back...and that day something beautiful started in my life.
At the time, Jacques was 8 years old. His parents were alcoholics, he had a younger sister and he was hungry. Hunger brought him to my front door. I phoned the office and told them that I was going to be late...I cooked him some porridge, made hot chocolate and the two of us sat outside on the 'stoep' [porch/veranda] talking.
When I asked him why he didn't go to school he told me he was too hungry. His school uniform was not clean and his mother was drunk. That day the two of us made a deal. I promised him breakfast every morning and he promised to go to school. For months we would share breakfast on the 'stoep'.
I think it was on day 4 that I told him we need to talk about God...we need to thank Him for the food...for bringing the 2 of us into each others lives. Our little ritual turned into Bible reading, praying and sharing breakfast.He had a brilliant smile...a huge white smile...a smile that always reached his eyes. I use to marvel at how much he could eat...but the best part of his hunger was the hunger to hear about Truth.
One morning he refused to pray -- after some encouragement he told me that he couldn't understand why Jesus didn't listen to him. He was praying for a sober mother...but she chose to drink.
I tried to explain to this 8 year old that we all have choices in life. Sometimes we just don't realize that we can choose and sometimes we don't have the courage or strength to make the right choices. We started to pray that his mother would become sober...he understood that God was always there to listen to him...no matter the circumstances!
Not too long after that, he came to my house one evening to tell me that he's moving away. His mother decided to get help and he [and his sister] was to go live with his grandmother for a while. The joy in that child's eyes...the hope of a better life...it brings tears to my eyes each time I think of him.
What impresses me about this story is the spirit of humility in which it is told. It is clear from the way Niritia relates the unfolding of events that she knows that was graced by God to be part of God's plan for this boys life. It was a gift to her as well the boy.
Beautiful.
A Rapist Makes An Honest Women Of His Victim
Thanks to DhimmiWatch for making me aware of
this from the Scotsman:
THE dusty Berhampur Central jail, 120 miles north of Calcutta, provided the setting for a bizarre wedding last week between a rapist and his victim. The victim faced a life as an outcast, ostracised and stigmatised by Indian society for being on the receiving end of a violent sexual crime. But if her assailant married her, the shame would be lifted in the eyes of the local Muslim community.
On the order of the court in Berhampur, Ahammad Shaikh, 30, tied the knot with Sabina Khatoon, 18, inside the local prison where he is serving his sentence. Shaikh kidnapped Khatoon - the daughter of a daily wage labourer - from her village and raped her in a nearby forest in March this year.
After her father complained of the rape to the police in June, Shaikh was arrested. In the court he admitted having raped the teenager and was sent to prison for the deed. Shaikh’s lawyers failed to bail him out and he expected to be handed at least a seven-year sentence within a few months. Then, with permission from the court, an activist carrying out work among rural women, approached Shaikh inside the jail and informed him of the woman’s miseries after being ‘tainted’ by his rape.
The women’s rights activist suggested that Shaikh marry Khatoon.
Some women's rights activist. Sounds more like a pimp from the world of sadomasochism.
I must say, I find that line about how she would be stigmatized in Indian society very offensive. It's not Indian society, but the Muslim subculture within Indian society, that would stigmatize the poor women.
For God's sake, Indian society elects female Presidents. Something, America has not been able to bring itself to do, as of yet.
Although, this account from the Scotsman is skewed by such stupidity, the basic truth remains, that, in India, Muslim society is as sick as it is in the Islamic world proper.
Don't Say You Want To Destroy Your Enemy
It Just Wouldn't Be Nice
Read this:
'Wack the Iraq' Boardwalk Arcade Criticized as Anti-Arab
We've come a long way from "Der Fuhrer's Face" and Hitler cuspidors. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if a German-American group had protested "Der Fuhrer's Face" on the grounds that it was anti-German? But it is evidently no longer acceptable to express contempt for mass murderers. A paintball game in which players take aim at Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is being criticized as anti-Arab.
But wait a minute. I thought those guys represented only a tiny minority of extremists whose views and actions were abhorrent to the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. If one believes the rhetoric that groups like the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee purvey most of the time, one would think that Arabs would be lining up to play this game. By playing both sides of matters like these, the ADC leaves us with the impression that Saddam and Osama mean more to them than they ordinarily let on.
From AP, with thanks to DC Watson:
WILDWOOD, N.J. -- A live-target paintball game in which patrons take aim at runners dressed as Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has drawn fire from critics who say the game is tasteless and can only encourage violence against Arabs.
"We don't need any more games that would encourage people to hate Arabs or kill them," said Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey Chapter of American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Assaf has called on local officials to shut the game down, which he considers hate speech. He also wants Wildwood visitors to boycott it.
The game, known as "Wack the Iraq" _ not Iraqi _ has been on the board walk in Wildwood for at least a year, but has only recently drawn complaints, said Mayor Ernie Troiano Jr.
Troiano agrees the game is tasteless but said it was no more likely to encourage violence than many popular video games. He also said the city was powerless to shut the game down because of the operator's free speech rights.
"You go out and tell him that he can't do this, you're going to have a lawsuit that you cannot win," Troiano said.
That remains to be seen, in these hyper-PC times.
Two of the most informative and, indeed, important blogs are Robert Spender's
JihadWatch and
DhimmiWatch. I have never linked to them because I'm not comfortable with Mr. Spencer's rhetoric in writing something like this:
But wait a minute. I thought those guys represented only a tiny minority of extremists whose views and actions were abhorrent to the vast majority of peaceful Muslims.
The jury is still out on that and I am not going to accuse Islamic society of being pro-Jihad in general. I am convinced that at least 10-20 percent support Bin Laden and his ideas. I think those numbers surge periodically given circumstances. I do believe that's a sign of an illness in Islamic society. Add to that the fact that Islamic countries, almost without fail, are approving of anti-Semitic propoganda and it becomes clear that Islamic society is sick in general. But, do the majority of their want to kill all the infidels? I don't know. I don't think there is hard evidence for that. Although, maybe those rallies where thousands of people chant "Death to America" ought to convince me.
Robert Spencer is convinced.
Similarly, I believe it is still questionable just what percentage of Germans supported Hitler. But, it is clearly true that German society, circa 1930's-1940's, was in the throes of a serious illness.
Whatever the case, I believe the evidence is that the forces of Jihad ideology, along with the forces of anti-Semitism, and the abuse of women, has reached such a fever pitch and I believe their governmental support systems need to be eliminated. I believe that if we remove the regimes of Iran, Syria, and the PA, from power, and replace them with more democratic institutions, a domino effect will take hold and the entire Middle East picture will change.
I believe it must happen and I believe it will happen.
That all being said, I still have a problem with Robert Spencer assuming that the majority of Muslims are tolerant of Jihadic ideology. Do we really know that? Am I a dhimmi? Jeez, if the dhimmis were all like me, the Jihadists would be in even more serious trouble than they are now.
Micro Charities Strengthen The Good
There's a great new idea in the blogosphere and I've got to thank
Michelle Malkin for making me aware of it. There's a new organizations, formed by bloggers, called
Strenthen The Good. The idea is to promote what they are calling "Micro Charities." For instance, they are raising money for individuals and families who have victims of Hurricaine Charly.
You can help by clicking
here.
If you are a blogger and you want to join too, click
here.
Thanks to whoever came up with this idea, and thank you to God who, by His Grace, plants the love in our hearts that we need to surmount our own selfishness and actually do something for someone else.
A Martyr For Women's Rights
Thanks to Roger Simon for making me aware of this:
On Sunday August 15, 2004, a 16 year old girl by the name of Atefe Rajabi, daughter of Ghassem Rajabi, was executed in the town of Neka, located in the province of Mazandaran, for “engaging in acts incompatible with chastity”. The execution was carried out by the order of Neka’s “judicial administrator” and was approved by both the Supreme Court of the Islamic Republic and the chief of the nation’s “judiciary branch.”
Three months ago, during her appearance before the local court, fiercely angry the young girl hurled insults at the local judge, Haji Reza, who is also the chief judicial administrator of the city, and it is said as another expression of protest took off some of her clothes in the courtroom. This act by the young girl made the administrator so furious that he evaluated her file personally and in less than three months received a go-ahead from the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Court for her execution.
The animosity and anger of Haji Reza was so strong that he personally put the rope around the girl’s delicate neck and personally gave the signal to the crane operator, by raising his hand, to begin pulling the rope.
It may be noted that although according to the Islamic Republic’s own penal laws the presence of an attorney for the defense [is supposed to be] mandatory, regardless of the defendant’s ability to afford one, nevertheless the girl remained without an attorney. Her unfortunate father, while tears poured from his eyes, went about the city beseeching the townspeople for money to hire an attorney who in the least would provide his daughter with a line of defense.
The 16 year old girl’s male companion, who had been arrested as well, received 100 lashes and, after the Islamic punishment was carried out, released.
While her behavior in court was foolish, it is understandable. She lived in a society where women live or die according to the whims of male jealousy and hatred of women. I commend her bravery while I cry for her death.
Another Great Idea Comes Out Of Europe
Concentration Camps To House North African Immigrants
Well, let's see, in the past few weeks, I've posted on how Norwegian politicians want to ban Islam, the UK approved housing "for Asians only", Europe condemns Israel's wall and then hires Israeli firms to build one for them too, etc. etc. etc.
Now, yet another great idea wafts over from Europe.
Thanks to EU Referendum for making me aware of this:
The garrulous Rocco Buttiglione – commissioner-designate for justice, freedom and security, has teamed up with Otto Schilly, the German federal minister of the interior, to recommend "reception camps" in north Africa to "filter" immigrants from the South of the continent on their way to EU countries.
Sounding suspiciously like concentration camps, there is more than a little historical resonance in the fact that they are being championed by a German and an Italian politician in what may well come to be dubbed "the final solution" to the immigration problem.But to avoid the jibe of "little colonialists", which has already been levied at them, the Axis duo want the "countries on the other side of the Mediterranean" to create the camps, with costs shared "roughly in equal parts" among EU member states. That way, all the European states would have to do would be to "encourage and support them", thus keeping their hands clean.
Buttiglione is also suggesting that there is a possibility of using NGOs "with contacts with European companies" to train workers needed to run the camps.
It takes a
very nuanced mind to come up with this stuff, folks.
Can you imagine the backlash if Israel decided they needed to build camps to "filter" the Arabs who come across their border everyday?
Jewish Social Center Firebombed In Paris
Thanks to No Pasaran for making me aware of
this, from Agence French Presse:
An arson destroyed a Jewish social center in the 11th arrondissement of Paris in the night of Saturday to Sunday, without causing injury or death, according to the Paris mayor's office. The site, about 100 square meters, located on the ground floor of 5 rue Popincourt, was set alight toward 4 AM and anti-Semitic slurs were written on it in marker, also according to the mayor's office. The fire was rapidly contained and the building was not evacuated, according to police. The Paris proescutors office has assigned investigators to the case. The mayor of Pairs, Betrand Delanoë, who is to arrive at the scene toward 9 am, released a statement expressing his "consternation and horror," adding that "the Nazi and anti-Semitic writings defiling the center are revolting."
Everything old is new again.
You's Fancypants. Awl uh ya's.
David's Medienkritik had a great
post this morning about what they are calling Eurolateralism. Hee hee hee. Here are some excerpts:
What is the definition of the term multilateral? If you look at the dictionary the term is defined as: “Involving more than two nations or parties: multilateral trade agreements.” But in Germany and France, multilateral has taken on a very different meaning. To be more precise, a clear definition of what is not multilateral has emerged. If Germany and France do not approve of an action carried out by the United States, whether it is with ten, twenty, fifty or even one hundred partner countries, then that action is NOT multilateral…it IS unilateral.
This fascinating new form of Euro-centric multilateralism was on display in a current ZDF article on the Presidential election and US-German relations entitled “Everything Different Under Kerry?” Here are two excerpts:
“The US administration under Bush has recently made more gestures towards the European allies, it has made efforts at somewhat more multilateralism.”
“…Bush has taken certain lessons away from recent times that made clearer to him than ever before the concrete costs of the unilateral path, and he really is going about adjusting his policy to new realities.”
In other words, the article claims that Bush now supposedly realizes the costs of acting without German and French approval…i.e. of acting "unilaterally." Now he his attempting to draw closer to the European allies, which is the absolute epitome of "multilateralism."
It would appear that, over the past few years, the Germans and French have appointed themselves the keepers of the holy grail of multilateralism. This would certainly explain some of their feelings of moral superiority towards Bush and the US. If Americans act against the wishes of the Franco-German axis then they can simply be written off as self-interested, unilateral, blood-for-oil hegemons. By contrast, the gallant, selfless Europeans, in their infinite wisdom and benevolence, are the inherent defenders of multilateralism and the interests of the international community. Only with their seal of approval can an action be considered truly multilateral.
But since when did one or two nations have the exclusive ability to define what is multilateral and what is not? And doesn't that represent something that is not logically possible: A monopoly on multilateralism? The quiet acceptance of this glaring paradox on the part of European journalists and politicians is a fundamental part of the current transatlantic communication problem.
What David is neglecting to understand is, as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. And since Europe is functioning that means they are smart and we are stupid.
But, of course, when Fitzgerald said that he was probably only thinking about how he loved Zelda and yet, at the same time, wanted to kill her.
Kind of like how we 'murikins feel about Europe. Hey, maybe we are smart after all.
Newsflash - Dateline: Saudi Arabia
Jews Responsible For All The Evil In The World
It's in all the official government and military press in Saudi Arabia:
A journal titled "Al-Jundi Al-Muslim" (The Muslim Soldier), which is published by the Religious Affairs Department of the Saudi armed forces, published an antisemitic article in its "Know Your Enemy" section. The article was written by Ma'ashu Muhammad and was titled "The Jews in the Modern Era." The following are excerpts from the article:
'The Majority of Revolutions, Coups D'etat, and Wars … are Almost Entirely the Handiwork of the Jews'
"The majority of revolutions, coups d'etat, and wars which have occurred in the world [in the past], those that are occurring, and those that will occur, are almost entirely the handiwork of the Jews. They [the Jews] turned to [these methods] in order to implement the injunctions of the fabricated Torah, the Talmud, and the 'Protocols [of the Elders of Zion'], all of which command the destruction of all non-Jews in order to achieve their goal - namely, world domination.
"In addition, they aspire to dominate the world in material, cultural, and spiritual terms in order to annihilate it. They own property and gold and they control the banks and other financial institutions, which [in turn] control the economies of the powerful countries. In this way they controlled the most [influential] people in the world, in whose power it was to entangle their countries in wars that resulted in benefits only for the Jews. Among the enticements [which the Jews used] were: 1) cash incentives; 2) offering jobs; 3) the introduction of religious elements into terrorism.
"World Jewry has Established a Shadow Government Run by 300 Satans Who Call Themselves 'Elders'"
"World Jewry has established a shadow government run by 300 Satans who call themselves 'elders.' They always choose one man who is considered to be a king and to be the successor to King David and [King] Solomon. They do not reveal his name in public, and each time he dies they appoint another of the rabbis in his place. The Jewish millionaire Walter Rathenau told the German newspaper The Weiner Press [meaning the Wiener Freie Presse ] on December 25, 1909: 'There are 300 people, all of whom know one another. They have arbitrary rule over Europe's fate. They choose people to do their bidding from among those who surround them. These Jews have the means to annihilate any government that doesn't satisfy them.'"
The Jews and the Islamic Caliphate
"… Abd Al-Hamid's reign was under pressure from World Zionism, under the direction of Theodore Herzl, who came to visit him in the years 1901-1902. [Herzl] proposed that Abd Al-Hamid agrees to the immigration and settlement of the Jews in Palestine, in exchange for which he would receive large sums from the Jews, [but] Herzl found that the Sultan scorned the Jews' gold, their voracious appetite, and their insolence. Sultan Abd Al-Hamid said in this context: 'Advise Dr. Herzl not to take any serious steps in this matter. I can not relinquish a single inch of the land of Palestine, which is not my personal property … but rather the property of the Muslim nation. Let the Jews keep their millions. If the Caliphate is to come apart one day then they will be able to take Palestine for free…'
"When the Jews understood that the Sultan opposed their voracious appetites, they hastened their plot to dethrone him. They were aided by the forces of evil in the Arab homeland and in the world, who dedicated themselves to breaking off lands from [the realm of] Islam. The most important among [the forces of evil] are the Masons, the Dunmeh, [1] and the secret societies of the 'Committee for] Unity and Progress,' among whose principle members was Kemal Ataturk, the man who personally destroyed the Islamic Caliphate and deposed Sultan Abd Al-Hamid II in March, 1909…
Oh, for God's sake.
A reasonable culture ought to reject this kind of propoganda. Anyone who writes and publishes such inciteful crap ought to be summarily castigated and ostracized.
In Saudi Arabia, however, such writings are given the proud mantel of being published in the offical journal of the Armed Forces. As we have seen from earlier postings, this kind of Jew-hatred is common in the national press-corp, government dailies, national television, etc. in countries like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, and throughout the Middle East.
The only precedent for this kind of monolithic government ordained incitement is Nazi Germany.
There is something very evil afoot in our world.
Click
here to read more at Memri.org.
A Parisian Court Weighs Whether To Ban Hate TV
And The Guardian Does A Good Deed
Thank you to Eursoc for making me aware of this BBC News
article:
A top French court is due to decide on Friday whether a Lebanese-based Arabic channel should be banned in France.
The country's broadcast watchdog body wants al-Manar TV removed from satellite transmissions for allegedly airing anti-Semitic views.
The move follows a complaint by French Jewish groups over a programme entitled the Criminal History of Zionism, which they say incited hatred.
The proposed ban has drawn protests from Al-Manar and Lebanon's government.
The Higher Broadcasting Council (CSA) is seeking approval from the Council of State - France highest administrative court - to have al-Manar temporarily suspended.
The CSA says the Criminal History of Zionism - broadcast in late 2003 - quoted extensively from the discredited 1897 publication the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, alluding to "Jewish ritual killings".
The channel denies the charge of anti-Semitism, saying the programme "depicted reality" and did not incite hatred.
Al-Manar Foreign Editor Ibrahim Mousawi told BBC News Online that the proposed ban result from "political pressure by the Jewish lobby".
The Beirut government has also criticised the CSA's decision.
Lebanese media quoted a letter from the foreign ministry to the French government arguing that the broadcast was a criticism of "the Zionist ideology and practices at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict", not an attack on Jews.
Now, here's an
article from the Observer/Guardian which discusses the show in a little more detail:
In Berlin last weekend I saw clips from hideous films that portrayed Jews as (literally) bloodsucking murderers. In one episode 'rabbis' sliced up a Jew and poured boiling lead into his mouth because he had slept with a non-Jewish woman. In another, rabbis murdered a Christian child to use his blood to bake Passover matzos. The dialogue in the latter went like this:
Rabbi: 'Well, we have a mission from the leadership, and we must carry it out quickly.'
Young Jewish Man: 'What is it?'
Rabbi: 'Listen. We want the blood of a Christian child before Passover, for the matzos.'
The film then shows the terrified child, Joseph, being brought in to have his throat cut over a metal bowl. In the next scene the rabbi insists that another Jewish man eat some matzos.
Rabbi: 'You must eat this, if not for my sake, for the sake of God.'
Jewish man: 'Thank you.'
Rabbi: 'How is it? Tasty?'
Jewish man: 'Plain. Like all the matzos in the world.'
Rabbi: 'No. Make no mistake. This one is tastier and holier because it was kneaded with pure blood, the blood of Joseph.'
These films were horrifying and impossible to watch. But the worst thing was that they were not relics of Nazi propaganda, borrowed from a dusty Berlin archive. I wish.
No, these films were made recently in Syria, with the help of the Syrian government and were broadcast in 29 episodes last month by a Lebanese television station, Al-Manar, during Ramadan. According to a report on 11 November by the Syria Times, they are part of 'a Syrian TV series recording the criminal history of Zionism'.
The series is called Al-Shatat (diaspora) and it purports to show that the Jews have tried to dominate the world for centuries through a secret government led by the Rothschild family. Al-Shatat insists that it is presenting the truth, derived from Jewish sources such as the Torah, the Talmud, and the memoirs of Theodor Herzl.
Millions of people, not just in the Middle East but around the world, watch such anti-semitic horrors on satellite television. As Natan Scharansky, former Soviet dissident and Israeli Minister, said at the European-Israeli Dialogue in Berlin: 'The film is so awful and so normal. Children and their parents watch it at dinner day after day.' And this is the product of the 'mainstream' Arab media, not of Islamic fundamentalists.
With such inspiration, it is not surprising that anti-semitism is marching again across Europe.
I must say, I am very pleased to see the CSA of France, and the Guardian stand up to this anti-Semitism. I have written damning posts about France and the Guardian on other occasions. It's good to see that those two bodies have counterforces working within them. Let me make it clear that I have never thought that France or the Guardian are monolithic. It's just that they tolerate far more anti-Semitism than I am used to seeing in America.
Recently, America itself has been learning to tolerate more anti-Semitism in the press and, more often, on it's college campuses and that frightens me as well.
Anyway, a big thanks to the CSA of France and to the Guardian. It's a good day.
Of course, there's still the little problem of these kinds of broadcasts being completely acceptable in the Arab World.
Mahatma Gahndi Is A Sacred Cow
We Must Butcher Him
Thanks to IsraPundit for posting
this damning article about Mahatma Gahndi. Here are some excerpts:
If Europe would have taken Gandhi’s advice as below, we’d all be speaking German and be part of a perfect Aryan race.
There would be no people living with disabilities or birth defects; the Roma (gypsies) would have disappeared into oblivion and there would be no homosexuality allowed. Communism and free speech would be considered crimes and there would have been no freedom of religion.
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman and child to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
As far as Gandhi’s advice for Jews is concerned, if we’d have followed his practice of “passive resistance”, there would have been not even one Jew remaining in Europe:
"I am as certain...that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] adopt active non-violence. Human nature...unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him."
Gandhi also advised the Jews of Europe to commit mass suicide, as our forefathers were forced to do at Masada:
"Hitler killed five million [sic] Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs."
Louis Fisher, Gandhi's biographer asked him: "You mean that the Jews should have committed collective suicide?"
Gandhi responded, "Yes, that would have been heroism."
It’s very lucky that Gandhi himself used passive resistance against the civilised British, because if he’d have used the same technique with the Nazis, there would be no people of Indian descent left in this world.
It's time for the world to grow up and realize that Gahndi was not a man of great vision. He was not an incarnation of God. I would not even call him a man of peace. The emotional devastation he was willing to lay on his wife gives the lie to his being a good man in private. For a person to deprive the one he supposedly loves of physical intimacy (and the emotional well-being that goes with it) because he believes he has some special relationship with the universe is an abominable sin.
Gahndi was a snake oil salesman who won a P.R. battle against British imperialism. Thank God he did. He was the right schmuck at the right time. His people owe him thanks.
However, his legacy is a burden on the whole human race. Unfortunately many naiive, but well-placed, people believe we can take Gahndian "principles" and apply them to all of reality. Gahndi's notion of applying his asinine philosophy to the fight against Hitler is not just laughable, it's arrogant to the point of megalomania. It shows he was willing to let the whole human race go down with the ship because of his own belief in his special relationship with his stupid pantheistic universe.
And to sum it up, let me pose this question:
When Gahndi says,
"the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife,"
How exactly does his philosophy, in practice, differ from Hitler's?
Le Monde Says Vichy Officers Headed Up D-Day Fight
Thanks to No Pasaran for posting
this article on French Media's ability to rewrite history. It really is astounding:
Six weeks after France hosted an international celebration for the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, in which Jacques Chirac managed to hold a speech in which the words "America", "Americans", and "the United States" were not mentioned once, France hosted the commemoration of the second Allied landings in occupied France of 1944.
During France 2's news story on the 60th anniversary of Operation Dragoon, "America" and related words were not mentioned once.
During France 3's news story on the 60th anniversary of Operation Dragoon, "America" and related words were not mentioned once.
During LCI's news story on the 60th anniversary of Operation Dragoon, "America" and related words were not mentioned once.
The news stories on the commemorations all spoke in generic terms ("France paid homage to the soldiers who landed" in Provence in 1944; "a total of nearly 500,000 men"; "the 450,000 men who landed to liberate France").
As for the printed press, let's see… What do we have in Le Monde?
Wow, quite a lot. A full double spread with no less than five articles and two fillers.
The main article, by Yves Bordenave, is called France honors the forgotten of the Provence landings. An article by Lilian Renard concerns the African veterans finding "a lost love" all over again. A rather surprizing article, by Nicolas Weill, concerns the fact that a French army of liberation was actually dominated by Vichy officers. (Click here to see the Le Monde article.)
Yet another, by Claudia Courtois, speaks of the Maroccan veterans' bitterness. And the two fillers concern attempts to reevaluate African veterans' pensions and the soldiers who understood orders in French, yet spoke to each other in Arabic.
Wow… that's quite impressive… In all those articles, there are only two mentions of American troops. (Not counting a paragraph mentioning the absence of President Bush.) Quite a feat, eh? But wait a minute… That's not quite true… I told you there were five articles, and in the paragraph above, and I only mentioned four. Turns out there is an article where the word "American" is mentioned throughout the text. In fact, the word keeps returning again and again. It happens to be a straight historical just-the-facts-ma'am article, replete with maps, that tells the story, day by day, hour by hour, of the Provence landings. I guess Bordenave told Le Monde's editors it would be rather difficult to pen that article without including the Yanks…
Ah, the compromises one has to make to work in the printed media…
There must be some rational explanation for this idiocy. Isn't there?
Boogie To Baghdad - The Saddam/Osama Road Movie
The 9/11 Commission Report says Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden had a working relationship, although that doesn't necessarily mean there was collaboration on 9/11 itself. FrontPageMag.com has the sccop:
In a revealing sidelight, the report quotes Richard C. Clarke — yes, the former counterterrorism chief who has been claiming Osama bin Laden had no connection with Saddam's regime.
Yet Mr. Clarke opposed a U-2 flight to track down Osama in Afghanistan because the Pakistanis would need to be apprised of it and they, in turn, might let Osama know the Americans were about to bomb him.
"Armed with that knowledge," Mr. Clarke warned, "old wily Osama will likely boogie to Baghdad."
Once there, warned Clarke, he would put his terrorist network at Saddam's service, and it would be "virtually impossible" to track him down. It's all there on Page 134 of the commission's report. (Osama's actual meeting with one of Saddam Hussein's senior intelligence officers in late 1994 or early 1995 is mentioned earlier, on Page 61.)
If that's not enough to establish a Saddam-Osama connection, (ask) Lee Hamilton, vice chairman of the September 11 Commission.
When the usual suspects in the media (the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, et al.) tried to give the commission's report the same spin Mrs. Lincoln did, Mr. Hamilton said: "There were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq going back clear to the early 1990s, when Osama bin Laden was in Sudan, then when he was in Afghanistan. I don't think there's any dispute about that."
Even the New York Times, not exactly a Republican organ, eventually caught on. ("Iraqis, seeking foes of Saudis, contacted bin Laden, file says" — New York Times, June 25.)
And yet the media allows supposedly credible people to get away with their "Bush lied" chorus over and over again.
The Incredible Yin And Yang Mystery Of John Kerry And John Ashcroft
The soft-in-the-head one overcomes the hard-headed one and vice versa, via Instapundit and Reason Online:
This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.
But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.
As Regis Philbin would be likely to say, "Well, well, well."
The Incredible Yin And Yang Mystery Of John Kerry And John Ashcroft
The soft-in-the-head one overcomes the hard-headed one and vice versa, via Instapundit and Reason Online:
This isn't the first time Kerry and Ashcroft have been at odds over civil liberties. In the 1990s, government proposals to restrict encryption inspired a national debate. Then as now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and electronic privacy groups locked horns with the DOJ and law enforcement agencies. Then as now, Kerry and Ashcroft were on opposite sides.
But there was noteworthy difference in those days. Then it was Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) who argued alongside the ACLU in favor of the individual's right to encrypt messages and export encryption software. Ashcroft "was kind of the go-to guy for all of us on the Republican side of the Senate," recalls David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
And in what now seems like a bizarre parallel universe, it was John Kerry who was on the side of the FBI, the National Security Agency, and the DOJ. Ashcroft's predecessor at the Justice Department, Janet Reno, wanted to force companies to create a "clipper chip" for the government—a chip that could "unlock" the encryption codes individuals use to keep their messages private. When that wouldn't fly in Congress, the DOJ pushed for a "key escrow" system in which a third-party agency would have a "backdoor" key to read encrypted messages.
As Regis Philbin would be likely to say, "Well, well, well."
Patriotism And Dissent Defined - Definitively And In A Very Definate Manner
Such That We May Leave Behind All Undefinateness
The anonymous genius over at TheIraqWarWasWrongBlog is really doing some of the most important work on the subject of the Iraq War. Today he posted a definition of terms which goes a long way toward explaining why we are so polarized in this country:
Another ongoing update in my Terminology primers, defining terms as I we use them here on this my our blog. The following terms are hereby defined thusly.
patriotism (n.) dissent
dissent (n.) patriotism
The astute reader will have noticed that these (my) definitions of these terms as I we use them differ somewhat (slightly) from the commen dictionary usage. That is correct and it is intentional.
Remember, I am defining these terms as I we use them (for better understanding). (Of me by you).As you can see, I use the two terms patriotism and dissent essentially interchangeably. There is areason for this, which is.
Because, my Philosophy admits of no significant distinction between the two concepts.So now that you know. And we will have a better shared understanding (as, result).
I'm sure you see what I mean when I say his work is important.
A Game We Are Determined To Lose
Thoughts and Jottings On Our Collective Suicide Note
Thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of
this New York Post article by Ralph Peters:
Our unwillingness to target even a derelict neighborhood mosque packed with ammunition, weapons and terrorists is not only militarily foolish — it’s based upon the assumption that Muslims are so stupid that they don’t know the rules of their own religion. That’s nonsense. They know that mosques aren’t supposed to be used as bunkers. But they’re not going to shout it from the rooftops to help us out.
Were we to destroy a series of local mosques used by terrorists throughout Iraq, there would be an initial outcry — which the media would exaggerate. But it would blow over with remarkable speed. The only lasting effect would be to put the terrorists on notice that we won’t let them make the rules any longer.
Make no mistake: It’s our folly and moral cowardice that encouraged our enemies to make widespread use of mosques. We created this monster, as surely as our timidity inflated Sadr. Prime Minister Allawi may yet summon the courage lacked by President Bush (and certainly by that human weathervane, John Kerry). But if Allawi folds and lets Sadr walk again, it means our troops are merely pawns in a game we’re determined to lose. Our troops deserve better. We need to let them win.
Belmont Club has this to say about our collective suicide note:
It will eliminate the threat until the nihilism of the West creates yet another. Surely it is fair to ask, whether the Left, having taken down the poster of Che Guevara and replaced it with Osama another false idol to worship the moment he is dead. The greatest tragedy would be to find that after the last Islamist has been destroyed, and one hundred thousand illiterate men annihilated by the greatest fighting force on earth, that yet another new "destroyer" anointed by the Left is in its stead.
Goodbye Cruel World.
Hee hee hee. Just kidding.
While we're out making war on ideologies, maybe we should declare war on the Left.
Hee hee hee. Not kidding this time.
Hee hee hee. No, I was only kidding, but
Dennis Prager is not:
Whatever your politics, you have to be oblivious to reality to deny that America today is torn by ideological divisions as deep as those of the Civil War era. We are, in fact, in the midst of the Second American Civil War.
Of course, one obvious difference between the two is that this Second Civil War is (thus far) non-violent. On the other hand, there is probably more hatred between the opposing sides today than there was during the First Civil War. And I am not talking about extremists. A senior editor of the respected center-left New Republic just wrote an article titled, "The Case for Bush Hatred," an article that could have been written by writers at most major American newspapers, by most Hollywood celebrities, and almost anyone else left of center. And the conservative hatred of former President Bill Clinton was equally deep.
In general, however, the similarities are greater than the differences. Once again the North and the South are at odds (though many individuals on each side identify with the other). And once again, the fate of the nation hangs in the balance. The two sides' values and visions of America are as incompatible as they were in the 1860s.
Here, then, is Part One of the list of the major differences that are tearing America apart:
The Left believes in removing America's Judeo-Christian identity, e.g., removing "under God" from the Pledge, "In God we trust" from the currency, the oath to God and country from the Boy Scouts Pledge, etc. The Right believes that destroying these symbols and this identity is tantamount to destroying America.
The Left regards America as morally inferior to many European societies with their abolition of the death penalty, cradle-to-grave welfare and religion-free life; and it does not believe that there are distinctive American values worth preserving. The Right regards America as the last best hope for humanity and believes that there are distinctive American values -- the unique combination of a religious (Judeo-Christian) society, a secular government, personal liberty and capitalism -- worth fighting and dying for.
The Left believes in equality more than in liberty. The Right believes more in liberty.
etc. etc. etc.
Bush Lied - Abdullah Lied - Blair Lied - Mubarak Lied
Everybody Lied
In the runup to the Iraq War George Bush and Tony Blair seemed to be convinced, and convinced most of us, that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons. From National Review comes
this:
"Bush lied" is still gospel for Bush critics, even though it has become such a tattered article of faith that it is near total disintegration. The faithful want to believe that President Bush made up his charges about Saddam Hussein's WMD capabilities in order to "mislead" the country into war. The latest shredding of this argument comes courtesy of Gen. Tommy Franks's new book, American Soldier.
Perhaps the true believers should amplify their charge to "Franks lied," since he believed exactly the same thing about Saddam as the president. Actually, to be consistent, the charge would also have to be "important Arab leaders lied" — indeed, "most everyone with some knowledge of Saddam's regime lied," in a conspiracy so vast it included war skeptics and everyone up and down the chain of command of the American military.
Franks recounts a meeting with King Abdullah II of Jordan in January 2003. Abdullah told Franks, "General, from reliable intelligence sources, I believe the Iraqis are hiding chemical and biological weapons." Perhaps Abdullah, an opponent of Saddam, wanted to bait us into invading Iraq — and so presumably "Abdullah lied."
Franks, however, heard the same thing from skeptics about the U.S. policy of toppling Saddam. Days later Franks met with Hosni Mubarak, president of Egypt. Mubarak said: "Gen. Franks, you must be very, very careful. We have spoken with Saddam Hussein. He is a madman. He has WMD — biologicals, actually — and he will use them on your troops."
Mubarak's warning illustrates how Saddam's alleged possession of WMD could be taken not just as a reason for action, but as a caution against it. Even though he supported it, Franks worried that the initial U.S. strike against what was thought to be the compound where Saddam and his sons were staying would precipitate a retaliatory WMD strike. "We had been receiving," Franks writes, "increasingly urgent intelligence reporting that Republican Guard units in Baghdad had moved south to the city of Al Kut — and that they had been issued mustard gas and an unknown nerve agent." Franks put U.S. forces in Kuwait on high alert.
Ah, but perhaps the high alert was part of the ruse? If so, it was an astoundingly elaborate one. Saddam's potential use of WMDs haunted Franks during the entire military operation. In their march into Iraq, U.S. Marines discovered Iraqi chemical-biological protection suits and field-syringe injectors filled with a nerve-gas antidote. The "Marines lied?" Brig. Gen. Jeff Kimmons, Franks's intelligence director, told him that one communications intercept from a Republican Guard commander "may be the authorization order to begin using WMD." "Kimmons lied?" In the middle of this blizzard of deception was Tommy Franks. "I didn't know on April 2 when our forces would be hit by chemicals or biologicals," he writes, "but I was certain it would be soon."
The only major voice who didn't lie, apparently, was Scott Ritter.
Europe Is Building A Wall To Keep Migrants Out
Just a couple weeks after Europe led the way in condemning Israel for it's separation fence, the EU has decided they need a wall, and they are hiring and Israeli firm to build it. From
WorldNetDaily.com:
Just one month after the U.N. and EU launched a furious campaign against Israel's security fence, culminating in the International Court of Justice ruling that the fence is illegal, the EU announced it's planning to build a separation fence of its own, and invited Israel to participate in the construction.
The fence is being built to separate recently added EU members Poland and Hungary from their new neighbors – Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. The EU said the fence is necessary to "prevent the free movement of migrants seeking to enter" EU territory.
Israeli companies that specialize in the construction of fences and security systems will participate in tenders to build hundreds of miles of fences along the EU's new eastern border.
"It's incredible the EU has no problem building a fence just to keep illegal immigrants out, but when the Jewish State builds a security fence as a last resort for the purpose of keeping terrorists out and saving Israeli lives, we are blasted by them and the U.N.," a spokesman for Ariel Sharon told WorldNetDaily. "Makes you think, doesn't it?"
It doesn't make me think about anything I haven't already thought about Europe. As Daniel Pipes said when asked about Europe's fence:
"European hypocrisy is as rank as it is blatant, and the EU wall is not even for security reasons, just economic ones."
I've listened to numerous highly nuanced lectures from my European friends about how racist America is. Meanwhile, they neglect to take responsibility for the fact that just 60 years ago almost the entire continent went on a Jew-killing spree the likes of which had never been seen previously. And, of course, they lecture us on war, neglecting to remember that we had to pull them out of two world wars last century. And, of course, they lectured us on military spending and the nuclear arms race, neglecting to even try to understand the strategy that eventually brought down the Soviet Union. Also, neglecting to realize that the reason they don't need to spend much on military is because we do almost everything for them.
Now, they lecture about our "economic imperialism" in Iraq, neglecting to acknowledge that when France, Germany, and Russia say,
"No War For Oil,"
they mean "We want no war, so we can see our oil contracts with Saddam Hussein through to fruition."
So, no Mr. Spokesman-for-Ariel Sharon, that didn't really make me think, it's just part of a repeated cycle of confirmation.
Woman Are Slaves And That's The Way God Wants It
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of a slave is:
One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
Women are property under Sharia law. However, in addition to this concept of property, I would add that a slave is by definition a person who because of their bondage is not allowed to make decisions about issues concerning ones most basic human rights, such as whether to get an education, whether to have children, whom to marry, what to eat, what to wear, etc.
Women who live under Sharia law do not have these rights.
Read below, thanks be to
Allah, some examples from a Amir Taheri
article about Islamic countries and the Olympics:
According to officials in Athens, the number of Muslim women participating in this year's game is the lowest since 1960. Several Muslim countries have sent no women athletes at all; others, such as Iran, are taking part with only one, in full hijab.
A circular from the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture in Tehran asks TV editors to make sure that women's games are not televised live: "Images of women engaged in contests [sic] must be carefully vetted," says the letter, leaked in Tehran. "Editors must take care to prevent viewers from being confronted [sic] with uncovered parts of the female anatomy in contests."
Women athletes in Athens are unlikely to wear the Islamic hijab or full-length manteaux that cover their legs to the ankle and their arms to the wrist. The ministry's order thus could mean a blanket ban on images of female athletics.
"The question how much of a woman's body could be seen in public is one of the two or three most important issues that have dominated theological debate in Islam for decades," says Mohsen Sahabi, a Muslim historian. "More time and energy is devoted to this issue than to economic development or scientific research. "
Islamist theologians are divided on how much of a woman's body can be exposed in public. The most radical, the Sitris, insist that women should be entirely covered from head to toe, including their faces and fingers. The less radical Hanbalis say a woman should be covered all over, but recommend a mask with apertures for the eyes and the mouth. (A version of this, known as the burqa, was imposed on Afghan women by the Taliban).
The Khomeinist version of the hijab, invented in the 1970s and now popular in many countries, including the United States, covers a woman's entire body but allows her face and hands to be exposed. Hijab theoreticians agree on one claim: a woman's hair emanates dangerous rays that could drive men wild with sexual lust and thus undermine social peace.
But the problem of women athletes goes deeper. Some theologians claim that any form of sporting activity by women produces "sinful consequences." In 2000, for example, the Khomeinist authorities in Tehran announced a ban on women riding bicycles or motorcycles. The rationale? Riding bicycles or motorcycles would activate a woman's thighs and legs, thus arousing "uncontrollable lustful drives" in her. And men watching women on their bikes in the streets could be "led towards dangerous urges."
The problems don't end there. According to some theologians, a woman should not be allowed to venture out of her home without a "raqib" or male guardian. But that guardian must be either her husband or her father, brother, grandfather, uncle or son.
Even if a woman is accompanied by such a "raqib" at a sporting event, the problem isn't solved. One woman's "raqib" will be a stranger to the other women playing, say, a game of volleyball. Thus any sport involving more than one woman produces complex chaperonage problems. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia, have tried to avoid these by imposing a blanket ban on physical education and sports for women. Some Saudi women resent this and have been trying to persuade the government to change its mind.
There is also bad news from Iran.
Last year, the Tehran Municipality presented a plan to provide sports facilities for women. It proposed amendments to 37 laws and ordinances that discriminate against women. It also unveiled a plan to develop women-only sports grounds. A model stadium was set up with 12-foot-high walls to make sure that no one could see the women from the outside. The stadium was to operate with an all-female staff, including coaches and administrators.
The plan was scrapped last February, when critics claimed that the proposed stadium was located close enough to an airport that women in the stadium might be seen by men flying above them in jetliners and helicopters.
It is my contention that these people do not have the right to a society that operates in this manner. Go ahead, make a good argument for their right to do this to women.
Women are people and we can not stand idly by while the years of their lives are stolen from them.
It's too bad America doesn't have enough money to change all these regimes.
Germany Robs The Poor And Gives To The Rich
Once again thanks to Medienkritik for making me aware of
this post:
The following is a quote from the CATO Institute daily update: "In "Cowboy Capitalism," a new book to be released by Cato in September, German journalist Olaf Gersemann writes: "Mostly high-income taxpayers finance the budget in the United States. In fiscal year 2001 almost 65 percent of federal income tax came from the 10 percent of private households with the highest gross income. In Germany, by contrast, the top 10 percent contributed less than half of the intake. Furthermore, the 50 percent of households with lower-than-average incomes contributed almost 9 percent of German income tax revenues whereas they contributed only 4 percent in the United States."
I wonder what hydra of nuances would explain that policy?
George Bush Tries To Shove Religion Down Our Throats
Thanks to Medienkritik for making me aware of this Larry King interview with George and Laura Bush:
KING: Senator Kerry got a huge ovation at his convention. Did you watch any of the Democratic convention?
G. BUSH: Not much of it.
KING: When he said he will not put his religion, carry his religion on his sleeve, implying that you do.
G. BUSH: Yes.
KING: Do you?
G. BUSH: I may -- when asked, I profess my faith.
KING: Does it come to the office? Does the faith come to the office? By that I mean...
G. BUSH: You can't separate your faith from your life. I make decisions on what I think is best for the country but my faith is important to me and a lot of times my faith comes up because I thank people for their prayers and I mean people from all religions. But, no, I think the church ought to be separate from the state, the state separate from the church but I don't see how you can separate your faith as a person and my faith is an integral part of my life.
L. BUSH: I think he's right. I mean, you know, whatever anyone's faith is is a part of their lives. But the great thing about our country is we have the right to worship if we want to, however we want to or not to worship. And, you know, as we look around the world right now that's one of our most important freedoms and they're -- you know, I know George knows that. I mean, I think that's the whole point of the separation of church and state but it's also our right.
KING: But you don't see this as a Christianity against the world?
G. BUSH: No, of course not. I see it as people who love freedom against those who prevent others from being free and I say that it a lot when asked about religion that the greatest thing about America is you can practice your faith, or have no faith at all and you're equally an American. And if you choose to -- if you believe in the Almighty, you can -- you're equally an American. If you're a Jew, Christian or Muslim or Hindi or whatever. It is one of the great traits and traditions of our country, where people can worship the way you see fit.
He really is like a Totalitarian Dictator, isn't he? No wonder Europe hates him.
BBC Drops Some Science On The World
The BBC told the
truth:
One of Iran's best hopes for an Olympic medal will not be taking part in the Games after he refused to compete against an Israeli athlete.
World judo champion Arash Miresmaili said he was proud to withdraw in solidarity with the Palestinians.
Iran has a strict policy of sanctions against Israel and forbids any sort of contact with Israeli citizens.
Mr Miresmaili had been expected to carry Iran's flag at the Olympic opening ceremony on Friday night.
According to the draw at the Ano Liossia stadium, Miresmaili would have had to fight Ehud Vaks of Israel in the first round.
An official from the Asian Judo Union confirmed Miresmaili would be withdrawn from the competition.
He's passing up the chance to kick an Israeli's butt because his government hates the Jews.
The Funniest Blog In The World
Charles at LittleGreenFootballs posted the following:
I just received the following email from a helpful visitor to LGF:
Hello,
Sorry but you are wrong about what the Iraq war was. It was wrong and not right. Just thought you should know,
And it was signed with a link to a blog that has really opened my eyes to the incredibul dissimulation happening on some web sights: The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog.
Here's an excerpt from a typical post from the Iraq War Was Wrong Blog:
I lived in a little studio apartment on the second floor and below me was a preem medical student from India named Arun. Now, keep in mind here that Arun was not perfect (by our (Western) standards) downstairs neighbor either, anymore than I was. (Upstairs). Many's a time where, I would be up at 3-4 A.M. kept awake by his stereo ("I Got The Power" - C&C Music Factory - his favorite) or by him talking LOUDLY to family back home in India in native language Hindy (Note: as many ignorant Americans (Neandertheals) not realize - language spoken by Indians (from India) not Indian, language spoken by Indians Hindy).
At first I got frustrate - But, I would always tell myself, He is from a different culture and I must be tolerant. If I cannot tolerant his culture at 4 A.M> then where does that leave us. (I would have to apologize to him for being so intolerant, frankly). The true test of multi cultural tolerance occurs at 4 A.M. (Just a little aphorism I thought up - you can use it) So, I would switch on late nite Bob Costas show or Twilite Zone rerun and wait till his culture calms down (just, alittle).
Meanwhile, however, I offended him something greatly, for which still feel guilty. You see when I was (still) in law school (officially) I spent ALOT of time hackysacking. (In my apartment - no good place to do it outside). You know - for exercise. I would stand there and hackysack in front of TV to wile away the time and sweat. Day or night. (You're probably wondering was there enough space in studio apartment to hackysack - well there was (just barely) if I move E-Z chair and keep control (the secret: use your knees ALOT)).
Well, I must of hackysacked through 90% of both OJ trials (if you ask me). (In retrospect-- probably would of been better to attend more lawschool classes. Water under the bridge as they say).Now I guess Arun could hear this thumping on ceiling.
At first probably I assumed that in his culture (diverse) such noises - normal. (Hustle and bustle of big Indian city - Multi cultural diverse people LOVE the noises/smells (i.e. excitement!) of big city)( I assumed). But apperently (from what I could piece together) he "has to study for MCAT" or whatever bla bla bla (I admit, did not understaned his diverse accent too well. Mostly gazed at his cloths (VERY stylish dresser)
So I had offended him - my downstairs neighbor. I had overstepped the bounds of good neighborship. I had crossed the line. I recognize that (now). But at the time I didn't realize. So Arun (wise) - here's what he did. Typed up note on word processor - slipped under my door. Something about "Dear Neighbor" can you stop that infernal racket / noisy behavior raucous and rude (some words - rather long) (diverse Indians have suprirsingly large English vocabulary) (I've noticed).
Well that's the end of the story YOU KNOW WHY? Because I actually listened to his note and changed behavior accordingly. (I'm can be quite rather sensitive and compassionate to other peoples's needs, infact). I stopped indoor hackysack so much (for exercise switch to: night hikes) and Kept it down alittle. (New indoor hobby: making collages).
What does this have to do with our current predicament, youask?
We (are foreign policy) was bothering Arabs Muslims governments in the Middle East. NOT being good friendly neighbors (if you ask me), just like me with my indoor hackysacking. No. We were constraining their behavior / preventing various regimes from doing what they want to do/ expanding as they wish / arming to defend themselves / etc. In short: we offended them.
On 9/11 we received our "note" (like note Arun to me) asking (kindly, gently) (ok 3000+ kill (stock brokers mostly) to make point better) to stop our behavior. This was a chance (an opportunity) to make a mends by LISTENING (like I did, to polite note from C&C Music Factory fan) and changing are behavior accordingly as per all there wishes (ie. no American troops or citizens on Arabian peninsula anywhere/ dive vest from Israel completely,udderly / stop blockade of Iraq i.e. let Saddam trade with whomever however do/kill whatever he wishes / kick non Muslims out of Sudan / kick Russians out of Chechnya / kick Serbians out of Easter Europe / kick Indians out of Indian peninsula / etc.) Whatever - just good friendly neighbor behavior. This would of been civilized thing to do.
Maybe it's just the mood I'm in today, but this blog is the funniest thing I've read in a long time. The guy is a genius.
The Irag War Is Wrong Blog is going at the top of my newly alphabetized Links section.
Left Is Right
Zombie posted this over at LittleGreenFootballs reader comments:
... an interesting follow-up to the earlier LGF thread about UPenn writing the Shari'a code for the Maldives: Maldive protesters demand democracy
A state of emergency has been declared in the Maldives, after a protest by about 5,000 people for more democracy and the release of political prisoners. Government spokesman Dr Ahmed Shaheed said the emergency was declared on Friday after a rare show of dissent in the one-party nation turned violent. Four police officers were reportedly stabbed and about 50 arrests made. Political parties are banned in the Maldives, where President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom has ruled for 25 years....Anti-government protests demanding democratic reforms broke out in the island nation for the first time last year. Correspondents say that the recent incident appears to be another sign of increasing frustration with the slow pace of political reform in the Maldives....etc.
It appears from the article that the Maldives are (like most Muslim countries) suffering under a dictatorship that won't release its grip on power. Yet the majority of people want a Western-style democracy. Could it be that the University of Pennsylvania is helping to prop up a repressive regime by constructing a new Shari'a constitution at the dictator's behest?
That's it. The magnetic polar reversal is now completed. North is South, East is West, and most importantly, LEFT is RIGHT.
Man, is he ever right. That's a big reason why there is no way I would vote for Kerry. There are very few Democrats I would vote for, for any office anymore.
Another Jewish Cemetary Desecrated In France
This time it was believed to have been
the work of neo-Nazi's.
Allah has
pictures.
September 11th Is Coming Soon
I intend to make it a big deal this year. The last few years I acknowledged it only internally. This year I will, for the first time, put a United States flag in front of my house. I will also mark the day in multiple other ways, which I'm sure will come to me as I contemplate it more.
Here's a
link to an interesting website concerning September 11th.
Superstition?
or ...
Phyllis Chesler Makes Films About Middle East Conflict Available
Free At Phyllis Chesler.com
Phyllis Chesler is an American left-wing feminist who opposes Islamofascism and is pro-Israel.
Thank God for her. Go check out her
website and check out the films she makes freely available.
I am also including her in my Links section.
Islamofascists Rape Black Sudanese Woman
Today National Review posted an Article by Donna Hughes, the chair of the Women's Studies Department at the University of Rhode Island. Here is an excerpt:
Although the West has only recently taken notice of its scope and intent, the aggressive global Islamic fundamentalist movement has been underway for several decades. Among its first victims have been women and girls. The Islamists begin their reign of terror at home, forcing their own mothers, sisters, and daughters into a system of gender apartheid.
Where Islamic fundamentalists attack enemy populations, women and girls suffer even more. In Sudan in 1989, a coup installed the present military dictator Omar al Bashir, who declared Sudan to be an Islamic republic and imposed sharia (Islamic law).
The Arab Islamist government intensified the long-standing conflict with the south by backing raids against the Christian and animist civilian populations. The raiders killed men and animals, burned villagers, and abducted women and children. Since 1983 — when the Sudan People's Liberation Army started the warfare that preceded Bashir's coup — an estimated 2 million people have been killed and 4.5 million people have become refugees and internally displaced persons. Two hundred thousand women and children have been captured for labor and sexual slavery. Some of the victims were trafficked into slavery and sexual servitude beyond northern Sudan to Middle Eastern countries.
In Sudan, the ritualistic cutting of girls' genitals, often called female genital mutilation, is widely practiced among all religions and ethnicities, although Christians have discouraged the practice. A survey conducted by Christian Solidarity International's Slavery Research Unit on slaves liberated from the north found that 40 percent of the women and girls had been subjected to female genital mutilation while in captivity.
As international pressure for a peace agreement between the north and south intensified, and peace appeared imminent, conflict broke out in western Sudan.The inhabitants of Darfur are Muslims but from black African tribes. They are not Arab, and most significantly, not Islamist. The government seized this opportunity to ethnically cleanse the west as it has done in the south.
The widespread and systematic rape and sexual enslavement of women and girls in Darfur has been documented by Amnesty International in a report called "Rape as a Weapon of War: Sexual Violence and Its Consequences." As part of the campaign of ethnic cleansing, rapes are carried out in public, in front of family and community members. Those who resist or intervene are beaten and killed. Victims' arms and legs are broken to prevent escape. The intent is to impose terror on a village, and destroy the victims' and communities' integrity and identity.
One rape victim was told by her attacker: "You, the black women, we will exterminate you, you have no God."
Pastorius note: I will jump in here to note that these black Africans from the Darfur region are Islamic. However, the branch of Islam to which they adhere is called Sufi Islam which is
noted to be a peaceful form of Islam. So, what you have is evidence that the Islamofascists will kill and rape Islamic people as long they fit the right criteria; that they are
1) Black, not Arab
2) Peaceful, not muderous Islamists.
Additionally horrifying is the participation of Arab women in the atrocities. According to Amnesty International, Hakama — female traditional singers who praise male fighters — accompany the raiders and rapists. By singing and ululating, they provide encouragement and a song track to rape and pillage.
A report by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback and Congressman Frank Wolf, who recently visited camps in Darfur and interviewed victims, said that the Janjaweed were branding rape victims on their back and arms to permanently label them.
In western Sudan, many of the women and girls previously have been subjected to female genital cutting, including clitoridectomy and infibulation. These crude, mutilating practices of cutting away of genitalia leaves scars and inelastic tissues. Rape for these women is excruciatingly painful and can cause severe physical injuries.
These are our enemies. Like the Japanese who "raped" Nanking, and the Germans, who industialized genocide, they are completely out of their minds.
Collectively, they are the civilizational equivalent of Jeffrey Dahmer and they need to be taken off this earth.
Anti-Semitism In Greece
Thank you to the Simon Wiesenthal Center for making me aware of this information:
As the world's athletes converge on the site of the original Olympics, the Simon Wiesenthal Center calls on Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis to take vigorous steps to contain antisemitism and other expressions of hate and xenophobia, beginning with the condemnation and active prosecution of those who have perpetrated hate crimes.
To date, Greek police seem uninterested in pursuing the perpetrators of hate crimes against Jewish synagogues and cemeteries, or providing security to prevent repeated desecrations.
Combined with the tepid reaction of police, is the Greek media's disinterest. To cite one telling example, when a Holocaust memorial in Ioannina was defaced (pictured left), there were no arrests or even mention of the outrage in the Greek media.
When graffiti stating, "Out with the Jews" and "Death to Jews" was painted in a most conspicuous spot overlooking the Corinth-Tripoli highway where thousands of Greeks, including prominent governmental officials, drive by every day, an open letter to then-Prime Minister Costas Simitis from the Greek Helsinki Monitoring Group asking that the authorities remove the antisemitic graffiti was met with further silence.
When renowned "Zorba" composer Mikis Theodorakis described Jews as "the root of evil," Culture Minister Evangelos Venizelos and Education Minister Petros Efthymiou stood beside him, smiling, at a book signing ceremony heavily covered by the Greek media.
Not too long ago, Giorgos Karatzafer, leader of the extreme right Popular Orthodox Party, used the party-owned Piraeus television station to denounce Greek politicians with "Jewish origins" and to claim, "Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks."
Cartoons like this one portraying Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as a butcher of humans and other cartoons equating Israelis with Nazis are commonplace in Greek newspapers. The government ignores protests and does nothing - despite its obligation under European conventions to act against incitement to racism and violence.
Earlier dialogue between senior Greek diplomats and Wiesenthal Center officials from New York to Berlin has been met with largely empty promises. Therefore, join with us in demanding real leadership and action by Greek Prime Minister Karamanlis to counter antisemitism in Greece today.
Click
here to sign the petition.
Proof That Jerusalm Is Not Among The Holiest Sites Of Islam
For quite a while now, the media has been buying into the Arab myth that Jerusalem is an Islamic holy site. It is true that the Muslims have built the Dome Of The Rock in Jerusalem, and it is true that many Muslims believe that Jerusalem is an Islamic holy site. However, the idea that Jerusalem is among the holiest sites of Islam is a political construct. Sometime within the last 80-90 years this
myth was resurrected This resurrection was based upon a Declaration made by the Umayyid's, an Islamic dynasty, who were working in opposition to leadership in Mecca, in approximately 688 AD. The purpose ofthis resurrection was to disinherit the Jews and Christians of their holiest of sites.
Muslims believe that Israel is Dar al-Islam, meaning it is part of the Islamic kingdom and therefore it can not be shared. Similarly Bin Ladens' initial grievance with America was simply that we dared to station troops in Saudi Arabia. According to the Islamofascist way of thinking, it is an abomination for infidels to set foot on Arab holy land, unless they convert or submit to the Jizya (tax on Infidels).
By declaring Jerusalem a holy site of Islam, the Islamofascists intend to rally the troops to expel the Jews from Israel.
That's the way it is. That's the history. That's the reality today.
It seems too insane to be believed but, as you can see from my previous post about Islamofascist propoganda claiming that the Israelites of the Bible were Arabs, they do say and believe insane things.
Now, here's my proof that Islamofascists do not truly believe that Jerusalem is a Holy Site of Islam. From a FrontPageMag
article by Andrew Boston:
... it is imperative to recall the “Al-Quds Day”, December 14, 2001 sermon of former Iranian President Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. During this “pious” address, Rafsanjani, who was also deemed a “moderate” while President, argued that nuclear weapons could solve the “Israel problem”, because, as he observed, “…the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam” 6.
That footnote (6) refers to this Memri.org
article, so you can source it yourself. Because yes, it is true that the former President of Iran did actually say such a thing.
And this proves that Jerusalem is not a Holy site of Islam, because they would never detonate a nuclear weapon on a Holy Site. Do you think they would consider blowing up Mecca? The answer is, not for a second.
What Did He Say?
I Don't Know. It Was Something About Monkeys.
Sometimes I read about some some stupid thing the Islamofascists are saying, or doing, and it just seems to stupid to spend my time on. But then, I remember that their constituents are believing and agreeing with them. So here goes, fromPalestinian Media Watch, via FrontPageMag, comes this:
Thanks to Itamar Marcus over at Palestinian Media Watch, who monitors Palestinian television broadcasts, we now "know" that:
1. The Hebrews of the Bible have no connection to the Jews of today.
2. The Hebrews of the Bible were Arabs.
3. The Prophets of the Bible were Muslims.
4. Biblical King Solomon was a Muslim Prophet.
5. Solomon's Temple was not built by Israelites but by Arab Canaanites.
6. The Canaanites are the forefathers of the Palestinians.
7. The Bible is legends based on what Jews imagined and not on history.
8. The Jews of today are descendents of a 13th Century Khazar tribe with no history in the Land of Israel.
9. The location of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is a Zionist invention.
10. Zionism is Racism.
The following discussion below, was broadcast on PA TV by "historians," Dr. Jarir Al-Qidwah, Head of the PA Public Library and Arafat's Advisor on Education and Dr. Issam Sissalem, senior historian and Educational TV host, who is the former head of the History Dept. of the Palestinian Authority University.
The moderator was Mohammed Albaz. Palestinian Authority TV, Aug. 2, 2004...
Albaz: Where did the story of Solomon's Temple come from?
Al-Qidwah: Solomon's Temple, I believe, was built by the Canaanites who were the neighbors of the Israelis, the Israelites...I want to state several words clearly: the Bible became an archival document, not representing what the Israelis and the first Jews were, but what they thought they were, what they imagined. The Temple is the fruit of their imagination.
In any case, when our nation or our Canaanite forefathers came to Palestine, they built the Temple, a temple in Jerusalem. Sissalem: We, as the Palestinian nation fighting for its freedom and liberation, must not focus too much attention on these false [Biblical] legends. The history of our land continues more than ten thousand years. The land of battles and wars, [many] armies, tribes and commanders came through.
I want to point out that we should not focus much on what is called the [Biblical] Hebrew tribes, who are in fact Bedouin - Arab tribes. There is no connection between them and these Khazar Jews [of Israel today]. Those [Hebrew - Arab] tribes were erased and ceased to exist and no traces were left of them. That group did not have a pure religion. They claimed that Solomon, may he rest in peace, built the Temple. Does the land testify to this?
Solomon was a prophet and we see him as a Muslim and part of our [Islamic] heritage. There is no historical text that proves the existence [of the temple] or that it has a real history other than the Bible, and the Bible as we have previously mentioned, was written based on ancient legends.
I won't bore you any longer with this insanity, if you "must" read it, check out PMW's site.But what I can tell you is, that the falsehood bothers Israelis so much, that the usually self-flagellating, left-leaning Ha'aretz, last May, featured the article "A campaign of denial to disinherit the Jews." In it, the author tells us:
"Years ago, a group of archaeology students from Bar-Ilan University went to Jerusalem's Kidron Valley, hoping to save archaeological remnants from earth the Wakf [Muslim religious trust] had dug up on the Temple Mount and dumped in the riverbed. A Wakf official who noticed the students began yelling at them. One sentence struck them in particular: 'You have nothing to look for here, just as the Crusaders had nothing to look for here. Jerusalem is Muslim.'"According to the article, a recent study by Dr. Yitzhak Reiter, conducted for the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies states:
"In the last generation, the Islamic and Arab history of Jerusalem has gradually been rewritten. At the heart of this new version is the Arabs' historic right to Jerusalem and Palestine. The main argument is that the Arabs ruled Jerusalem thousands of years before the children of Israel.
In addition to building the Arab-Muslim case, the Muslim thinkers are formulating a denial and negation of the Jewish-Zionist narrative. Included in that effort is the de-Judaizing of the Temple Mount, the Western Wall and Jerusalem as a whole."
And if you thought Palestinian insanity was bad enough, it seems to be contagious....Reiter, a specialist in Contemporary History of the Middle East at Hebrew University's Truman Institute, points out that not only Palestinian propagandists like Arafat and PA-appointed mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Akram Sabri, have lost it, but both former and current Jordanian Ministers of Wakf Affairs, the Muslim world's most popular cleric, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, and others as well.
So have members of the Saudi royal family, Palestinian archaeologists, such as Dr. Dimitri Baramki, Syrian clerics and others in the Arab/Islamic world. And of course the Palestinians are descended from the Jebusites....
Egyptian archaeologist Abed al-Rahim Rihan Barakat, the manager of the archaeological site at Dahab in Sinai, recently wrote in an article appearing on the Internet site of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, "The myth of the fabricated Temple is the greatest crime of historical forgery." And, a fatwa on the internet site of the Wakf in Jerusalem states that David, Solomon and Herod did not build the Temple; rather they repaired something that had been there since the time of Adam.
So, next time you get the "crazy idea" that just maybe Israel can make peace with the Palestinians, or that the Islamic world is ready to live in peace with the rest of the world, knock that revisionist baloney right out of your head. They're having a psychotic episode, gripped in mass insanity.
And, if Jesus ever comes back, Arafat will portray the Nazarene as a Palestinian "Shaheed" (martyr) who the Israeli occupation has killed - as Yasser Arafat has stated on numerous occasions. You'll hear it first on Palestinian Authority TV.
By the way everybody, right now as I am writing this, monkeys are flying out of my butt.
The Orwellian Media Blackout
I know that people around the world think that the American media is rife with censorship and that we get fed the conservative party line; pro-Bush, pro-war, anti-Islam, etc.
The truth is the opposite. We hear nothing but Michael Moore, quagmire, and Abu Ghraib.
Now John Kerry is running for office and the nightly news, when it is not bashing Bushitler, is one long infomercial promoting his campaign.
Today, Roger Simon noted this on his blog:
A search for the word "Cambodia" in The New York Times this morning came up empty. In other words, it is not news to the putative newspaper of record that a man (Pastorius note: that would be John Kerry) currently running for the most powerful position on Earth quite probably lied on the floor of the US Senate (and other places) about having been at war in that country.
I found no results for that word at the Washington Post either. So it goes.
This is why internet daily's and blogs are taking over. My humble blog does not make much of a dent, as of yet. But blogs like Instapundit, LittleGreenFootballs, Roger Simon, PowerLine, etc. reach millions of people. And they dissect the facts. All of them have their various slants, (Roger Simon and Instapundit are liberals, Charles at LittleGreenFootballs appears to be a Zappa-esque libertarian, and PowerLine is conservative), but they all share a similar passion for attampting to get at the facts.
The established media is shaking in their boots because they know we bloggers are not just deconstructing their reportage, we are gradually deconstructing their very powerbase.
The War On Terror Heats Up
From Iraq The Model, with thanks to Roger Simon, comes this:
American Humvees are patrolling Najaf's streets and announcing through loudspeakers that civilians should evacuate Najaf city as soon as possible. This has coincided with the departure of all the 4 most important clerics from Najaf today "Grand Ayetullah" (The last one left today). Also a curfew was announced yesterday in Sadr city from 4 p.m. till 8 a.m. and will continue for an undeclared time.
It seems that it's time at last! I hope they get Muqtada this time and also all his deputies. People here are not only disgusted and upset with this gang but also most of them showed extreme anger and some of them went as far as condemning Islam and even the Mahdi himself!! I don’t agree of course with that, as Muqtada has nothing to do with Islam.
And, as usual, Wretchard, from Belmont Club, gives perspective:
World War 3
The key theaters of conflict, evident only in outline in early 2002, are coming into clearer focus. They are:
- stopping WMD proliferation;
- destroying transnational terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda;
- strongarming or toppling selected regimes like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Two regimes, Afghanistan and Iraq, have been toppled. Intelligence and police operations are ongoing on every continent. The geographical scope of the struggle is staggering: pursuit across the Arabian peninsula, North Africa, Southwest Asia, Central Asia, Southeast Asia, Europe and North America.
The instruments of struggle are equally various. Defensive security, diplomatic pressure, covert operations, bilateral training, special operations and conventional combat. An old world is being torn down and a new one -- for better or worse -- is being created "in a fit of absentmindedness".
The falure by the Left to articulate an alternative vision of a post-September 11 world except in the negative has banished what should have been the most momentous public policy debate of the last 50 years into the outer dark. By declaring discussion of the transformation of the world illegitimate and then only belatedly presenting a Presidential candidate whose countervision consists of a "secret" but unstated plan, liberals have effectively left matters in the hands of President Bush.
It is a staggeringly reactionary performance and a fundamentally unhealthy one. Because the one certain thing is that the antebellum world, the universe of September 10, can never be restored. The Clinton era, like the green light at the end of Daisy's dock, has been borne into the past.
It is unlikely that a meaningful national dialogue on the future of world can occur until the Left frees itself from the taboos which have stultified its intellect. The dead hand of Vietnam and its attachment to the cultic nonsense of the 1960s lies heavy on Democratic Party. That spectral limb will grip them by the throat until they shake free. Until then, forward to wherever. We'll know where we're going when we get there.
I used to vote Democrat,
always. I voted for Al Gore. Now, I'm glad he lost.
I note this only to make the point that my heart lies with more liberal-minded ideas. I am extremely pro-Union for instance. For evidence of my liberal credentials, see my essay on Bill Clinton, where I proclaim him one of the greatest of American Presidents.
However, I have now come to believe that the Democratic party has lost it's soul.
The War On Terror as I see it, is about the United States having finally, after 22 years dating back to the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, been provoked enough to say, "Enough. Now let's put an end to your fascist ideology and it's grip over the lives of hundred of millions of people."
Roosevelt was perhaps our most liberal President, if you take into account the vast chasm between where he found the country and where he took it. But, he ran WWII singlemindedly, and ruthlessly.
George Bush, while not a liberal, has established a liberal purpose - that being the establishment of freedom for those who live in the Islamic world - for this War and the evidence of his actions demonstrates his liberal vision on three key points:
1) He did not use Iraqi Oil to pay for the War.
2) U.S. forces have gone to incredible lengths to avoid harming civilians even though the combatants against whom we fight look exactly like civilians.
3) Except for insisting that basic Human Rights be established in the new Iraqi Constitution, the United States has stayed out of the process of the building of the new Iraqi government.
One could even add to this the fact the U.S. has reneged on it's original to keep France and Germany out of post-War Iraqi business. In the end this War will benefit France and Germany more than the U.S. because they aren't paying for it. Instead they are making money on the rebuilding of Iraq.
How's that for some fancypants nuancin'?
The people of the United States have a lot to be proud of with regards to this War, so far.
Who knows what the future will bring.
Another Jewish Cemetary Desecrated In France
Another Jewish cemetary is desecrated. This time in Lyon, France. Thanks to No Pasaran for the translation from
this LeMonde article:
Sixty Jewish tombs at a cemetery in Lyon were covered in swastikas and Celtic crosses, Monday evening, the Rhône police department disclosed in the night of Monday to Tuesday. The cemetery guard found the head stones daubed with black paint shortly after 11 pm on Monday, deputy chief of police François Lalanne told the AFP. The defaced graves are in part of a cemetery row that comprises several hundred sepulchers, all of them Jewish, in Lyon's 7th arrondissement, according to Lalanne. The perpetrator(s) painted one to two crosses or swastikas on each grave, he added. Regional police have been assigned to an investigation at the request of the Lyon prosecutor's office. The prefect, police commissioner, Republic prosecutor, the rabbi of Lyon and the president of the local Jewish consistory arrived on the scene toward 11 pm, sources said.
These heinous acts have by now become almost commonplace in France. I believe this is the third in the last six weeks, that I know of. Le Monde generally does not publish photos. I'll have to wait to see if any blogger does and, if so, I will link to them. We all need to understand what is happening in and to Europe.
Now, when is the last time these kinds of anti-Semitic acts were so commonplace? The 1930's?
What is happening to our world?
Fifty Percent Of Muslims Support Islamic Extremism?
From
BillO'Reilly.com, via JihadWatch.org:
Two leaders of a mosque in Albany have been charged with plotting to murder a Pakistani diplomat in New York City. Muslim-American activist Kamal Nawash told The Factor that Muslim leaders need to speak out against terror: "We have to come out and admit that we have a problem with extremism... it's a movement that's been growing for twenty years throughout the entire Muslim world." Nawash further claimed that many as fifty percent of Muslims around the world support the goals of the extremists.
I hope this isn't true. Heck, we can barely muster fifty percent who would support that we should fight back against this extremism.
The Democratic Party's Anti-Semitism Problem
Once again, thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of this
article from the Seattle Times:
One of the most prominent figures at John Kerry's nominating convention was the Rev. Al Sharpton, who seemed almost as fixed a presence at Kerry's side the night of his acceptance speech as were the nominee's wife and vice presidential candidate John Edwards.
Yet, it is common knowledge that this failed contender for the Democratic nomination incited anti-Jewish violence in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn in 1991 and in Harlem in 1995. In the latter incident he encouraged the explicitly anti-Semitic boycott and picketing of a Jewish-owned store named "Freddy's." Eight employees of the store were killed in a fire started by one of Sharpton's followers.
Among the victors in the July 20 Democratic primary in Georgia was Cynthia McKinney, who served five terms in Congress before being defeated in the 2002 primary by Denise Majette. Like many other inhabitants of the fever swamps of the Democratic Party, McKinney believed and said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 plot but allowed it to proceed in order to line his pockets.
She also, as The New York Times said in reporting her victory, had made "a series of other incendiary, often racial comments." This is The New York Times' delicate way of alluding to the stridently anti-Semitic character of McKinney's 2002 campaign, in which "Jews" were repeatedly blamed for her faltering in the polls and for her eventual defeat. Her behavior did not deter House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, then the Democratic whip, from backing her to the hilt.
Also in 2002, the Alabama Democratic congressional incumbent Earl Hilliard attacked his challenger, Artur Davis, in a flier that read: "Davis and the Jews, No Good for the Black Belt." (Both men are black.)
Hilliard's racist rhetoric did not prevent him from receiving support from 24 members of the Congressional Black Caucus and from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, one of the party's funding agencies.
French Anti-Semites Physically Assault Jewish Girl At Auschwitz - 2004
Thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of this
article from the Jerusalem Post:
While on a tour of the museum at the Auschwitz death camp in Poland on Sunday, a group of around 50 Jewish university students from Israel, the U.S. and Poland were verbally attacked by a three-member gang of French male tourists.
Evidently incited by the presence of an Israeli flag wrapped around the shoulders of Tamar Schuri, an Israeli student from Ben Gurion University, the first assailant ran at the group while its members were being guided through a model gas chamber and crematoria and began swearing and hurling anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli insults.
"He told us to go back to Israel and said that we were stupid and should be ashamed to walk around with an Israeli flag," testifies Maya Ober, a 21-year-old Polish student at the Academy of Fine Arts in Poznan and member of the Polish Union of Jewish Students (PUSZ), which organized the 16-day summer learning program along with the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS).
After the initial altercation, a second assailantgrabbed Ober by the arm. "One of the guys held me by the arm and wouldn't let go," says Ober, who lost several members of her family at Auschwitz. "I was afraid. I couldn't move and I didn't know what he was going to do.
"I was shocked. Although I have met anti-Semitism many times, I never expected to meet it at Auschwitz, where so many of my relatives were killed," she says she spoke to the assailants in French and that in addition to being "brutish and vulgar," their sentiments "made absolutely no sense."
"Violence was narrowly averted," adds LaurenceWeinbaum, Director of Research at the World JewishCongress and resident scholar for the group, who says the Polish police were not notified of the incident because the assailants did commit an actual crime.
"But, if the two sides hadn't been separated, it would have come to blows."
That's like beating up at a mourner at a funeral. What the hell kind of sense does that make?
Charles, from LittleGreenFootballs comments:
This is how bad things are getting in Europe; a despicable act that would have been unthinkable a few years ago.
That seems to be true. However, I bet alot of anti-Semites would say that, because these thugs were at Auschwitz, they clearly could not be anti-Semitic. Instead, it will probably be asserted that this is a prime example of the French ability to detect the nuance between being anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli.
Our Collective Suicide Note
I have referred several times over the past few weeks to "our collective suicide note." Here in this post, from Cella's Review, about American response to the terrorist threat, post 9/11, Paul Cella waxes on about our seeming lack of will to live:
There is no boldness from our bureaucrats; they are enervated. A consuming fear of being charged with discrimination or intolerance stultifies initiative; it disarms learned instinct; it is the remorseless enemy of the detective’s intuition, ... We all know the stories about the body searches of grandmothers at airports (this because airlines still face fines for any disproportionate scrutiny of certain ethnicities); these are but a prominent symptom of a deeper disease.
When the political and administrative leadership of society have by and large declared that they will not act against their own sense of propriety and decorum; in a word, that they will allow people to die for political correctness — when this paralysis has struck (and it has with us), then there is no sense in mincing words: we are losing the will to defend ourselves.
My local newspaper reports on the heightened security in that peculiarly anodyne way: “In Washington, police increased patrols on subways, including canine units to search for explosives. Announcements on loud speakers urged vigilance from passengers and asked them to report suspicious packages or backpacks.” Are we to fancy that the explosives and suspicious packages might simply fall from the sky?
The way this is described, just like the way this is conveyed to us by government officials, makes terrorism almost a kind of natural disaster, a quite mindless force. We should prepare for it as we might prepare for a hurricane.
Has Homeland Security ever given us a public description, even in vague terms, of the kind of men who might carry out these attacks? Have there ever been announcements on loud speakers urging passengers to be vigilant for suspicious people?
I ask another, more philosophical question: Has there ever been, in all of history, a society so staggered by political cowardice? Has there ever been a people, of all the multifarious peoples of the earth, that really thought it better to be murdered than be called racist? Has there ever been a civilization that shuddered, not at the silent approach of the assassin’s blade, but at the sanctimonious outrage of the offended assassin?
Loud And Nasty Disagreement Is Not Censorhip It's Free Speech
Thanks to LittleGreenFootballs for making me aware of this
article, entitled "Censorship Whining", from the Washington Times:
To hear liberals tell it, free speech is under siege. When crooner Linda Ronstadt imposed her unsolicited fawning views of America-basher Michael Moore on a Las Vegas audience at the Aladdin casino recently, a large portion of that audience did the principled thing: They got up and left. The management at the Aladdin asked Miss Ronstadt to do the same. These people must have been First Amendment insensitive; according to the New York Times, they interfered with Miss Ronstadt's "right to express a political opinion."
But didn't the audience members have the right to express their opinions? And didn't the Aladdin, which was footing Miss Ronstadt's bill, have the right not to be made a forum for political discourse? No, says Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten. When the "drunken mob" at the Aladdin refused to take Miss Ronstadt's rants sitting down, the "most fundamental of liberties came under assault," he claims.
What would those be — the right not to have one's views countered by opposition? Apparently that's close to Mr. Rutten's sentiment. Notwithstanding the well-known leftist bias of the vast majority of the American media, including that of his own paper, Mr. Rutten slams Fox News merely for tending toward a contrary view. "Fox News," he raves, "is the most unapologetically biased major American news operation since the era of yellow journalism." His evidence? None offered. His reasoning? "It tilts right and Republican."
If his point is that free speech belongs exclusively to the radical left, Whoopi Goldberg would likely agree. After she was fired as spokesman for Slim Fast in the wake of her foul-mouthed Bush-bashing at a John Kerry fund-raiser, she wailed about "freedom of expression without fear of reprisal."
But "fear of reprisal" — read: of criticism — is everywhere among the left, including even major media players. CNN's Christiane Amanpour believes that the press has been "intimidated by the administration." And Dan Rather of CBS — check out this metaphor — worries about having "a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck."
Treating counterargument as a threat to freedom would be laughable if it weren't so insane. So would the whole "Bush lied" mantra, which is merely an attempt to avoid even acknowledging an opposing viewpoint. Rather than stand up and confront your opponents with reason, how much easier it is to just dismiss them as liars — or worse. Thus Al Gore calls supporters of the president Nazi brownshirts. The left-wingextremistgroup MoveOn.org posts videos equating President Bush with Hitler.
Liberals apparently are tolerant enough to respect a dictator's right to fill mass graves with children. They just can't countenance anyone with contrary political views.
You'll notice that a repeat mantra of mine when I comment on incidents of anti-Semitic speech around the world is "these people should be castigated and laughed out of society. They do not have a place in respectable society."
What I ask is that good citizens to stand up and say it's not ok to say things like "the Jews secretly control the puppet strings of the U.S." or the "Jews make their Passover Matzoh with the blood of Arab children."
I never call for the abolition of a persons right to say these things. People should be allowed to say whatever they want. But, when they say something stupid, then society should call them on it. And if they persist in saying stupid things like, "Black people are inferior," or "Jews are dirty, money grubbing people," then they should not be given positions of repsonsibility and respect in a decent culture.
Loud And Nasty Disagreement is not censorship. It's free speech. And it's the duty of concerned citizens to speak up when they believe something needs to be changed.
New Links For You To Check Out
Check out my news links.
He Lives is a blog by a Christian Physicist and Nascar fan (go figure) who gives his thoughts on theological issues. Pretty interesting.
Memri and
MemriTV do translations of Arabic print media and television respectively. Very important stuff.
The Magical World Of An Arab University Professor
Abd Al-Halim Uweis is a History Professor at Al Azhar University. In
this video clip from Iqra TV, translated by MemriTV.org, Mr. Uweis lets us in on his world of Magical Realism.
He believes the 9/11 highjackers may have collaborated with the Mossad, or the CIA. Really, he doesn't know. But, he's pretty sure it wasn't Mohammed Atta and his gang acting at the behest of Osama Bin Laden.
In a way, I have to concede one point to him, though. He poses the question:
But I say, what law in the world permits attacking countries because of individuals' mistakes? Let's assume that 20 or 30 Americans arrive in Egypt and destroyed, for instance, a big institution…
Moderator: Or in Germany…
Prof. 'Uweis: Yes, or in Germany. What international law permits the entire nation, 20-30 million, 100-200 million, or all the Arabs or all the Muslims, a billion and 200 million, to be hated, fought against, condemned, and have, in a democratic country, the USA, emergency measures of oppression taken against them, as though the US were a new USSR.
I'm going to be serious for a moment. I have thought about this since the start of the War. How could a person in an Arab country see the war differently than this? From what I see of their educational institutions and media outlets, they are taught that America is a force for evil, and that America hates Arabs and Islam. What's more, it does not seem that information is readily available to them on the reality that many governments in the Arab world actually support terrorism.
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq (until we removed Hussein) support terrorism materially. But how would your average Arab know this?
Add to their government enforced ingnorance the fact that your average Arab person wouldn't even consider groups like Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, or Al-Aqsa Martys Brigade to be terrorist organizations.
There's a very real dissonance between our respective perceptions of the world around us.
Well, guess what. Too bad. America calls those groups terrorist organizations and we are going to do our best to eliminate those governments who support terror.
A hint to those Arabs who don't understand our perception of the world: It's probably not a good idea for your governments to create a society wherein media outlets and government officials call America the Great Satan. It's probably not ok to call Americans infidels in a culture where the punishment for being an infidel is death. We understand the context.
What's more, it's probably not a good idea to call for the elimination of the Jews. We fought a war to stop the genocide of Islamic people in Bosnia, why would you not think we would get upset about calls for genocide against the Jews?
Now, if you want evidence that we don't hate you, then you have to look no further than the death totals in Iraq. It would be easy for us to destroy the entire country and kill almost everyone there. In fact, it would be easier to do that than what we are doing, which is trying to target only those nebulous terrorists.
And if you think "infidels" are evil then maybe you should think about the fact that we allow Islam to thrive in our country, and about the fact that George Bush himself said that we expect the democracy in Iraq to be a "Islamic Democracy." We are not trying to do away with your religion. We are trying to remove the radical, militant elements from your societies. We are trying to remove those governments who promote those radical, militant worldviews.
But, I must say, I completely understand why many Arabs would not understand us.
If anyone needs an example of Arab person who does understand our perspective go to my Links and click Iraq The Model
Stupid American
I saw a clear case of "Stupid American" today; A guy about 20 years old, riding a skateboard, in the street, on the streetside of parked cars, against traffic, during rush hour, while speaking on a cell phone.
What's more the guy was riding a narrow board with little wheels, which would much more easily be derailed by a rock laying in the street. And the guy was
not looking down at the street as he was riding. He was far too enthralled with his phone conversation.
If he would have hit a rock, he could not have helped which way he would have fallen. His head very easily might have landed in the path of an oncoming car, making whoever hit him responsible for his death.
Concerning L'Pentagate and European Hatred Of The United States
When I was in Paris, I had the distinct displeasure of coming across Thierry Meyssans books in a bookstore on Rue d' Passey (please forgive me if I have that name wrong). The area I stayed in was not a tourist area. It was a shopping area. Clothes, shoes, groceries. The bookstore was mainstream. It is true that Thierry Meyssan had the #1 book in France with
L'Pentagate. So, I bought a copy to keep as a sort of morbid souvenier of France.
Anyway, check out
this review, from Amazon.fr, of another one of Meyssan's bestselling conspiracy/hatefests:
I love France. I think "most" French people are quite normal and pretty much like the average American. But, this "author" is the reason so many Americans boycott France and do goofy things like rename foods with "French" in the title. I suppose Meyssan also believes that Paris never fell to the Germans back in 1940--and the lunar landing was filmed in a hanger in Arizona--oh, oh, and I'm sure he believes that Elvis is soaking up sun somewhere on the French Riviera--give me a break. See Meyssan as he truly is--a disgrace to the French people--his book reads like the American unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, and his long-winded manifesto. A total BLOW-HARD.
See, the thing is, we Americans, goofy as we are, are not stupid. We know about the French proclivity for all things "Bush-is-Hitler." We know about Meyssan. We know about Michael Moore drawing raves throughout Europe for being so intelligent as to rate us,
all of us, the "stupidest nation on Earth."
Hey Europe, I don't think it's wise to bite the hand that feeds. Ooh, what an "ugly American" thing to say. But, I'll tell you why I say it.
Think about it now. Let's connect the dots, shall we? America is best friends with Israel. right? And the Jews control the whole world, right? They're the brains and we're the muscle, right? Where does that leave Europe? I'd say it leaves you lacking in brains and muscle. Now, is it wise to anger such a powerful duo? Presumably, if between the two of us, we control everything then that would mean that everything you have somehow flows through the Israeli-American Axis before we graciously bestow it upon you Europeans.
How's that for some Meyssanesque nuancin?
A Sincere Note of Gratitude to Sheikh Al-Ansari
Memri.org has translated an article, which initially appeared in the the London-based Arabic language daily Al-Hayat, by Sheikh Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, the former Dean of the Faculty of Sharia at the University of Qatar. The article is entitles "Following the 9/11 Commission, do the Arabs have the Courage to Reconsider their Position?" Here are excerpts:
"The 9/11 Commission depicted the full and accurate picture of the attacks, their planning, their perpetration, the perpetrators, and their nationalities. The report clarified that the idea of the attacks was conceived by Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, who admitted that he first discussed the idea of attacking the World Trade Center with commercial planes with his nephew Ramzi Yousef [the architect of the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993]. They discussed it again when they planned the Bojenka conspiracy in Manila [Phillipines] in 1995, which aimed at hijacking commercial planes on 10 American targets, including the 4 targets chosen for September 11, American intelligence [CIA] headquarters, the highest tower in California, and nuclear reactors. He presented the plan to Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qa'ida leaders, who at first weren't enthusiastic about it because of its complexity and magnitude, but in April 1999 bin Laden invited him to Kandahar and told him that Al-Qa'ida supported his idea. Bin Laden chose the first four suicide bombers after the original plan was changed.
Will We Now Admit that Arabs were behind the Attacks – or are We 'Incapable of Apologizing?'
"After September 11, we blamed the Israeli Mossad for planning the attacks. This belief prevailed not only among popular circles. Intellectuals and high-level figures held to this belief, validating it by their allegation that 4,000 Jews didn't come to work at the World Trade Center on that cursed morning, and by the arrest of the Jews who gleefully took pictures of the destruction [of the falling towers].
"Another group among us blamed the American extremist right for planning the attacks in order to provide a justification to attack Afghanistan and spread American hegemony in Central Asia. We are also very happy with the book written by the French crook Thierry Meyssan, 'The Appalling Fraud,' who became a millionaire thanks to our stupidity in translating the book into Arabic and disseminating it.
"One of the absurdities is that while Al-Qa'ida and its supporters are proud of their deeds, calling them the 'Manhattan Raid,' and even printing advertisements in London in commemoration of the 9/11 attacks, with pictures of the 'magnificent 19' – our religious, cultural, and political elite [are] struggling to deny that [the Arabs] could have had anything to do with it.
"Do we have the courage to criticize ourselves, to admit to our fault, and to apologize as many people do, or is it one of our hidden qualities that we are a people that are incapable of apologizing? Why won't we take the opportunity of the appearance of the 9-11 Commission's report to ponder why destructive violence and a culture of destruction have taken root in our society? Why won't we take this opportunity to reconsider our educational system, our curricula, including the religious, media, and cultural discourse that causes our youth to live in a constant tension with the world?"
Thank you to Sheikh Al-Ansari for having the courage to write this article and tell the truth.
You Don't See A Car Jacker Walking, Do You?
Last night I saw a comedian on TV who was clearly against the War. He made a series of jokes and comments about how we were fighting for Halliburton, rich people, etc. They flew in one ear and out the other, to tell you the truth. But, then he pealed this one off:
We invaded Iraq. That's an oil producing nation, man. And the price of gas is going up? What's up with that? I mean, you don't see a car jacker walking, do you?
Imagine that, a comedian lacking the intellectual rigor to realize that he just made a joke that flew in the face of all his "War for oil" illogic.
Now, that's funny.
Thanks To SoundVision (Islamic Website) For Speaking Out In Favor Of America
I became aware of SoundVision.com from a posting on LittleGreenFootballs. Charles at LFG refers to SoundVision as a radical Islamic discussion forum. He may have knowledge of the site to which I am not privy, but here are excerpts from an article I found on SoundVision praising America for it's reaction to Abu Ghraib:
Know the True American Reaction to the Iraq Abuse
By Abdul Malik Mujahid
It was at the height of the Watergate scandal during President Richard Nixon's presidency in 1975 when, after his return from America, Syed Abulala Maudoodi spoke at Karachi University praising American democracy. The reaction of America towards the abuse in Iraq reminded me of his comments almost 30 years ago. What impressed Maudoodi, the most prominent Islamic scholar and the foremost Muslim critic of the West in the last 50 years, was the free press and the system of checks and balances of American democracy which he observed during the Watergate scandal during his stay in the US.
America's reaction to the torturous sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners of war is a sign of a nation living its ideals. Although they are reacting to something extremely abhorrent and horrible, it gives me confidence in humanity and in America.
Yes. They were soldiers of the American occupying army who did the most horrific things to Iraqi prisoners. But what the Muslim world also needs to know is how America is reacting to it.
Seventy-three percent of Americans surveyed say Iraqi abuse was unjustified. Many Christian organizations in American are speaking out. Everyone who matters in America is showing their displeasure over the images and asking for the understanding of the Muslim world.
Media:
The American media has not been as free and independent lately as the European media. But one cannot much complain about the coverage of the Iraqi abuse.
It was an American network, CBS, who broadcast the photos that outraged the world.
Almost all media has been repeatedly reporting the abuse. No one is trying to hide something that can clearly hurt American national pride.
Many media outlets have published the extremely damaging, still classified, Taguba Report.
Almost all editorials and op-ed page writers have condemned the abuse in the strongest possible terms.
The media continues to disseminate follow-up stories on the issue.
The media is regularly reporting the public's outrage.
No writer, editor or correspondent has been picked up by any intelligence or military agency to date for writing hostile stories against US military interests.
The US government has not banned any newspaper, TV channel or radio station due to the negative coverage that is causing the president's ratings to decline.
Executive and the Legislative Leadership:
Republicans and Democrats, Executive and Legislative branches of the government have all have been vocal in condemning the abuse.
The Senate has condemned it with 98 votes. (Editor Note: That's out of 100, folks.)
The House has also approved 365-to-50 a resolution that "deplores and condemns" the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.
President Bush and almost everyone in the executive branch have condemned it.
The military and general after general, have been publicly answering questions about this issue. This is significant because at a time of war, they are answering to the civilian leadership instead of using the ongoing situation in Iraq as an excuse to refuse to answer allegations.
The executive branch has made it public that there are more horrific pictures of abuse in existence and they are being shown to the Senate and the House.
Transparency:
The Senate is conducting a public hearing about the abuse live in front of cameras and via live broadcasts, where army generals and their civilian leaders are being questioned. Transcripts are available on the Internet.
The House is doing the same.
The Military Response:
This is the institution facing tremendous stress. Let us see how the institution is performing under the extraordinary pressure of the media, politicians, and the public besides fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan:
It was an honorable American soldier from Pennsylvania who brought the abuse to the attention of investigators. On January 13, 2004, Army Spc. Joseph M. Darby, an MP with the 800th at Abu Ghraib, first reported cases of abuse at the prison. He is being praised by almost everyone in America.
The military officer who received the complaint did not sit on it. Within a day an investigation was launched by the military.
It was an American General, Antonio Taguba, who wrote the most damaging report to date on the abuses. He is being praised instead of being admonished.
No secret agency is kidnapping any reporter for reporting against the interests of the American military.
The Military Chief of Staff has not threatened to take over the country if criticism of the armed forces does not stopped.
Conclusion:
This is the time for the Muslim world to stop watching Hollywood movies and see how America is handling a moral crisis involving abuse of their imprisoned enemies.
No it is not a perfect system. No human system can be perfect since we are not perfect. Of course, not everything is fine and good. There are many questions that have to be answered. But all of them are being asked by the media and leaders openly and publicly.
In case some cynic declares that all of this is being done to please the Muslim world, I would say maybe there is a bit of truth to that. But if America cared for world public opinion, they may not have invaded Iraq to begin with.
This moral outrage is not a fake show, it's the true reflection of how America is feeling at this moment. This is democracy at its best.
Come over here, Abdul. I wanna kiss you. Oh, sorry. Allah wouldn't approve of that, would he?
But, seriously, I really want to thank Abdul, from the bottom of my heart for that article. The situation at Abu Ghraib is disgusting, horrific, and morally reprehensible. There's nothing more to say than that.
However, the way we have been treated in the world's media does not jibe with reality. It's out of proportion.
Compare America's reaction to Abu Ghraib to Europe's reaction to the U.N. Oil For Food Scandal. I don't believe I have seen anything in the European Press on that subject. Or what about the fact that France, Germany, and Russia were illegally negotiating contracts with Saddam Hussein? What about the idea that that might have had a lot to do with their opposition to removing Saddam from power? What about the evidence for the idea that France is currently dragging their feet on the genocide in Sudan because of their oil interests in that country? Are these things discussed in European media? I have not seen evidence of it.
So, the European Media can't seem to find it's balance, but Abdul can.
Abdul, you the man.
Too Horrible To Be Believed?
Arafat's Grand Strategy
Hitler told Europe what he was going to do years before actual implementation began. Europe had a hard time believing him. Likewise, Arafat articulated his goals and strategies years ago, but the world refuses to believe him. FrontPageMag posted a heavily footnoted
article, by Efraim Karsh (director of the Mediterranean Studies Programme at King's College, University of London) this morning. Here are excerpts :
For Yasir Arafat and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) leadership, the Oslo process has always been a strategic means not to a two-state solution—Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza—but to the substitution of a Palestinian state for the state of Israel.
As early as August 1968, Arafat defined the PLO's strategic objective as "the transfer of all resistance bases" into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel during the June 1967 war, "so that the resistance may be gradually transformed into a popular armed revolution." This, he reasoned, would allow the PLO to undermine Israel's way of life by "preventing immigration and encouraging emigration … destroying tourism … weakening the Israeli economy and diverting the greater part of it to security requirements … [and] creating and maintaining an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel."[1]
The Oslo accords enabled the PLO to achieve in one fell swoop what it had failed to attain through many years of violence and terrorism. Here was Israel, just over a decade after destroying the PLO's military infrastructure in Lebanon, asking the Palestinian organization, at one of the lowest ebbs in its history, to establish a real political and military presence—not in a neighboring Arab country but right on its doorstep. Israel even was prepared to arm thousands of (hopefully reformed) terrorists who would be incorporated into newly established police and security forces charged with asserting the PLO's authority throughout the territories.
In September 2000, Arafat launched a war of terror against Israel with precisely the objectives he had set for the Palestinian movement in 1968. Some analysts now argue that the Palestinians have lost that war. But the very fact that Arafat could wage it and plunge Israel into one of its greatest traumas constitutes a triumph of his strategy. Certainly the Palestinians have suffered reversals and losses. But Arafat has achieved his goal: he brought the Palestinian war from Israel's borders into Israel proper by the politics of stealth. He has every reason to hope that the work he began will be continued by the next generation of Palestinian leaders. That work is nothing short of the dismantlement of Israel.
How did Arafat bring it off? First, he articulated a long-term vision of Israel's elimination and succeeded in imbuing all Palestinians with its precepts, even as he shook the hands of Israeli leaders and a U.S. president. Second, he indoctrinated his people with an abiding hatred of Israel and its people so as to fortify them for war. Last, he chose an opportune moment, after he had gained maximum advantage from the "peace process," to resort to war and terror. This article examines each of the three elements in Arafat's visionary plan to liberate Palestine and the meaning of Arafat's legacy for the future.
A Strategic Plan
When Arafat began his "armed struggle" back in the mid-1960s, he took inspiration from the example of Algeria: a war of national liberation that had succeeded in the space of a few years in defeating a colonial power. When he failed to replicate this model, owing in part to the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and Israel's effective counterinsurgency measures, the PLO adopted the "phased strategy." This strategy, dating from June 1974, has served as the PLO's guiding principle ever since. It stipulates that the Palestinians should seize whatever territory Israel is prepared or compelled to cede to them and use it as a springboard for further territorial gains until achieving the "complete liberation of Palestine."[2]
From the very outset of the Oslo process, Arafat and his lieutenants viewed the agreements as an implementation of this strategy, not as its abandonment. Arafat said just that as early as September 13, 1993, when he addressed the Palestinians in a pre-recorded Arabic-language message broadcast by Jordanian television, even as he shook Yitzhak Rabin's hand on the White House lawn. He informed the Palestinians that the Israeli-Palestinian declaration of principles (DOP) was merely the implementation of the PLO's "phased strategy." "O my beloved ones," he explained,
Do not forget that our Palestine National Council accepted the decision in 1974. It called for the establishment of a national authority on any part of Palestinian land that is liberated or from which the Israelis withdrew. This is the fruit of your struggle, your sacrifices, and your jihad … This is the moment of return, the moment of gaining a foothold on the first liberated Palestinian land … Long live Palestine, liberated and Arab.[3]
This vision of a "liberated and Arab Palestine"—that is, a Palestine in which Israel does not exist—was not mentioned in any of Arafat's interviews with the Israeli and Western media at the time. During the next seven years, until the launch of his terrorist war in late September 2000, Arafat played an intricate game of Jekyll-and-Hyde politics. Whenever addressing Israeli or Western audiences, he would habitually extol the "peace of the brave" he had signed with "my partner Yitzhak Rabin." At the same time, he depicted the peace accords to his Palestinian constituents as transient arrangements of the moment. He made constant allusions to the "phased strategy" and repeatedly insisted on the "right of return," a standard Palestinian euphemism for Israel's destruction through demographic subversion.[4] He leavened his speech with historical and religious metaphors, most notably the Treaty of Hudaybiya, signed by the Prophet Muhammad with the people of Mecca in 628, only to be disavowed by Muhammad a couple of years later when the situation shifted in his favor.[5]
I must admit, it is very hard to believe that someone can be so deceptive and get away with it for so many years. However, it is also very hard to believe that Arafat's method of deception could be so easily detectible (one strategy in Arabic, one in English) and yet still be so successful.
This why the organization Memri.org is so important (in fact, now that I think about it, why don't I link to them). They translate Arab Media into English, so we can read what they are saying. From Memri we know that it is common to call for the death of Jews in major (sometimes even state-sponsored) media in Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Once one is confronted with the facts, one can choose to believe them, and act accordingly, or one can simply hide their head in the sand and say, as Neville Chamberlain did, "I believe it is peace for our time."
It's instructive to note that he followed that sentence, with, "Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."
Submit To The Jizya
Another Brilliant Idea Ascends OnThe European Horizon
How do they do it? How do they keep coming up with these ideas? It's, like, a creative flow, or, uh, some sort of flow anyway.
Many European countries are having trouble with the radicalization of much of their alienated young Muslim population. So, they think to themselves, "Let us see then, how best to handle this situation? France banned the headscarf. Norwegian politicians have proposed banning Islam itself, and now Andalusia, er, I mean Spain is considering paying protection money to Mosques.
There is a law, within the Sharia system, which says that there are three choices for non-Islamic people in an Islamic land, 1) conversion, 2) paying the Jizya (tax on unbelievers), 3) death.
Read this
article from Robert Spencer:
The Spanish government, true to the principle of appeasement that it rode to power on after the 3/11 bombings, is considering paying money to mosques. The stated purpose is to make the mosques less dependent upon foreign money — particularly, of course, terror financing from Saudi Wahhabis or others.
That money is pouring in. The March 11 terrorist bombers were active members of mosques that betrayed strong Wahhabi influence. According to Antonio Camacho, the Interior Ministry’s secretary of state security, the new payment scheme is “about keeping them from having to look outside for financing because the state does not, in a way, support their activities.”
So are we to believe that because the state hasn’t supported Spanish mosques, they turned to the Wahhabis out of desperation? And so money will make the Wahhabis disappear? This is the sort of harebrained scheme that only true sons of Aethelred the Unready could dream up, or perhaps more precisely true sons of Marx and Engels, so besotted with socialism and materialism that they can’t fathom the possibility that anyone could be motivated by anything other than the desire for material gain. The jihad? Pah. They just want money. Give them some and they’ll quiet down.
Their misapprehension is elephantine. Consider the probability that many Spanish radical Muslims are familiar with the ideas espoused by Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood theorist whose writings are still widely available all over the world (including the United States today), and which are revered by radical Muslims as a comprehensive exposition of their program. In his exhaustive, thirty-volume exposition of the Muslim holy book, Fi Zilal al-Qur’an (In the Shade of the Qur’an), Qutb wrote: “As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God. … The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax.”
That would be the Jizya, folks.
Now, let me be fair for a second. The truth is Spain has already been paying a Jizya to the Catholic church since 1979. I don't know why they began such an asinine policy, but I do know two things:
1) The Catholic Jizya was intended to be temporary but, as with most government hand-out programs, it became permanent.
2) Such a payout to religion constitutes an egregious violation of the separation of Church and State, which, of course, is one of the basic tenets of Western Civilization.
Hey, hey, hey, Europe. Come over here. Get down on you knees. Ok, good. That's good. Now, submit to the Jizya.
Charles Johnson At LittleGreenFootballs Is A Friggin Genius
Nobody sums up a news story like Charles Johnson over at LittleGreenFootballs. Check this out:
Charles Comment:
In a change of tactics obviously influenced by their buddies the head-chopping mujahideen of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, Hamas has released one of those by-now-familiar Islamic videos, threatening that unless Israel stops trying to prevent them from firing missiles into Israel, they’ll fire missiles into Israel.
(That’s Hamas logic.)
News Story:
Hamas Issues Video Threat Against Israel.
CAIRO, Egypt - The Palestinian militant group Hamas has issued a video threatening daily attacks on the Israeli town of Sderot unless soldiers halt a monthlong operation aimed at stopping rocket attacks. Hamas, blamed for dozens of suicide bombings in Israel, has not issued such video threats in the past.
The video aired Tuesday on the pan-Arab television station Al-Arabiya featured three masked men surrounded by weapons and standing before a green flag emblazoned with the Muslim credo: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is his prophet.”
“We will continue to shell you every day to see what your defeated army will do for you,” the Hamas threat said. “Oh residents of Sderot, stop your army from carrying out their crimes and get them out of Beit Hanoun otherwise you will play the price.”
Hee hee hee hee.
And here's another one:
Charles Headline: Militants Killed By Activists
News Story:
Three Militants Killed in Gaza Explosion.
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Militants attacking an Israeli armored bulldozer inadvertently killed three other Palestinians Tuesday during an Israeli operation to destroy weapons-smuggling tunnels from Egypt.
The roadside bomb in the Rafah refugee camp went off a few yards from where the bulldozer was piling up dirt in a crowded residential area, according to Associated Press Television News. No Israelis were injured but three Palestinian men 200 yards away were hit by shrapnel, one so severely it took off half his skull.
Ten people were wounded, including a Reuters TV cameraman, according to witnesses and hospital officials.
The violence came a day after vigilantes killed three Palestinians convicted of collaborating with Israel — two of them in their hospital beds — highlighting the progressive breakdown of law and order in Gaza.
The Hamas militant organization said two of the casualties in Rafah were its members, and the Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed one of the dead men. Neighbors confirmed they belonged to militant organizations, but were not involved in combat units.
Moments before, masked militants were filmed putting a detonator in an alley near the road. Palestinian ambulances were already standing by, as people in nearby buildings waved white flags to show the Israelis the buildings were inhabited by civilians.
Charles' summation:
They waved white flags to lure in the Israelis, while at the same time terrorists were planting bombs. All of it filmed by al-Reuters. And the explosives were probably transported to the scene in those ambulances that were “standing by.”
Such lovely people. Let’s give them a state!
When you lie to yourself, as Reuters and much of the media do, you get caught up in logical absurdities. Charles is a genius at seeing through these absurdities and summarizing them in a few devastating words.
Question: When is that mofo gonna get a book deal?
U.S. General Says Abu Ghraib Scandal May Reach All The Way To The White House
From Reuters comes
this:
LONDON (Reuters) - The U.S. general formerly in charge of Baghdad's notorious Abu Ghraib prison said on Tuesday abuse of Iraqi captives was hidden from her in a cover-up that may reach all the way to the Pentagon (news - web sites) or White House.
Speaking on the same day a U.S. soldier at the center of the prisoner abuse scandal is due to face a military court, Brigadier-General Janis Karpinski said she was deliberately kept in the dark about abuse and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners.
"A very reliable witness has made a statement indicating that, not only was I not included in any of the meetings discussing interrogation operations, but specific measures were taken to ensure I would not have access to those facilities, that information or any of the details of interrogation at Abu Ghraib or anywhere else," Karpinski told Britain's BBC radio.
Karpinski, responsible for the military police who ran prisons in Iraq (news - web sites) when pictures were taken showing prisoners being abused, has been suspended from her post but not charged with any crime.
She said that those with "full knowledge" of what was going on in Abu Ghraib worked to keep her from discovering the truth.
Asked if a cover-up meant involvement of the White House or Pentagon, she said: "I have not seen the statement but the indication is it may have."
Photographs of U.S. military police abusing hooded prisoners in Abu Ghraib and accusations of abuse by British and other troops have fueled Arab and international anger, shaking President Bush (news - web sites)'s efforts to stabilize Iraq.
In Britain, an Iraqi witness alleged at a court hearing last week that UK soldiers had tortured detainees by beating and kicking them and pouring freezing water over them.
U.S. Private First Class Lynndie England, the 21-year-old military police officer who became the public face of inmate abuse at Abu Ghraib, faces a hearing on Tuesday to determine whether she will be tried on charges of abuse and committing indecent acts.
Karpinski told the BBC she never personally witnessed abuse at Abu Ghraib or at any of the prisons she commanded.
She has also said she was told by a military intelligence commander that detainees should be "treated like dogs."
It will be interesting to see where this story goes. I hope we get to the bottom of it, soon.
What Do They Mean We All Look The Same?
Jack Answers
A few days back I posted an article about how the European High Level Advisory Group's
"Dialogue Between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area" posited the idea that promoting Christian Orthodoxy in Europe is a good idea because,
"... the enlarged Europe will move beyond the traditional relationship between Western Judeo-Christian Culture and Islam by incorporating people of Orthodox religion and culture: in addition to strengthening the role of Orthodoxy within the EU and beyond, this incorporation will transform the dialogue into a "trialogue". Furthermore, Orthodoxy sometimes leads to behavior which is surprisingly similar with that of Islam - particularly in relation to secularisation - which will have a major impact on, even radically change, the relationship between the enlarged Union and the Arab-Muslim world..."
I posed the question to my friend Jack, over at Jack Of Clubs, "What do you think they mean by that. Here's Jack's response:
Unfortunately there is not sufficient elaboration in the article to know exactly what they meant by the comparison between Orthodoxy and Islam. In my initial reading I had thought the reference was to the Orthodoxy Christians in Palestine, which would mean a basic similarity in their anti-Israeli stance. While this would certainly be an accurate observation (many Palestinian Christians refer to their Muslim fellow-Arabs as "brothers"), on a closer reading of the text it is clear that this is not what was intended. The Orthodox populations in question are evidently from the former Soviet Bloc countries that are now considering membership in the EU -- what Rumsfeld has referred to as New Europe.
In light of the second point, which refers to the Balkan region and which you do not quote, it seemed possible that the Orthodox in question were the Serbian people. This would also make a certain amount of sense in that the Serbs have been at war with their Muslim neighbors and can be said to have adopted similarly militant tactics. But it is difficult to see how this interpretation would square with the phrase "particularly in relation to secularisation" since Serbia is almost completely secularized.
So, I think your analysis that this is a secular culture looking with bemusement at all religions is probably pretty fair. The similarities in this case would be that both Orthodoxy and Islam have been resistant to modernization and both tend to be predominantly ethnic in distinction from the more cosmopolitan vision of Europe that is being advocated in this paper.
One point that may have occurred to you, but which you don't mention, is that this comparison is made specifically to de-emphasize the Jihad element of Islam. That is, it is not so much that the authors don't believe that this represents a real aspect of Islamic culture, but that they strongly suspect it does and want to hide that fact from themselves and their readers. Obviously, I have no direct evidence for this assertion, but some of the statements made in the executive summary and the earlier part of the article suggest this possibility to my imagination.
For instance, this statement about culture: "Culture is by nature egalitarian, giving equal weight to all its forms: it is therefore both the basis of and vehicle for an equitable relationship. But in no other area is there such scope for both misunderstanding and understanding: it is therefore the ideal area for equals to work together to clarify and enrich a Euro-Mediterranean relationship still littered with obstacles (mutual perceptions, role of the media, etc.) and denials (of rights, dignity, liberty, equality, etc.). Why should this relationship be made a priority? Certainly not to prevent a very hypothetical clash of civilisations, but rather in the certainty that the principal complementarities of the two halves of the Euro-Mediterranean area will, in the next half century, have been integrated into their day-to-day life: what we now have to do is prepare the ground for this." [emphasis mine]
To fully unpack this statement, and others like it throughout the article, would require a thorough discussion of the history of European thought, which we obviously do not have time for. But briefly this thinking divides cultures into three basic categories, often called Pre-modern, Modern and Post-modern.
The temporal element is crucial to this division, implying as it does a progression and, therefore, a necessary evolution of thought. This coincides with the "certainty that the ... two halves ... will have been integrated" in the quote above. The idea is to disallow the notion that ideas are to be judged on the basis of their truth, but rather to be accepted on the basis of their currency. Since I reject this notion, I prefer not to use the terminology and simply classify the three groups as Sacramental, Secular and Skeptical respectively. This has, admittedly, a somewhat Christocentric bias, since it would put groups like Islam and, say, the animist of Sudan in the Sacramental category, which is not a description they would probably approve. But since I do, in fact, see such cultures as essentially deviant from Christian truth, I am not particularly averse to this consequence.
The Sacramental or Pre-modern culture views all aspects of life as essentially integrated and related directly to a design of the universe as a whole. This design is usually expressed as the Will of God, although some cultures, such as Buddhism and Taoism, have a more impersonal view of the divine nature. In this view such disparate concerns as sexuality, politics, art and agriculture, though they can be discussed separately, are ultimately interrelated to each other and united under the divine plan. Thus the search for truth in one area has consequences in all other areas, and often implies very strict responsibilities that many people desire to escape. I could give examples, but I think most people can come up with plenty of their own without much prompting.
The Secular, or Modern, worldview was essentially designed to provide an escape from the responsibilities of Sacramentalism, without abandoning its comforting capacity to order existence. The main theme of secularism has been a mechanical view of the universe which operates on principles accessible to human reason. On this view of things, everything that occurs has a causal explanation but, lacking an intelligent will, makes no inconvenient demands upon human behavior. Initially, of course, it was thought that ethical standards could be derived from the nature of man, but such projects had a tendency to result in such disasters a the French Revolution and ultimately culminated in the concentration camps and gulags of the 20th century.
This failure, among other things, led to the view or set of views known as Post-modernism, which I have dubbed Skepticism. The post-modern critique of Modernism is based on the insight that Modernism's claim to Universal Truth was just as subjective and prejudicial as the earlier religious views it attempted to transcend. Every theory attempting to order life in accordance with some "meta-narrative" is questionable and is generally assumed to have its a basis in a will to dominance over others. Thus the post-modern ethic is based, not on Divine Will or its paler cousin Reason, but on such tropes as Cooperation, Understanding and, somewhat less robustly, Multi-Culturalism. An avoidance of conflict is thus a chief characteristic of this view, often resulting in the sort of denial seen in the quote cited above.
The curious thing about this view is that, though it pretends to a moral superiority over such retrograde cultures as Christianity and Islam, it cannot, by its very nature, directly confront them. To do so would be to admit the existence of some commonly accessible vantage point from which to offer its critique, in other words a meta-narrative, which is anathema to the whole project of this brand of Skepticism. At best it can note the putative "denials (of rights, dignity, liberty, equality, etc.)" which it ascribes to all such primitivisms. But such a critique relies on the moral inhibitions of the critiqued cultures to motivate them to respond accordingly. When it encounters a culture that rejects the very basis of the critique, such as militant Islam, this Skepticism really has no alternative but to retreat into condescending hauteur.
Jack nailed it right there. I must say though, that while I agree in some ways with his renaming and redefining of the three eras (Sacramental, Secular, and Sceptical) I do not fully agree. My opinion is, there really is such a thing as the Postmoder, and it is actually a stage in the development of human conciousness. Furthermore, it is my opinion that, within the last10-15 years, human kind has actually begun to move out of the Postmodern stage of evolution, into another stage which I call the Prefuture.
I will futher elaborate in a future post. For now, I just want to thank Jack for his thoughtful repsonse to my question.
I Recommend IsraPundit With Qualifications
For several months now the blog IsraPundit has appeared on my list of recommended blogs. I think they are an important source of information on Israeli issues and anti-Semitism. However, I want to state for the record that I do not generally agree with them on the issue of borders and how to deal with the Middle-East Problem.
Clearly, it could never be said that I would agree with everything posted on any particular blog. Just as a person does not agree with his friends on every issue, one will never agree with every posted viewpoint on a particular blog.
I guess one way to put it is, IsraPundit is like the friend you find to be knowledgeable and interesting but, with whom, you find little upon which to agree.
John Kerry Reporting For Doody
Belmont Club has an excellent
post this morning which attempts to dissect Kerry's positions on issues of our current War and defense situations. As usual, Belmont Club writer, Wretchard is very thorough. It is worthwhile to read the whole thing, but the final paragraph is so important I want to post it to motivate you to read the rest:
Voters need more than an index of a Kerry administration retaliatory threshold to judge him as a potential Commander in Chief. Kerry should clarify how he plans to win, if not the present war, then at least a future one, if it comes according to his standard. The cast of characters, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are unlikely to change. The electorate should be granted a glimpse into his roadmap to victory and whether he believes in the concept itself as distinct from mere retaliation. Any brawler with fists can retaliate but it requires a Commanders in Chief with a strategy to lead nations to victory. Even Bill Clinton was prepared to retaliate against Osama Bin Laden for the USS Cole attack by firing hundreds of cruise missiles at his training camps. But George Bush tried to defeat him and for this stood condemned. It is this precise striving for victory, not any single act of retaliation that has made George Bush so illegitimate in the liberal mind. For liberals retaliation is soley used to "send a message"; it always an invitation to negotiation, like the ones Johnson sent Ho Chi Minh without reply; it is never part of the solution itself. In this curious mental universe, force is immoral unless it is also pointless.
I must say, however, that while I think Wretchard is being thorough and fair in his attempted dissection of the Kerry Doctrine on Force. I think it would be easier to just look at two things Kerry has said in the past week to understand where he is coming from:
1)
NEWBURGH, N.Y. (AP) - John Kerry said Friday he would put Osama bin Laden on trial in U.S. courts rather than an international tribunal to ensure the “fastest, surest route” to a murder conviction if the terrorist mastermind is captured while he is president.
“I want him tried for murder in New York City, and in Virginia and in Pennsylvania,” where planes hijacked by al-Qaida operatives crashed Sept. 11, 2001, Kerry said in his first interview as the Democratic presidential nominee.
Ok, so what if he gets the O.J. jury? After all, during the first World Trade Center bombing (1993) trial, Defense Attorney Ramsey Clark did successfully argue against the death penalty on issue of race.
Now, here's 2)
Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response.
John Kerry, reporting for doody.
Iraq The Model Goes Off On Spain, Australia, and Egypt
Thanks to No Pasaran for making me aware of
this from Iraq The Model (blogger from inside Iraq):
I believe that the presence of this terror is just a matter of time, as hatred and deception can’t last forever, but the reactions of some parts provide it with the support it needs and give it a second chance. Yes, all we need is the will and determination to crush a company that is so close to bankruptcy but the disgraceful doings of some parts postpone it once again, like what Spain, Manilla and Egypt lately did.
What’s even worse and disgusting is that these governments smugly come and ask the admirably determined nation Australia to apologize while it’s them who must apologize to the whole world for their awful mistakes that encouraged terrorists and reassured them that their criminal tactics can work.These countries have found excuses for terror and gave the terrorists the motives to carry on with their plans as long as these plans can make "sovereign countries" yield in front of a true criminal action.They’re cooperating with the criminals and they make it easier for terrorists to increase their activities in Iraq and elsewhere.
This is the goal of terror and this is what these countries offered the terrorists on a gold plate. They’ve said clearly "do more of your work, as it will definitely bring an outcome that satisfy your sickness and illusions".
What happened today is a crime and these countries are partners in this crime whether they accept this fact or not. No can make us believe that these governments care about their citizens more than the governments of the USA, Italy, UK, Australia and other coalition members. Can anyone answer the question why those governments didn’t submit to the demands of the terrorists in their own lands, like Abu Sayaf in Philippines?!
The same applies to Egypt when dealing with the Islamic groups. Why was the sound of gunfire the only sound we heard when dealing with terror in their own lands? I believe the answer lies in the hypocrisy of these governments. They don’t care a sh*t about the lives of their citizens but they do care and A LOT about their individual and partisan interests. They follow the mob instead of leading them to what’s better for their future.
Can you answer the question what will be the response of Iraqis towards these horrible attacks? I’ll help you; These victims came to volunteer to serve their country as IP members and this is not the 1st time this happens and the response of Iraqis to such attacks was always more volunteers and longer lines. What does that tell you Philippine and Spanish government? If this is bravery and wisdom, then how should your actions be labeled?
Maybe it’s not your business? That would’ve been a more honest answer had you said it, but you’re not just cowards or stupid, you’re also hypocrites. This include all the "anti-war" crowd with all the clowns there such as Michael Moore and George Galloway and their likes. You make me SICK when you support the "Iraqi resistance" and call these killers a revolutionists. Did you watch your "resistance" today? This is what you support and this is how history will view you; supporters of murderers and criminals, and for what? Fame and money! Enjoy it. It won’t last, as the truth will soon be revealed and you'll be exposed to all as the disgusting parasites you are.
Whew! You better watch out Mohammed. Them's fighting words. People like Zapatero, Arroyo and maybe even the dread Chirac himself, may just get all up in a tizzy when they hear you called them out like that.
