Saturday, December 04, 2004

Why We Are Fighting The War on Terror


Stan wrote in to tell me that I'm wrong about the Iraq War and the Global Jihad. I'll let him speak for himself:


Memes, you make a fundamental error in comparing the war on terror to the war against Nazism. There may be some justification in that, on a one-to-one basis, comparing the characters of two individuals, but when you extend the analogy to conflicts of entire groups of people, you have to take a closer look at it. In other words, calling the terrorists 'Islamofascists', as if they were just another version of Mussolini's fascists, is easy to do but wrong.

What Hitler and Mussolini were doing was setting out to conquer the entire world militarily. Trying to stop them certainly didn't inflame the Nazis to conquer more territory, as you suggest. That was their course whether anyone opposed them or not.

I may be wrong to some degree, but it seems to be just the opposite with the Muslims. Even the hardliners you call fascists are, consciously, at any rate, trying to defend their territority against what they see as Western aggression, starting with Israel and followed by America. ...as much as the hardliners at least started out with a defensive position, the rest of the muslim world sees them more and more as defenders of all their countries and of their religion and their lives.

Unlike Nazism, which was an aggressively expanding nationalistic movement, Islamism is based on a religion. They don't just feel superior to everyone else, as the Nazis did, instead they feel very strongly about their souls and the afterlife. And when they feel all of that is threatened, it incites all of them, not just the warriors amongst them. That's the scary thing here. When we pushed a little bit against the Nazis, it actually slowed their empire-building down a little bit, diverting troops, etc.

But when you push a little against a religion like the Muslim faith, it just inflames them, even those who don't even live in that country. And the longer we keep fighting there, the wider and deeper the hatred will spread. You can't forget that a religion is a LOT different than a purely nationalistic group. And that's what nobody seemed to clue into before they went into Irak. Really, let's face it, the religious Muslims in the population (which is nearly all of them - the secularists are insignificant) don't care about democracy, freedom, women's rights, any of that. Unless that freedom means (or an election allows them to grab it) the freedom to practice their faith as they are told they are supposed to. So forget them being happy and grateful to us for instituting all the wonderful products of western civilization. They don't want it.


I think Stan's points are very well thought out. This was really a challenge for me. I think it was two days ago that he sent this in and, to tell you the truth, I have been formulating my answer this whole time. I think someone like Robert Spencer, Steven Emerson, or Charles Johnson could have answered Stan in a heartbeat. But, the thing is, I started this blog to make people aware of the rising tide of anti-Semitism. I have only wandered into discussing the War on the Islamofascists, and the growth of anti-Americanism.

However, I don't come to my viewpoints completely uninformed. I have done a great deal of reading on these subjects. I think the mistake I have made here is that I have been writing with the assumption that people who come to this site are with me in their understanding of what's going on in the world. That's foolish of me.

Instead of writing a lengthy essay detailing how I have gotten to this place in my understanding of world events, I am just going to provide a series of links to articles which support my point of view.

Stan says the Islamofascists are not like the Nazi's in that their ideology is not supremacist. I don't agree. I think they believe that the world is divided into two camps; Dar al-Islam (House of Islam) and Dar al-Harb (House of War). Not only do they believe that those who are Islamic are superior to those who are not, they also believe that there are only three choices left open to those who are of Dar al-Harb; convert, dhimmitude (second-class citizenship), or death:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9860

http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicextremism/a/daralharb.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dar_al-Islam

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2035107

Stan says the Islamofascists don't want to take over the world like the Nazi's did. He says they merely feel they are retaliating against Western aggression. Leaving aside the question of how we could possibly completely disentangle ourselves from that part of the world, I still don't agree. I think the Islamofascists believe it is their duty to wage Jihad throughout the world until the whole world is Dar al-Islam:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2035107

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0743233247/ref=sib_rdr_ex/104-4696912-3563150?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S005#reader-page

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=11805031_1

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/006350.html

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=12922

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003897.php

Understand Bin Laden's message: He wants the return of the Caliphate (One Islamic Rule in all Islamic lands past and present). He wants Andalusia (Spain) back. No land which was once Dar al-Islam can be ceded to Dar al-Harb:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-robbins100801.shtml

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008411

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008420/

Stan says that when we fought the Nazi's we were fighting against a military state. When we fight against the Islamofascists we are fighting against a religion or ideology. One answer to that is that Nazism was an ideology. In fact, Nazism had a mystical/religious element to it based upon paganism and old German folklore. But, I will not try to make the case that it's appeal to the masses layed in such mysticism.

Instead, I assert that, while Islamofascism is religious in nature, it is not to be confused with mainstream peaceful Islam. Instead it is a militant ideology of Islam. And it needs to be done away with so that it does not fester and grow, as it has been doing for the past 25 years. Additionally, I believe that it is clear that Islamofascism is funded and supported by military states. These military states are not powerful enough to go up against the United States directly, so they attack us with their Islamofascist army. For instance, it is clear that Saudi Arabia funded and housed Al Qaeda terrorists:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Printable.asp?ID=8506

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/levitt/levitt091003.htm

So did the Iraqi Saddam Hussein regime:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16160

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15919

Additionally, it is common knowledge that Saddam funded Palestinian suicide bombers:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://cbs11tv.com/localnews/topstories_story_322070624.html

Syria funds Hezbollah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

And Iran funds and controls terrorism:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/wmid15.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/10/15/ixworld.html

I've read countless articles from numerous sources, from all over the world, for the past three years, that all make these assertions. We know these things are true. However, until we start tearing down the walls we are not going to know just how bad the infestation really was. I've provided many links. If you do not believe these things, fine. But, at least now you'll know that I didn't get here without thought. I would encourage you to further google all these different topics.

In addition, I recommend you read the book Preachers of Hate:
Islam and the War on America by Kenneth Timmerman:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400049016/qid=1102114156/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-6498172-8776867

And check out this Little Green Footballs link for an example of how far the deceit of the Islamofascists goes:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=13827_Terror_Gang_Anxiety

Finally, I want to address Stans point that, while I may cherish our freedom and Democracy, the Islamic people don't want it. I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept that. I believe that all people are the same. We're all human beings. We all share certain drives and impulses. I agree with our Declaration of Indepenance:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Furthermore, I believe that when the Bible says we were created in God's Image, it specifically meant that we were created with free will, imagination and creativity. And I believe that for a government to impede it's people's free will, imagination and creativity to the extent that the Islamofascist governments of the former Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia do is tantamount to perpetrating a psychological holocaust on their people.

Now I'm going to tell you what makes me happy about America and I'm going to be very blunt. I believe these things which I'm going to enumerate are positive things about America and I believe it would be positive for countries all over the world to have these things in moderation.

I'm happy that I had a Playboy magazine hidden in the bottom of my dresser drawer when I was 14 years old, and I'm glad for the hours and hours of amusement it gave me. I still remember the way those girls looked to this day.

I remember, as a kid, seeing drunken grown men stand up at baseball games and scream, "Fuck you" at the umpire, and I'm happy that they felt free to do so, and that I, as a child, was prepared for the fact that the world is not a perfect place.

I'm glad that there is a West Hollywood, and a Castro District in San Francisco. I've spent time in both places and enjoyed myself.

I'm glad that there is angry hip hop, and heavy punk rock music on MTV, and that when Janet Jackson flashed her breast on CBS it didn't fundamentally change our political atmosphere, and that nobody was arrested or stoned.

I like that I can go down to the store and buy a six-pack of beer.

I'm happy that people from all over the world can move into my country and bring their culture and religion and add it to our mix.

I'm happy that I can write this essay.

I'm happy that queers for Palestine can stand in the streets of San Francisco and call Bush "Hitler."

There are so many things I'm happy with about America, and Western Civilization in general, that I could go on for pages. But, suffice it to say, I truly believe that all people, everywhere would want these freedoms. Well, it is true that intolerance of homosexuality is almost universal, but I don't know what to say about that.

The thing is, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and any other country where freedom is stolen from it's people, are states run by fanatics. As with any society, organization, company, team, etc. the group takes on the personality of it's leaders. So, if the people of those countries have taken on the fanaticism of their leaders, it doesn't surprise me. However, I do not believe that that means they really want to live that way. This is why I believe they do want what we have. And, ultimately, this is why I believe it's right for us to go to the trouble

I will say, there is part of me that believes that deep inside (in our animalistic natures) men do want to dominate women the way men do in Islamic countries, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable. I've heard it said that the measure of a civilization is how it treats it's women. I think this is probably largely true.

In many homes in Saudi Arabia and Iran there are women in burkhas who are not allowed to leave the house without an escort, not allowed to choose an education for themselves, many times not allowed an education at all. They are not allowed to choose whom to marry, or even what to buy at the store. They are not allowed to work, not allowed to play, and barely allowed to think for themselves at all. What is that called? It's called slavery.

I refuse to accept that half the people in a certain part of the world are subjected (by religion, government and law) to being treated as slaves.


His Mortality


Read this a post from the blog of a U.S. Soldier serving in Iraq:


My own mortality
I just got word that a friend of mine has passed. He was hit by an IED on convoy. He was in the unit I was in when I first deployed here to Iraq. Sometimes I think that perhaps I am getting used to the fact that people are getting hurt or killed over here, because sometimes it just doesn't bother me. Sometimes though, it bothers me alot.Now is one of those times. He was killed doing exactly what any one of us here would be doing..... his job. It could have just as easily been me that was driving by that explosive. After being here a year, to be honest..... when you hear a boom, or bullets whizzing... you often don't give them a second thought unless they are within a certain distance from you... otherwise you would be on the ground all the time... but when the situation hits close to home like this.... it reminds of how real the situation is. I would like to ask everyone to pray for his family. I can't say the name because I don't know if families have been notified yet, but the way I see it, you don't have to know a persons name for your heart and prayers to go out to them.


That said, I also want to make sure I thank everyone who has been supporting me over here. My family and friends have been sending me packages, prayers, e-mails, and replies to my posts here on this blog. I cannot put together words that eccurately portray how gratefull I am. I know that I haven't said thanks enough for all the support I have received.... that's how I make it.... you guys.


Now that I know of the existence of his blog, I will be a daily reader. I am also including him on my blogroll. I didn't know that soldiers serving in the army were allowed to blog. Now that I know that I will find more, and include them as well.

The fact that U.S. soldiers are allowed to blog points even more to what a great and free country we are. The people who call our President "Hitler," and say that the United States is turning into a totalitarian fascist country should be ashamed of themselves. And they need to grow up and join the real world.

Yesterday, someone wrote in to me and said that my satirical blog (Screaming Memes) is an "ugly" kind of manipulation. I can understand the point. And, I sympathize with those who are taken in by it and, as a result, feel manipulated. But, I will not stop. The truth is, I believe I represent quite a few people here in America who are sick and tired of the anti-American b.s. that is being flung all over the world.

I started this blog to fight against anti-Semitism, but increasingly I have recognized the truth of the "Canaray in the Coalmine" theory of Jew-hatred, which is that the rise of anti-Semitism as a force is evidence of a sickness in a society, which will gradually come to manifest itself in all manner of evil.

I believe we are seeing that sickness in the world today. And I will continue to fight against it, in serious manner, on this blog and, in a satirical manner on the other blog.

Friday, December 03, 2004

Norah Jones


I just want to say that I think now is a suitably inappropriate time to say that Norah Jones is probably the most beautiful woman I have ever layed eyes on.

Oh, excepting my wife, of course.

The Death Of The Left


Interesting thoughts from Michael Ledeen:


The hysterical reaction of the Western Left to the reelection of President George W. Bush is not just a primal scream from politicians and intellectuals deprived of political power. The violent language, numerous acts of violence, and demonization of Bush and his electorate — the same as that directed against Tony Blair in Britain, Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy — portend a more fundamental event: the death rattle of the traditional Left, both as a dominant political force and as an intellectual vision.

For the most part, the Left only wins elections nowadays when their candidates run on their opponents’ platform (Clinton and Blair) or when panic overwhelms the political process (Zapatero and Schroeder). Under normal circumstances, leftists running as leftists rarely win, proving that their ideology — the ideology that dominated political and intellectual debate for most of the last century — is spent. When their ideas were in vogue, leftist advocates took electoral defeat in stride, as they were confident that their vision was far more popular — because far more accurate — than their opponents’ view of the world. History and logic were on their side. But no more. Incoherent rage and unbridled personal attacks on the winners are sure signs of a failed vision.

Ironically, the Left’s view of history provides us with part of the explanation for its death. Marx and Hegel both understood that the world constantly changes, and ideas change along with it. The world they knew — and successfully transformed — was a class-bound society dominated by royalty and aristocracy. They hurled themselves into class struggle, believing it to be the engine of human history, and they fought for liberty for all. Successive generations of leftists preached and organized democratic revolution at home and abroad, from the overthrow of tyrants to the abolition of class privileges and the redistribution of both political power and material wealth.

In true dialectical fashion, they were doomed by their own success. As once-impoverished workers became wealthier, the concept of the proletariat became outdated, along with the very idea of class struggle. Then the manifest failure and odious tyranny of the 20th-century leftist revolutions carried out in the name of the working class — notably in Russia, China, and Cuba — undermined the appeal of the old revolutionary doctrines, no matter how desperately the Left argued that Communist tyrannies were an aberration, or a distortion of their vision.

Unable to either understand or transform the world, the Left predictably lost its bearings. It was entirely predictable that they would seek to explain their repeated defeats by claiming fraud, or dissing their own candidates, or blaming the stupidity of the electorate. Their cries of pain and rage echo those of past elites who looked forward and saw the abyss. There is no more dramatic proof of the death of the Left than the passage of its central vision — global democratic revolution — into the hands of those who call themselves conservatives.

History has certainly not ended, but it has added a new layer to its rich compost heap.


I agree with the thread of Michael Ledeen's argument here. Most notably that the ideas of Marx, Hegel, et al, were developed in reaction to the the prevailing aristocratic atmosphere in Europe. However, I think he minimalizes the extent to which the ideas of the Left took hold, and still have power in the United States.

I remember sitting at lunch with an exec from a television network who had had a post 9/11 discovery of love for her country. She admitted, ashamedly, that back in her days as a student, she had worked with a leftist organization known for it's terrorist tactics. "I did some very bad things," was the way she put it.

However, her newfound patriotism, and it's attendant remorse for her past activities, had not completely done away with her old leftist leanings. She waxed nostalgic about "the movement" and admitted anguish over the fact that they had not accomplished their goals.

"Are you kidding me?" I said. "You guys filled the halls of justice and academia with your ideas. Every university student in the U.S. gets class after class of indoctrination. And clearly, the courts are acting as a sort of socialist aristocracy, handing down their epistles of excommunication to those who would hang a cross in the town square, or to those who believe that opportunity, for education and employment, should not be subjected to racial profiling."

The truth is that while left has failed to win power, it has succeeded in attaining power in the universities, and being appointed power in the justice system. That manifestation is not going to be exorcised quickly. Indeed, in the case of academia, it is largely self-perpetuating.

In addition, I must say that I believe the death of Leftist ideology, and it's deleterious effect on the Democratic Party, is a potential disaster in the short-term. The two-party system is an important component of the checks and balances system of our Democracy. It does America no good to have the Democratic party be led by crazed Leftists who shout epithets from metaphorical bullhorns.

I hope the Left finds it's bearings and quick. In fact, it would ultimately serve Republicans well to offer help to the Left, rather than derision. However, we probably wouldn't find any takers.


Thursday, December 02, 2004

Hey Imam, I'm Not Convinced


I don't know why David Horowitz published this article, by Imam Luqman Ahmad, at Front Page Magazine. I hope Horowitz will explain himself shortly. Anyway, here's an exerpt:


Since the tragedy of September 11, Muslims in America have been expressing their patriotism more often than in the past. Virtually every Muslim organization and community has touted its American-ness. And rightfully so; we are Americans. Some of us were born here, and others are naturalized citizens. Many who are not yet American citizens certainly aspire to be.

Here we are, attempting to define ourselves as true Americans while holding onto our Islamic heritage and values. But defining Islam is far easier than defining American culture. Some would argue -- especially those not raised in America -- that there is no American culture. I disagree. While it is true that this culture is an ever-changing amalgam of ideas, values, cuisines, styles and ideologies, some imported and some born of this soil, there is a national consensus about what is distinctly American in the modern age.

Some say that a pronounced, anti-Muslim; anti Arab and anti-immigrant vein runs though this country. That does not represent the views for all Americans. And, remember, people can change. Many Americans have no real problem with Islam in their midst. They just want their shake and fries with it. We have always embraced other cultures; we just like to add our own twist to it. Just look at how we embraced pita bread! I remember the time where about the only place you could get pita bread on the East Coast was to go to Malko Brothers on Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn. Now you can get it at just about any major supermarket in the country, and in different flavors too! At least 19 towns in the United States are named for Lebanon, six for Jordan, four for Egypt, and three for Palestine. There are four Cairos, six Damascuses, two Arabis, and at least one Baghdad. There's even a place called Mecca, California. History has shown that Americans are open for new ideas.

Many American converts to Islam are ambivalent to downright indignant about being told that they must abandon all of their American-ness if they are to fully embrace Islam. Undeniably, there is such a thing as American culture -- and its subscribers cherish their way of life. And if we are to truly find our place here as Muslims, it may help to understand just what it is to be an American.

American culture is Super Bowl Sunday, cheese steaks, and high school basketball. Its block parties in the summertime, coming from a neighborhood and always being able to go back and see the people you grew up with. America is the electoral process, with all its flaws, corny campaign ads, debates, and voting machine function and malfunction. America is savvy commercials, the local shopping mall, and Wal-Marts from Harlem to Middletown, USA. It's Michael Jordan, Muhammad Ali and the resilience of Lance Armstrong. That's America. Its opportunity, sometimes equal, sometimes not, getting your mail delivered in the driven snow, and 24-hour Jack in a Box. That's America.

American culture is public debate about racism, affirmative action, and the success story of Tiger Woods. It's Girl Scout cookies, camping trips, and summer vacation from school. It's your alma mater, baby boomers and the quest for early retirement. America is John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, and Sidney Poitier in Lilies of the Field. It's Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, and Saturday morning cartoons. America is good neighbors, back yard barbeques and a manicured lawn. It's sitting on the front stoop in the summer time eating Italian water ice.

Where else but in America can you go to Friday prayer at the mosque and find a person of African origin with an Irish last name wearing a shawal khameez from Pakistan, with a Saudi abaayah, khuffs on his feet, and Stacy Adams wing tips? That's America.

Of course American culture is much more what I've listed. America is changing and so are Muslims. Always looking to expand, American advertisers have taken notice of Muslims. We spend, and we spend big. Maybe that's a bad thing and maybe not. This is a wealthy country with a high standard of living. Perhaps that's one reason why we like it here so much. Hey, al-humdu lillah that we're not doing so bad financially. We just need to remember who to thank.

Some of American culture is at odds with our Islamic values, but thankfully we are free to take or leave these aspects. I abhor street gangs and the pervasiveness of sexual promiscuity.. I hate parking tickets, high taxes and corporate welfare, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. There are certainly a lot of things wrong with our country, but there are so many wonderful things to enjoy.

I gave a sermon (khutba) last summer about watching Fourth of July fireworks, something I have always done with my kids. Someone asked me, "Imam how can you sanction such a thing?"

"Hey, I like fireworks," I said. "Besides, the First Amendment is what assures me the freedom to practice my religion." Does that make me a dyed in the wool patriot? Not necessarily. But I will take advantage of the liberty to practice Islam, pray at the Masjid, enjoin the good and forbid the evil.

America is lot of things to a lot of people -- but I wouldn't condemn her just yet. I expect to get some flak for this article, and that's okay; I can live with that. I sense that we like this country more than some of us are willing to admit. We've been told that America is the Great Satan. Well I've got news for you. The Shaitaan (Devil) is an equal opportunity deceiver; he respects no borders, color, nationality or even religion. Yes, it is true that Shaitaan is busy in America, but he's busy elsewhere as well. Somehow all of the forces of the devil did not stop the athaan (Muslim call to prayer) from being called from Sarasota Florida, to Sacramento California. Tolerance -- that's America.


My first problem is that Imam Luqman Ahmad's article says that's it's easy to define Islam, but not so easy to define American culture. The problem here is that he believes he can basically define Islam wholly in terms of it's core values, while he defines America primarily by it's popular culture. Is that fair? No.

If he wanted to compare each institution by what it's popular culture produces, then it would be fair to say that Islam is burkhas and mirrored mosaics. Islam is suicide bombers and golden-domed mosques. Islam is religiously-sanctioned physical abuse of women, and it is men walking the streets in long-white shirts. Islam is Al Qaeda flying planes into building, and thousands of men lying prone in prayer on the floor of a mosque.

Does that sound fair? Well, it is by the rules the Imam set up.

However, if you want to compare by laying out the respective values of the two institutions, then America is Freedom of the Press and religion. America is a country where we believe that we were all created equal and that we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. America is freedom to own a gun, and it is the freedom to call your President "Bushitler" over a megaphone in the streets of San Francisco.

Now, I like those values. Don't you?

I would like to hear the Imam tell us what the comparable Islamic values are. All I saw him write about was prayer, fruit juice, and hijab's. That's interesting. Is that all Islam boils down to?

And I'm glad the Imam likes fireworks, and that he appreciates that he can practice his religion freely in this country. But, I would feel a lot better if I heard Muslims, en masse, standing up and saying that they are happy that Christians and Jews are free to practice their religion in this country, and that they want to see it stay that way forever. And, you know, a good way for them to start proving that they feel that way, would be to start a petition protesting the oppression of religions, other than Islam, in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

When can I expect to see something like that Imam Ahmad?

1/2 Of Britons Unaware Of Auschwitz?


Thanks to Little Green Footballs for making me aware of this, from Reuter's:


LONDON (Reuters) - Nearly half of Britons in a poll said they had never heard of Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in southern Poland that became a symbol of the Holocaust and the attempted genocide of the Jews.

The results of the survey conducted by the BBC were released on Thursday as Britain's public broadcaster announced it will show a new series next January to mark the 60th anniversary of the concentration camp's liberation.


"We were amazed by the results of our audience research," said Laurence Rees, a producer on the series, "Auschwitz: The Nazis & the 'Final Solution." "It's easy to presume that the horrors of Auschwitz are engrained in the nation's collective memory, but obviously this is not the case," Rees said.

The survey found that 45 percent of those surveyed had not heard of Auschwitz. Historians estimate that anywhere from one million to three million people, about 90 percent of them Jews, were killed there. Among women and people younger than 35, 60 percent had never heard of Auschwitz, despite the recent popularity of films such as "Schindler's List," "Life is Beautiful" and "The Pianist," which depict the atrocities of the Holocaust.

"The name Auschwitz is quite rightly a byword for horror, but the problem with thinking about horror is that we naturally turn away from it," Rees said. The BBC said the research was based on a nationally representative postal survey of 4,000 adults 16 and older.

The broadcaster is marking Holocaust Memorial Day, January 27, with a variety of television and radio programs. The Auschwitz series for BBC2 is based on nearly 100 interviews with survivors and perpetrators and is the result of three years of research with the assistance of professors Ian Kershaw and David Cesarani.


I have a hard time believing this is true. I hope that this scares the government of Britain into doing more extensive research on the subject.

If the results of this poll are true, it is just more evidence that Grandma Europa is senile, and is a danger to herself, and her neighbors. She's liable to turn on the gas in the oven one day and not realize the pilot light isn't lit. You know what will happen then.

I've written quite a few posts about how the "Neocon" conspiracy theory is big in England. Politicians and columnists find nothing wrong in going on TV and making claims that Wolfowitz, Perle, and Kristal are controlling George Bush like he's a puppet. The insinuation is a variation on the old Protocols liable that the Jews are trying to control the world.

I guess this poll goes some way to explaining how it is that their society is so willing to accept such bald nonesense. Obviously, the true history of the Jews is barely a blip on their map. The resultant vacuum in their heads thus sucks up all the conspiracy theories.

I guess you've got to have something to think about if you're that stupid.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

A Reply To Stan
Islamofascism Needs To Be
Sent to The Dustbins Of History


Stan wrote in to say that he had always been a strong supporter of the Iraq War, but now he's starting to worry:


I don't know, Memes. I supported the Irak war at the beginning, but now it all just seems pretty weird. Estimates are over 100,000 Iraki citizens, non-combatants, killed since the war began. And the conflict seems only just getting up a head of steam. And all the good reasons for the US being in there have evaporated. It's all just getting worse and worse. The whole Arab world is going to join the conflict soon, and what will happen to Israel, nukes or not, in the process is anybody's guess.

The one fact that always held me in favour of the war in the early going was that however little evidence of WMDs were found, there was no denying that if left on his own Saddam would eventually have them, and use them. The equivalent big fact we have to deal with now is that the harder we push on any one spot in the Muslim world, the more the whole Musim world unites behind the terrorists. The first fact is still there but it's beginning to pale compared to the magnitude of the second.

And these are the two big facts you have to deal with realistically if you want to be realistic about what's happening right now, and have a realistic idea as to what's best to do in future.


Now, I'm not sure that Stan is serious in his question because he quotes the discredited study saying 100,000 thousand more Iraqi's have died during the duration of the war than would have if the war were not being conducted. I believe he might be joking. He has good reason not to trust me. But, that other site is satire. So, I will treat his points seriously because the objections he raises are raised daily by people who oppose the Iraq war.

It is true, Stan, that, if we push hard against the Islamofascists (not the Muslims in general), we run the risk of causing them to resort to ever more extreme measures. One of those measures, of which I am particularly concerned, is the possible use of a nuclear weapon.

However, ask yourself this question: Was it not true also of the Nazi's in 1941? Wasn't it true that if the United States struck against the Nazi's in 1941 (unprovoked, by the way) that they may have been motivated to use ever more extreme measures against us. In fact, our strike against Germany did result in Germany doing everything they could to defeat us.

So, what's new? That's war.

The fact remains that Islamofascism (Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and many others) is an ideology that needs to be sent to the dustbins of history. As a world, we can not move past our medieval boundaries as long as Islamofascism is trying to recreate a world in which women are slaves, infidels and gays are to be killed, and there is no freedom of expression or religion.

I'll bet you that, when you think about it, you agree with me on that, don't you Stan?


Israel Must Repel It's Enemy And Win The War


Yesterday I posted an article by Anne Bayefsky where she criticized the UN for it's unwillingness to condemn anti-Semitism. In thinking about the article later this part struck me as bizarre:


The U.N.'s judicial organ, the International Court of Justice, decided in July that Israel's security fence violated its version of international law. The contortions necessary to arrive at this conclusion resulted in a decision that there is no right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter when terrorists are not state actors. But just in case anyone missed the point, Judge Tanaka spoke of "the so-called terrorist attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers against the Israeli civilian population" (emphasis added) and Judge Elaraby (Egyptian ambassador to the U.N. until 1999) affirmed a "right of resistance" on the grounds, judicially speaking of course, that "violence breeds violence."


So, the UN is saying that Israel is not allowed to defend itself but the Palestinians are? And think about it, the UN effectively legalized terrorism. How, is Israel supposed to deal with terrorism other than to what they are doing? Are they supposed to send the police out to knock on doors and attempt to arrest people who are willing to blow themselves up in order to kill "Jews"? Is not a security fence and targeted attacks a better idea? And what about the fact that Israel has provided the UN with proof that Arafat himself funded terrorist attacks? Doesn't that make the terrorists "state actors"?

Here's the thing that has always gotten me about the anti-Israel side: When you comment to them that the Palestinian's are waging terrorist attacks, they will counter by saying something to the effect of, "Well, what do you expect them to do? They don't have an army." So, then if they are acting in place of an army doesn't that in effect make the terrorist's the Palestinian army? And, if they are acting as the Palestinian Army then are they not waging war against Israel? And doesn't that mean that Israel, as a state, is responsible to it's people to repel the enemy and win the war?

I say so, and I must admit, I have a hard time understanding any other viewpoint.

A Hush Over Hollywood


Thanks to Jack at Jack of Clubs for clueing me into the fact that Pat Sajak is apparently one celebrity who is actually on our side in the War on Islamofascism. Here's Pat:


Picture this:

Somewhere in the world, a filmmaker creates a short documentary that chronicles what he perceives as the excesses of anti-abortion activists. An anti-abortion zealot reacts to the film by killing the filmmaker in broad daylight and stabbing anti-abortion tracts onto his body. How does the Hollywood community react to this atrocity? Would there be angry protests? Candlelight vigils? Outraged letters and columns and articles? Awards named in honor of their fallen comrade? Demands for justice? Calls for protection of artistic freedom? It’s a pretty safe bet that there would be all of the above and much more. And all of the anger would be absolutely justified.

So I’m trying to understand the nearly universal lack of outrage coming from Hollywood over the brutal murder of Dutch director, Theo van Gogh, who was shot on the morning of November 2, while bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam. The killer then stabbed his chest with one knife and slit his throat with another.

The presumed murderer, a Dutch-born dual Moroccan-Dutch citizen, attached a 5-page note to van Gogh's body with a knife. In it, he threatened jihad against the West in general, and specifically against five prominent Dutch political figures. Van Gogh’s crime? He created a short film highly critical of the treatment of women in Islamic societies. So, again I ask, where is the outrage from Hollywood’s creative community? I mean, talk about a violation of the right of free speech!

Perhaps they are afraid that their protests would put them in danger. That, at least, is a defensible position. If I were Michael Moore, I would much rather rail against George W. Bush, who is much less likely to have me killed, than van Gogh’s murderer and the threat to creative freedom he brings. Besides, a man of Moore’s size would provide a great deal of “bulletin board” space.

Maybe they think it would be intolerant of them to criticize the murder, because it would put them on the side of someone who criticized a segment of the Arab world. And, after all, we are often reminded that we need to be more tolerant of others, especially if they’re not Christians or Jews.

There’s another possibility; one that seems crazy on the surface, but does provide an explanation for the silence, and is also in keeping with the political climate in Hollywood. Is it just possible that there are those who are reluctant to criticize an act of terror because that might somehow align them with President Bush, who stubbornly clings to the notion that these are evil people who need to be defeated? Could the level of hatred for this President be so great that some people are against anything he is for, and for anything he is against?


Yeah, I think that's it. Because they are acting like children and, as I mentioned the other day, we as a society have indulged a whole portion of our society in their extended adolescence. We do not demand accountability of them. Thankfully, Sajak has done that here. Hollywood needs to stand up and condemn Islamofascism which stands murderously against everything they claim they are for.

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

The United Nations and Anti-Semitism


From Anne Bayefsky, at National Review:


Last June, the United Nations held its first-ever conference on anti-Semitism. Though the organization's very raison d'etre rises from the ruins of Auschwitz and Belsen, it has never produced a single resolution dedicated to combating anti-Semitism or a report devoted to this devastating global phenomenon. For those who saw light at the end of the tunnel, this week the prospect of enlightenment at the General Assembly came to an inglorious conclusion. One mention of "anti-Semitism" made it into one paragraph of a general resolution on religious intolerance. Fifty-four U.N. states — of the 153 members that cast votes — refused to support even that.

What's going on? Let's connect the dots. Immediately before voting against concern for anti-Semitism, the same countries refused to support a call for governments "to ensure effective protection of the right to life...and to investigate...all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." Anti-Semitism and killing people because of their sexual orientation are acceptable to almost every one of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The resolution involving killing homosexuals is only one of many U.N. human-rights resolutions in which the OIC stands with the violator, not the victim. The real question is: How do they get away with it, let alone pass themselves off as seriously interested in human rights, including those of Palestinians?

Arab and Muslim states unabashedly take the offensive, hijacking the medium of human rights to serve a political agenda aimed at denying Jewish self-determination and destroying the Jewish state — the ultimate form of anti-Semitism. The willing vehicle for such a heist is the United Nations. The U.N.'s June anti-Semitism conference served to invigorate their well-versed two-track approach: Put the Jews on one side, Israel on the other, and divide and conquer.

Uh, Germany…

Track One works this way. Over the last three months the possibility of a U.N. resolution dedicated to anti-Semitism has been under discussion. A full-fledged resolution offers the potential of serious examination of the phenomenon, including new forms of anti-Semitism with the Jewish state as its victim. The battle associated with presenting a new and substantive stand-alone anti-Semitism resolution, however, scared off every democratic U.N. member state. The next idea was to have the European Union (EU) sponsor a resolution on anti-Semitism modeled on the Berlin Declaration, which was adopted in April by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE had eked out: "...international developments or political issues, including those in Israel or elsewhere in the Middle East, never justify anti-Semitism." Europeans could not quite bring themselves to say that terrorism aimed at ethnically cleansing Israel of Jews was also a form of anti-Semitism. But the Berlin Declaration's mention of the word "Israel" in the context of "anti-Semitism" put Arab and Islamic states at the U.N. on the warpath (yet another one).

Some hoped the Germans would take a leadership role in campaigning for a specific anti-Semitism resolution at the General Assembly. In true gangland style, Germany was soon given to understand that such a role would jeopardize its hoped-for permanent seat on the Security Council, and any sense of historical responsibility vanished. Nor was any other EU member prepared to confront Arab and Muslim opposition. More sympathetic EU-wannabe states were afraid to annoy the EU gatekeepers. The U.S. State Department was content to leave the matter to European initiative (or lack thereof). And given that an Israeli-sponsored resolution has virtually no chance of being passed at the General Assembly, Israel chose not to go it alone.

Climbing way down the ladder, efforts turned to a general resolution on religious intolerance.
One proposal would have included in the preamble the words "welcoming the Berlin Declaration" of the OSCE. But Berlin contained the dreaded reference to "Israel." Hence, despite the declaration's European parentage, the proposal was rejected by the European Union on the grounds that Arab and Islamic states said no. Then began EU-OIC negotiations, which weaken and debilitate so many U.N. outcomes. References to Islamophobia and Christianophobia and language accommodating all other religions were added. Islamophobia was taken out of alphabetical order and put first before anti-Semitism. And there the EU finally made its stand.

The OIC still balked, but their efforts to defeat the reference failed. They had, however, successfully managed to reduce it to a single mention, and to exclude the Berlin reference and any other detail that might have connected anti-Semitism with Israel.

In the meantime, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights will soon receive another annual report on Islamophobia and the "situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world." It continues to adopt annual resolutions expressing "deep concern at...intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief" that mention only Islam.

Now for Track Two and the demonization of Israel. In the intervening five months since the one-day U.N. conference on anti-Semitism ended, the U.N. anti-Israel campaign was ramped up. The U.N.'s judicial organ, the International Court of Justice, decided in July that Israel's security fence violated its version of international law. The contortions necessary to arrive at this conclusion resulted in a decision that there is no right of self-defense under the U.N. Charter when terrorists are not state actors. But just in case anyone missed the point, Judge Tanaka spoke of "the so-called terrorist attacks by Palestinian suicide bombers against the Israeli civilian population" (emphasis added) and Judge Elaraby (Egyptian ambassador to the U.N. until 1999) affirmed a "right of resistance" on the grounds, judicially speaking of course, that "violence breeds violence."

The U.N. General Assembly held another emergency session in July to condemn Israel for building a wall to prevent terrorism, but not to name and condemn Palestinian terrorists, their Palestinian Authority patrons, or their state sponsors. This fall, another 20 anti-Israel resolutions are in the process of adoption at the regular session of the General Assembly. Another of the annual U.N.-sponsored NGO conferences "in support of the Palestinian people" was held at U.N. Headquarters in September. Participants studied "such sterile paradigms as ‘Israel's self-defence,'" how to "promote a sporting, cultural and economic boycott" of Israel, and "to challenge Christian Zionism in moderate Christian communities."

Three more reports of U.N. "experts" were produced for the General Assembly taking direct aim at Israel. One expert has a mandate only to address human-rights violations by Israel in the territories and not Palestinian human-rights violations in Israel. He started this year's report by analogizing Israel to apartheid South Africa, despite the fact that Arab states have virtually purged themselves of Jews, while in Israel the 20 percent Arab population enjoys more democratic rights than anywhere in the Arab world. And then there was the expert report on racism and xenophobia that blamed Israel for the rise of anti-Semitism, but that was still studying whether "alleged" ethnic motivations had anything to do with the genocide and displacement of more than a million people in the Darfur region of Sudan.

"You are talking anti-Semitism."

The inequality and injustice of the treatment of Israel becomes most obvious in comparison with the U.N.'s treatment of human-rights violations elsewhere in the world. A U.N. General Assembly resolution on Iran could only be adopted last week after any notion of creating a single investigator into human-rights abuse in that country was eliminated. No resolution was even attempted on countries like China, where 1.3 billion people are without basic civil and political rights, or Saudi Arabia, where gross discrimination against women is endemic and more than a million female migrant workers are essentially slaves.

Resolutions put forward on Sudan and Zimbabwe were prevented this week from even coming to a vote. The grand total of the GA's 2004 country-specific criticism of human-rights violations around the globe in the 190 U.N. members, excluding Israel: One resolution for each of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iran, Myanmar, and Turkmenistan. It was on November 24 that the U.N. General Assembly defeated action on Sudan and Zimbabwe. Simultaneously, U.N. delegates in the adjoining room adopted nine resolutions condemning Israel.

In the latest effort to rend Jews from the state of Israel a new formula has emerged. Taking objection to anti-Semitism in the form of egregious discrimination against the Jewish state is said to be motivated by a desire to eliminate any criticism of Israel. As Ken Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, told the Jerusalem Post on November 4, "There is a cottage industry of people out there who try to accuse of bias those who criticize Israel's human-rights record not because the criticisms are unwarranted but as a way of simply defending Israel from any criticism." Reading from the same script, Mary Robinson, the former U.N. high commissioner for human rights, in a lecture at Brown University on November 7, worried about "blur[ing] the line between anti-Semitism and legitimate criticism of Israel...[S]ome...regard any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic." But "Israel's supporters" should not, said Robinson, "use the charge of anti-Semitism to stifle legitimate discussion." Similarly, Esther Benbassa, an invitee to a November 11-13 U.N. meeting in Barcelona that was convened to advise the U.N.'s expert on racism and xenophobia, complained of "the dangerous phase of intimidation" that "eagerly sees behind each word, each gesture, and each criticism of Israeli policy, an anti-Semite."

What an incredible outrage. A cursory glance at the newspapers in the democratic state of Israel, or the decisions of its vibrant judiciary, or the myriad discussions, conferences, and writings of Jews across the globe reveal a cacophony of public and self-driven criticism. The failure to acknowledge the deep connection between discrimination and demonization of individual Jews and discrimination and demonization of the Jewish state is not just ignorant — it is lethal. This failure also answers the original question of how Arab and Muslim states, and all those who have jumped on the Arafat bandwagon, pass themselves off as interested in human rights rather than the defeat of Jewish self-determination.

In a 1968 appearance at Harvard, Martin Luther King said, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." But Martin Luther King would not find a home at the United Nations or its allied nongovernmental human-rights organizations.

Killing A Little Girl For No Apparent Reason
And Then
Killing His Country To Save His Ass


From the Washington Post:


JERUSALEM -- On the morning of Oct. 5, Iman Hams, a slight girl of 13 wearing a school uniform and toting a backpack crammed with books, wandered past an Israeli military outpost on the Gaza Strip's southern border with Egypt.

The Israeli captain on duty alerted his troops to reports of a suspicious figure about 100 yards from the outpost. Soldiers fired into the air, according to radio transmissions, military court documents and witnesses.

"It's a little girl," a soldier watching from a nearby Israeli observation post cautioned over the military radio. "She's running defensively eastward. . . . A girl of about 10, she's behind the embankment, scared to death."

Four minutes later, Israeli troops opened fire on the girl with machine guns and rifles, the radio transmissions indicated. The captain walked to the spot where the girl "was lying down" and fired two bullets from his M-16 assault rifle into her head, according to an indictment against the officer. He started to walk away, but pivoted, set his rifle on automatic and emptied his magazine into the girl's prone body, the indictment alleged.

"This is Commander," the captain said into the radio when he was finished. "Whoever dares to move in the area, even if it's a 3-year-old -- you have to kill him. Over."

The girl's body was peppered with at least 20 bullets, including seven in her head, said Ali Mousa, a physician who is director of the Rafah hospital where her corpse was examined.
An investigation was undertaken, and the military's top commanders -- including the chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon -- said repeatedly that the captain had acted properly under the circumstances. But Israeli newspapers published graphic accounts by soldiers who said they witnessed the incident, and Israel's Channel 2 television aired recordings of the radio transmissions.


As a result, the company commander -- identified by the army only as Capt. R -- was indicted this past week on charges of misuse of a firearm, ordering subordinates to lie about the shooting and violation of military regulations. In addition, the military moved to reexamine the investigation, which Yaalon conceded had been "a grave failure" and which the indictment alleged was the subject of an attempted coverup.

The shooting of the schoolgirl added to a growing number of incidents that have spurred Israeli soldiers to speak out about abuses of Palestinians, despite pressure from superiors in the field and statements by senior military officials playing down such cases. Last week, after troops provided photographic evidence to an Israeli newspaper, the military opened an investigation into allegations that soldiers desecrated the bodies of Palestinians killed during army operations.

"There is no logical reason for what he did," a soldier, who declined to be identified, told the daily newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth a few days after the incident. "Not for shooting the two bullets at her, and certainly not the burst afterward. This is the most sickening thing I have ever seen during my army service. It was desecration of a body. That is not what we are taught to do in the army. . . . The 13-year-old girl was already dead. Why did he fire that burst into her?"

Shmuel Shenfeld, one of the indicted officer's attorneys, said the captain opened fire because of "suspicion of a penetration by a terrorist" near the outpost. He added, "I believe he will be acquitted because he acted the way one has to act in order to neutralize a threat on his soldiers."
Shenfeld denied that the captain pumped bullets into the dead girl, saying he was firing in response to shooting from the direction of the nearby refugee camp.


The indictment issued against the captain alleged that he called several of his subordinate officers and soldiers into his office a week after the incident and "tried to convince" them that they "noticed shooting near the body of the deceased only," rather than shooting at the body. The indictment also accused the captain of asking his men to testify that he hit the body with the burst of fire "by mistake" as he was withdrawing from the area.

Shenfeld said that some soldiers in the unit were trying to frame his client.


The reality is that Hamas, and al-Fatah, and Islamic Jihad, and all their respective soldiers, are heroes in the land of Palestine. They are not arrested by Palestinian security forces. They are not brought up on trial by any Palestinian system of justice. So, the contrast between the two societies is huge. Israeli courts will indict a man for such behavior. Members of the Israeli press will work overtime to bring such behavior to light. Members of Israeli Parliament will publicly condemn such behavior. This demonstrates that Israeli society has a foundational conscience.

However, Shmuel Shenfeld and his client "Capt. R", are, apparently, both willing to be traitorous to that Israeli conscience. They are both willing to lie, and thus damage the entire citzenry of Israel in the eyes of the world, in order to get Capt. R's ass off the hook.

Unless it shown beyond a doubt that some extenuating circumstance prompted Capt. R to such horrific behavior, I hope he is convicted, and that he spends the rest of his life in jail. Oh, and if only attorneys like Shmuel Shenfeld could be held accountable for the damage they do to society with their disgusting lies.

Monday, November 29, 2004

War Is The Moral Choice


From the British columnist Mark Steyn:


After September 11, I wondered rhetorically (in The Spectator) what are we prepared to die for, and got a convoluted e-mail back from a French professor explaining that the fact that Europeans weren't prepared to die for anything was the best evidence of their superiority: they were building a post-historical utopia - a Europe it would not be necessary to die for. Or as Robert Kagan's recent thesis puts it: these days Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.

Can't see it working myself. A couple of months back, I found myself in the company of a recently retired Continental prime minister and mentioned what a chap in the Pentagon had said to me about how the Europeans really needed to invest in new technology or they'd no longer be able to share the same battlefield with the Americans.

I thought I was making a boring, technocratic, Nato-expenditure sort of point, but he took it morally and visibly recoiled. "But why would we want to have such horrible weapons?" he said, aghast. "In Europe today, it is just inconceivable to possess such things."

You can't help noticing that it's the low-tech weapons that are really horrible. In Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda and the Congo, millions get hacked to death by machetes. Even on the very borders of EUtopia, hundreds of thousands died in the Balkans in mostly non-state-of-the-art ways until the Americans intervened.

According to the latest estimates, the mass graves in Iraq contain the remains of at least 300,000 people, but we're still arguing about whether the war was "justified". The pacifism - or, more accurately, passivism - of Europe does not seem especially moral.

The UK is one of the few credible military powers left in the developed world, yet it can't sustain a proportionate share of the burden of even a small war.

When you say as much to Euro-grandees, they say, ah, but you wouldn't understand, here on the Continent we have seen the horrors of war close up, the slaughter of the Somme casts long shadows. I'll say. In the New Statesman last week, Philip Kerr managed to yoke All Quiet On The Western Front with Joan Baez and John Lennon, and unintentionally underlined just how obsolescent the Sixties folk-protest canon is. Where Have All The Flowers Gone? would have made a great song for the First World War, but not for Afghanistan or Iraq or anything we're likely to fight in the future.

In our time, mass slaughter occurs only in places where the West refuses to act - in the Sudan or North Korea - or acts only under the contemptible and corrupting rules of UN "peacekeeping", as at Srebrenica. In Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, technological advantage changes the moral calculus: it makes war the least worst option, the moral choice. At the 11th hour of the 11th day, we should remember those who died in the Great War, but recognise that it could never be "the war to end all wars" and never should.


Why do we never hear apologies from all those who said going into Afghanistan and Iraq that the wars would not work, and that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would be killed?

Answer: because people who say such things are being treated as if they are children, and therefore are not held to be accountable for their actions.

It is not healthy for our civilization to allow such people to continue on in their irresponsibility. They are sustained by our civilization, they need to start participating in it. They need to recognize that their freedom was established and preserved through war. It's ok to be a pacifist, or to be against the Iraq War while not being entirely a pacifist. However, it is not ok to lie and exaggerate to make one's case, and then not apologize even when that case is shown not only to be groundless, but, through hard evidence, to have been immoral as well.

A Separate Peace


Omar, from Iraq The Model, tells a story (via No Pasaran) which is anecdotal but maddening, if true:


It's been usual for foreigners (diplomats, workers, journalists... etc) in Iraq to take lots of security precautions when they move around in Baghdad or some other Iraqi cities; they try to hide anything that might reveal their identities and I even noticed that they began to choose ordinary cars-from the kinds that many Iraqis own instead of fancy new cars- for use in their rides to avoid attracting attention.

This is of course as a result of the kidnappings and various attacks that targeted foreigners in Iraq regardless of the nature of their presence here. This created the feeling that every foreigner walking on the streets is an easy target for direct gunfire or for kidnapping (for money or to be beheaded later). This even included Arabs and Arab firms and even Iraqis working in Arab firms. In short, anyone who is here to do something that might be good for Iraq.

One group of foreigners really caught my attention by ignoring all the dangers and moving in the streets of Baghdad showing their identity so clearly.

One might think that this group of people did so because they are very bold but actually I don't think this is true for this case. Why? Because simply they were French.

Yesterday, I saw a single car with the words "FRENCH EMBASSY" written in Arabic on the windshield moving in Karrada crowded neighborhood in broad daylight. They didn't seem to be in a hurry and were driving slowly unlike other foreigners who try to drive as fast as possible to avoid being tracked and chased.

It seems that the French are not afraid of the terrorists. Were they excluded from the terrorists' targets list for some reason? Is there a peace truce between them? Did we miss something here? Because the French are moving freely and saying for the terrorists:

"Hey, it's us, so don't mistake us for your enemies, the other foreigners! And we are not just ordinary French. We are the French government! And we are certainly not doing something good for Iraq, so relax!"

This may explain why no one is anymore worried about the two French journalists; they're in friendly hands!


He who is not for us is against us. He who is not against us is for us. Where do the French fall in there, if this story is true?

Israel Shocked By Image Of Soldiers Forcing Violinist
To Play At Roadblock


I must admit, I just don't get this newstory from The Guardian:


Israel shocked by image of soldiers forcing violinist to play at roadblock

Of all the revelations that have rocked the Israeli army over the past week, perhaps none disturbed the public so much as the video footage of soldiers forcing a Palestinian man to play his violin.

The incident was not as shocking as the recording of an Israeli officer pumping the body of a 13-year-old girl full of bullets and then saying he would have shot her even if she had been three years old.

Nor was it as nauseating as the pictures in an Israeli newspaper of ultra-orthodox soldiers mocking Palestinian corpses by impaling a man's head on a pole and sticking a cigarette in his mouth.

But the matter of the violin touched on something deeper about the way Israelis see themselves, and their conflict with the Palestinians.

The violinist, Wissam Tayem, was on his way to a music lesson near Nablus when he said an Israeli officer ordered him to "play something sad" while soldiers made fun of him. After several minutes, he was told he could pass.

It may be that the soldiers wanted Mr Tayem to prove he was indeed a musician walking to a lesson because, as a man under 30, he would not normally have been permitted through the checkpoint.

But after the incident was videotaped by Jewish women peace activists, it prompted revulsion among Israelis not normally perturbed about the treatment of Arabs.

The rightwing Army Radio commentator Uri Orbach found the incident disturbingly reminiscent of Jewish musicians forced to provide background music to mass murder. "What about Majdanek?" he asked, referring to the Nazi extermination camp.


What the hell, really? What the hell is the point? If anybody can clue me in, I'd appreciate it.

Also, if anybody can send me to links to news stories or video of the two violent incidents that are mentioned in this article, I appreciate that as well.

A Black Alert


Could this:


WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq warned Iran and others in comments published on Monday to think twice before trying to take advantage of the U.S. military at a time when it is fighting in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Why the Iranians would want to move against us in an overt manner that would cause us to use our air or naval power against them would be beyond me,” Army Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said in an interview with USA Today.

Abizaid, speaking in Qatar, was asked about concerns in Congress that a shortage of U.S. troops might tempt nations such as Iran or North Korea, both accused by Washington of trying to develop nuclear weapons.

“We can generate more military power per square inch than anybody else on Earth, and everybody knows it,” Abizaid said. “If you ever even contemplate our nuclear capability, it should give everybody the clear understanding that there is no power that can match the United States militarily.”


Have anything to do with this:


An al-Qaida attack on the US with non-conventional weapons is virtually "inevitable," and the organization is likely "tying up the knots" for such an attack, Yossef Bodansky, former director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.

"All of the warnings we have today indicate that a major strike – something more horrible than anything we've seen before – is all but inevitable," he said.

Bodansky, here for the second annual Jerusalem Summit, an international gathering of conservative thinkers, added that "the primary option" for the next al-Qaida attack on US soil would be one that would use weapons of mass destruction.

"I do not have a crystal ball, but this is what all the available evidence tells us, we will have a bang," Bodansky said.

He said that al-Qaida has not carried out a second major attack on the US until now for internal psychological and ideological reasons, but after the reelection of President George W. Bush, it has gotten "the green light" to do so from leading Islamic religious luminaries, as well as from "the elites of the Arab world."


Here's what Bodansky means by "Al Qaida ... has gotten the green light."



Even if bin Laden had a nuclear weapon, he probably wouldn’t have used it for a lack of proper religious authority - authority he has now. “[Bin Laden] secured from a Saudi sheik...a rather long treatise on the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Americans,” says Scheuer. “[The treatise] found that he was perfectly within his rights to use them. Muslims argue that the United States is responsible for millions of dead Muslims around the world, so reciprocity would mean you could kill millions of Americans,” Scheuer tells Kroft.

Scheuer says bin Laden was criticized by some Muslims for the 9/11 attack because he killed so many people without enough warning and before offering to help convert them to Islam. But now bin Laden has addressed the American people and given fair warning. “They’re intention is to end the war as soon as they can and to ratchet up the pain for the Americans until we get out of their region....If they acquire the weapon, they will use it, whether it’s chemical, biological or some sort of nuclear weapon,” says Scheuer.

Blog Burst For Israel


Joseph Norland, a writer whom I admire, has organized what he calls the "Blog Burst for Israel," on this the anniversary of UN Resolution 181. Because I believe that the Jews deserve a state of their own, and because I believe that the establishment of the state of Israel by the UN in 1948 was fair, and because I agree with the entirety of the statement prepared by Joseph Norland, I am happy to participate in the Blog Burst:


Today is the anniversary of the UN vote on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. (It is vital to recall that the UN partition plan referred to western Palestine, to underscore that in 1921 the eastern part was ripped off the Jewish National Home by the British Government and handed over to the then Emir Abdullah.)

The partition plan was approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.


The 33 countries that cast the “Yes” vote were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela. (Among other countries, the list includes the US, the three British Dominions, all the European countries except for Greece and the UK, but including all the Soviet-block countries.)


The 13 countries that chose the Hall of Shame and voted “No” were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. (Ten of these are Moslem countries; Greece has the special distinction of being the only European country to have joined the Hall of Shame.)


The ten countries that abstained are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.


On November 30, 1947, the day following the vote, the Palestinian Arabs murdered six Jews in a bus making its way to Jerusalem, and proceeded to murder another Jew in the Tel-Aviv - Jaffa area. This was a prelude to a war that claimed the lives of 6,000 Jews, or 1% of the total Jewish population in 1948. This toll is the per capita equivalent of today’s Canada losing 300,000 lives, or the US losing 3,000,000.


The object of the war, launched by the Arabs in the former Palestine and the armies of Egypt, Tansjordan, Syria and Lebanon (with help from other Arab countries), was to "throw the Jews into the sea". As the partition map indicates, however, rather than annihilate the Jewish population, the Arabs ended up with less territory than they would have gained by peaceful means.


In addition to the bloodshed in nascent Israel, immediately after the UN vote, Arabs attacks their Jewish neighbours in a number of Arab countries, the murders in Syria’s Aleppo being the best known.


Bruised and bleeding, Israel prevailed nonetheless. May our sister-democracy thrive and flourish.


List of participating sites, in alphabetical order of site name

Anti Idiotarian Rottweiler
Arkansas Bushwacker
Armies Of Liberation
Bama Pachyderm
Biurchametz
Blimpish
Blithered
Blog Willy
Blue Rev
Canadian Comment
Cao's Blog
Catholic Friends of Israel
Christian PatriotChristian Action for Israel
Clarity and Resolve
Crusader War College
Cuanas
Danegerus
Daniel Davis
Flig
God Pigeon
Harald Tribune
Hatshepsut
Heretics Almanac
Hidden Nook
History Nerd
IceViking
I Love America
Instant Knowledge News
Israpundit
Israel Commentary
JPundit
Jersusalem Posts
Leaning Right News
LindaSOG
Live Journal
MCNS
Martinipundit
Mererhetoric
Motnews
Mugged By Reality
Mystery Achievement
Mystical Paths
Naebunny
NetWMD
Nice Jewish Boy
Peaktalk
Protect Our Heritage
Reaganesque
Red Tigress
Riteturnonly
Shimshon9
Solomonia
Spitball Defense
Supernatural
Tampa Bay Primer
Techie Vampire
Texasbug
Tex The Pontificator
The Conservative
The Homeland
The Seal Club
Wackingday
Who's Your Rabbi
Voxfelisi
Yoan Hermida
Weblog of a Wondering Jew


There is also a map provided (at Israpundit) which explains what UN Resolution 181 was trying to accomplish.

I want to say thank you to the participating weblogs.

Sunday, November 28, 2004

The Jews Control The Media, Banking, Liquor, and Gambling
Oh Yeah, And They Invented Jazz Too


Thanks to DhimmiWatch for making me aware of this book review, from the Islamic City website, which appears to be an Amazon for Muslims:


Detail Description:

In an interview published in the New York World February 17, 1921, Mr. Henry Ford put the case for the "Protocols of Zion" tersely and convincingly. He said: "The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it NOW."

1920 marked the beginning of the publication of this research series, in the Dearborn Independent, the Ford Motor Company's weekly magazine. These articles were eventually collected in book form under the title, The International Jew. The book became a wide success. It is estimated that more than 10 million copies of the book were sold in the United States alone!
Yet today this book is almost impossible to find. You will not be able to buy it in your local bookstore, nor check it out at your local library. The truth is that in the so called "democratic, pluralist" America this book has been systematically suppressed.


The International Jew is a magnifying glass applied to the hidden sources of immorality, vide, degeneracy, and subversion. It is a threat - a threat to the international financiers who would prefer to keep information selective and geared towards a world oligarchy of self-interest. The lack of awareness of this insidious encroachment into lives of ordinary people increases by the day. By reopening this debate this book exposes the inherent danger of unchecked Zionism.

Contents
Jewish History in the United States
Angles of Jewish Influence
Victims, or Persecutors
Are the Jews a Nation?
The Jewish Political Program
An Introduction to the Jewish Protocols
How the Jews Use Power
Jewish Influence in American Politics
Bolshevism and Zionism
Jewish Supremacy in the Theater and Cinema
Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music
Liquor, Gambling, Vice and Corruption
The World's Foremost Problem
The High and Low of Jewish Money-Power
The Battle for Press Control
The State of All-Judaan
The Protocols of the Meetings of the Elders of Zion



I am aware that the book The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is popular in the Arab/Islamic world. IslamiCity.com is apparently based in Culver City, CA, so I guess the Islamofascists are importing their vile racism into the U.S. now. No surprise, I guess.

And really, it shouldn't shock us that anyone would believe this kind of nonesense. Many mainstream journalists and politicians, here in the U.S. and abroad, espouse the "Neocon" theory that the Bush Administration is under the influence of a nefarious group of political thinkers whose names just happen to be Wolfowitz, Kristol, and Perle.

As disgusting as this book is, it is pretty funny that it posits the idea that Jazz is Jewish music. Hee hee. I wonder how our Black Muslim friends feel about that.