Friday, December 10, 2004

Everybody Got Something To Hide
Except Me and My Monkey

My man the Logic Monkey makes such an incredibly obvious point (and logical too) that I suspect it must have been made before, a million times, but to tell you the truth, I've never heard it articulated so clearly as to resonate with me like this:

... why would anybody want to be a pagan? Being a pagan must have been utterly miserable. At all times and in all places you were at the mercy of impersonal gods and spirits. Behind every rock, tree and bush was some sprite just ready to jump out and smite you- if you fail to make the correct offering in the correct ceremonies.

The big difference between Christianity and every other religion is that Christianity is, as far as I can tell, the only time God sacraficed for us and not the other way around.

I'm not a big fan of apologetics (my wife's definition of apologetics is: "you're so worried about the truth of your faith that you feel the need to apologize for it all the time") but that was really a classic. Good work, Mr. Monkey

A Wake Up Call For Europe?
A Video About Holland
After The Murder Of Theo Van Gogh

Thank you to Little Green Footballs for making available this video about the problems in Holland surrounding the murder of Theo Van Gogh. Here's what Charles of LGF says:

Here’s an LGF special feature: a 24 minute documentary by Danish public TV about Holland after the murder of Theo Van Gogh, broadcast on December 6, 2004. This is a must-see, with English subtitles provided by Hans Nagel, who created the Windows Media video.
Holland: The End of the Multicultural Dream. (Windows Media, 56 Meg.)

The video features interviews with Theo Van Gogh, Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Dutch MP Geert Wilders (both of whom speak in English), Moroccan immigrants and common Dutch citizens—and it really brings home the impact of unregulated immigration from cultures that do not assimilate with Western society.

You need to see this. It’s a wake-up call for Europe, and it’s also very revealing that Danish TV dared to cross the boundaries of multicultural political correctness and produce such a frank, candid documentary.

The video file will only be available for a few days, because it’s so large it may cause my .MAC account to go into toxic shock.

UPDATE at 12/9/04 6:17:40 pm:

LGF reader Victor also has a copy of the video here.

Will The Ents Awaken

Victor David Hanson wonders whether Europe will wake up and compares Europe to the Ents of Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings trilogy:

One of the many wondrous peoples that poured forth from the rich imagination of the late J. R. R. Tolkien were the Ents. These tree-like creatures, agonizingly slow and covered with mossy bark, nursed themselves on tales of past glory while their numbers dwindled in their isolation. Unable to reproduce themselves or to fathom the evil outside their peaceful forest — and careful to keep to themselves and avoid reacting to provocation of the tree-cutters and forest burners — they assumed they would be given a pass from the upheavals of Middle Earth.

... does the Ents analogy work for present-day Europe? Before you laugh at the silly comparison, remember that the Western military tradition is European. Today the continent is unarmed and weak, but deep within its collective mind and spirit still reside the ability to field technologically sophisticated and highly disciplined forces — if it were ever to really feel threatened. One murder began to arouse the Dutch; what would 3,000 dead and a toppled Eiffel Tower do to the French? Or how would the Italians take to a plane stuck into the dome of St. Peter? We are nursed now on the spectacle of Iranian mullahs, with their bought weapons and foreign-produced oil wealth, humiliating a convoy of European delegates begging and cajoling them not to make bombs — or at least to point what bombs they make at Israel and not at Berlin or Paris. But it was not always the case, and may not always be.

The Netherlands was a litmus test for Europe. Unlike Spain or Greece, which had historical grievances against Islam, the Dutch were the avatars of the new liberal Europe, without historical baggage. They were eager to unshackle Europe from the Church, from its class and gender constraints, and from any whiff of its racist or colonialist past. True, for a variety of reasons, Amsterdam may be a case study of how wrong Rousseau was about natural man, but for a Muslim immigrant the country was about as hospitable a foreign host as one can imagine. Thus, it was far safer for radical Islamic fascists to damn the West openly from a mosque in Rotterdam than for a moderate Christian to quietly worship in a church in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Algeria. And yet we learn not just that the Netherlands has fostered a radical sect of Muslims who will kill and bomb, but, far more importantly, that they will do so after years of residency among, and indeed in utter contempt of, their Western hosts.

Things are no less humiliating — or dangerous — in France. Thousands of unassimilated Muslims mock French society. Yet their fury shapes its foreign policy to the degree that Jacques Chirac sent a government plane to sweep up a dying Arafat. But then what do we expect from a country that enriched Hamas, let Mrs. Arafat spend her husband's embezzled millions under its nose, gave Khomeini the sanctuary needed to destroy Iran, sold a nuclear reactor to Saddam, is at the heart of the Oil-for-Food scandal, and revs up the Muslim world against the United States?

Only now are Europeans discovering the disturbing nature of radical Islamic extremism, which thrives not on real grievance but on perceived hurts — and the appeasement of its purported oppressors. How odd that tens of millions of Muslims flocked to Europe for its material consumption, superior standard of living, and freedom and tolerance — and then chose not merely to remain in enclaves but to romanticize all the old pathologies that they had fled from in the first place. It is almost as if the killers in Amsterdam said, "I want your cell phones, unfettered Internet access, and free-spirited girls, but hate the very system that alone can create them all. So please let me stay here to destroy what I want."

Turkey's proposed entry into the EU has become some weird sort of Swiftian satire on the crazy relationship between Europe and Islam. Ponder the contradictions of it all. Privately most Europeans realize that opening its borders without restraint to Turkey's millions will alter the nature of the EU, both by welcoming in a radically different citizenry, largely outside the borders of Europe, whose population will make it the largest and poorest country in the Union — and the most antithetical to Western liberalism. Yet Europe is also trapped in its own utopian race/class/gender rhetoric. It cannot openly question the wisdom of making the "other" coequal to itself, since one does not by any abstract standard judge, much less censure, customs, religions, or values.

Of course, we are amused by the spectacle. Privately, most Americans grasp that with a Germany and France reeling from unassimilated Muslim populations, a rising Islamic-inspired and globally embarrassing anti-Semitism, and economic stagnation, it is foolhardy to create 70 million Turkish Europeans by fiat. Welcoming in Turkey will make the EU so diverse, large, and unwieldy as to make it — to paraphrase Voltaire — neither European nor a Union. Surely Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia will wish to get in on the largess. Were they not, after all, also part of the historical Roman mare nostrum, and did they not also enjoy long ties with France and Italy?

So, to our discredit I suppose, we are enjoying schadenfreud after our recent transatlantic acrimonies: Europe preached a postmodern gospel of multiculturalism and the end of oppressive Western values, and now it is time to put its money (and security) where its mouth is — or suffer the usual hypocrisy that all limousine liberals face. The United States has its own recent grievances with the Turks — its eleventh-hour refusal to allow American troops to come down from the north explains why the now red-hot Sunni Triangle never saw much war during the three-week fighting. Recently a minister of a country that gave rise to the notion of 20th-century genocide (Pastorius note: He's referring to the Armenian Genocide, a forgotten footnote in history, when the Turks killed over one million Armenians) slurred the United States for resembling Hitler, who in fact was an erstwhile Turkish near ally. Still, our realists muse, how convenient that Europe may carry the water in bringing Turkey inside the Western orbit and prevent it from joining the radical Islamic fringe. Knowing it is in our interest (and not necessarily in the Europeans') and will cost them lots and us nothing, we "on principle" remonstrate for the need to show Western empathy to Turkish aspirations.

But gut-check time is coming for Europe, with its own rising unassimilated immigrant populations, rogue mosques entirely bent on destroying the West, declining birth rate and rising entitlements, the Turkish question, and a foreign policy whose appeasement of Arab regimes won it only a brief lull and plenty of humiliation. The radical Muslim world of the madrassas hates the United States because it is liberal and powerful; but it utterly despises Europe because it is even more liberal and far weaker, earning the continent not fear, but contempt.

The real question is whether there is any Demosthenes left in Europe, who will soberly but firmly demand assimilation and integration of all immigrants, an end to mosque radicalism, even-handedness in the Middle East, no more subsidies to terrorists like Hamas, a toughness rather than opportunist profiteering with the likes of Assad and the Iranian theocracy — and make it clear that states that aid and abet terrorists in Europe do so to their great peril.

So will the old Ents awaken, or will they slumber on, muttering nonsense to themselves, lost in past grandeur and utterly clueless about the dangers on their borders?

Stay tuned — it is one of the most fascinating sagas of our time.

I Have A Dream
That Condoleeza Rice
Will Be Our President

The Anchoress analyzes Peggy Noonan's analysis of the "deep bench" the GOP has for 2008, and comes up with lineup card of her own:

What was most interesting was Noonan's assertion that the GOP has - for 2008 - a "deep bench".

They've got a deep bench and a big fight coming. Alphabetically the list so far can be considered to include George Allen, Bill Frist, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Hagel, John McCain, Bill Owens, George Pataki, Mitt Romney, and beyond that any number of potential surprise guests from Tommy Thompson to Colin Powell to Mrs. Hutchison.

With all due respect to Ms. Noonan, um. No. That bench is neither deep nor sturdy. Allen? All the charisma of melted ice. Frist? A genuinely good man, indeed, but also lacking in charisma, and he has not yet demonstrated strong leadership abilities in the Senate. Hagel? Get outta here, he's a self-promoting wet handshake of a man. McCain? Too busy playing both sides of the aisle, too in love with magazine covers, too much cancer history. Owens and Pataki are interchangable snores. Mitt Romney is a Mormon and that will give him a hard time with both the Evangelicals in the GOP and the moderate Democrats any successful Republican will still need to court. Tommy Thompson just gave terrorists some hints as to how they might hurt the nation, "hey, fellas, have you thought about the FOOD SUPPLY?" So even if he were not already a little scary-looking, he's officially to scary-sounding. Colin Powell's wife has made it very clear that she doesn't want him running for president, and Kay Hutchinson is...mmneh.

It leaves only one name. No matter how you pad the list and crowd the bench to make it look like there is a real choice for the GOP, the truth is we have one genuine quarterback on which to call: Rudy Giuliani.

I could be wrong, but my inclination is that Condoleeza Rice is the powerhouse here, not Giuliani. Giuliani does have great decision-making credentials, and has proven that he is willing to make tough values-based stands, such as his refusal of a large donation from a Saudi Prince to NYC's 9/11 Fund. But, Rice appears to have the same mettle, and she has some strategic advantages over Giuliani.

Many on the GOP side have been brazenly confident that Hilary Clinton can not win the Presidency because opinion polls have shown that she is "unlikable." In my opinion, that shows a deep misunderstanding of human nature. Hilary Clinton is not "unlikable" in the way Bob Dole was, or Al Gore, or even John Kerry, where there's something stiff, and uncompfortable, about their personality. Instead, Hilary's "unlikability" is the very part she plays in the National Soap Opera of American politics.

Hilary Clinton is the Queen Bitch with whom we are fascinated. She is a reasonably attractive, cold-hearted, "knives-in-the-eyes," women who is willing to do anything to get ahead. Think the Joan Collins character on Dynasty. Or anyone of the women on Melrose Place. I fear, and am rather convinced that Hilary Clinton is our own American Imelda Marcos. She is the woman, with whom we are so fascinated, we would allow her to do anything to us. ANYTHING.

You know who needs to write about the Hilary phenomenon? Camille Paglia. Camille could explain this from the historic/literary perspective much better than I. But, just understand that there are certain characters who resonate as part of our civilizational drama because they are archetypes. The OJ Simpson trial was an example of this. OJ Simpson was functioning as the Othello archetype. George Bush resonates as a kind of Lone Ranger/Cowboy archetype. Or to go deep, George Bush is Henry/Hal from Shakespeare's Henry IV.

Similarly, Hilary Clinton is our Cleaopatra. She married into power, and seems willing to commit metaphorical murders to ascend from there.

Another thing the Hilary's naysayers do not take into account is that the American people truly love Bill Clinton, and we have a nostalgia for the time during which he was our President. Sure they ended badly, but nostalgia is a trick of the light when we are gazing backward in time. We remember the good things and forget the pain.

Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that I am fascinated with Hilary Clinton. I don't like her one bit. I was disgusted by her behavior during her Senate run in 2000. She shows a disgusting willingness to pander to people by playing on the most elemental raicial and lifestyle stereotypes. Her recent revelation that she is an "Evangelical" recalls, for me, the Jewish Minstrel Show she performed, in her debates with Rick Lazio back in 2000, when she related homey little stories about sharing a bagel with her good friend Mr. Goldstein.

But, for whatever reason, Hilary's base and disgusting appeals to stereotype work. And this reality, coupled with America's fascination with her, are the reason that Condi Rice is, to my mind, the only Hilary killer the GOP has on it's bench. The fact that Condoleeza Rice is a black woman renders useless the old Clinton strategy of implying that the GOP does not look out for the interests of women and minorities. Considering that that is the primary weapon in the Clinton arsenal, it will leave Hilary exposed where she is most vulnerable. She will have to run on issues and values. And, on issues and values, Rice can, and most certainly would, run Hilary ragged.

In addition, the appeal of a Condi Rice Presidency would have a powerful resonance in the American Drama. Her personal story is the story that America wants to tell itself, and, in the telling, to make manifest. Rice's parents determination to give her real access to the American Dream, in spite of the racist realities of their time, is the story of the ascent of Black people in America. Considering who Condi Rice is a person (her stands on issues, her steadfastness, her values), Americans would die to rally around her story, and to push it up to the very peak of the moutaintop.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

"A Definite Attack On Islam"

From Little Green Footballs:

Chicago couple Joyce and Stanley Boim, whose son David was murdered in a 1996 Jerusalem terror attack, are suing an Islamic charity for complicity in his death because they funneled money to Hamas. The usual Muslim groups are claiming injustice, and the defendant, the Quranic Literacy Institute, is refusing to mount a defense against the suit.

Here's an excerpt from the NBC5 News website article:

NBC5’s Charlie Wojciechowski reported that local Muslim groups on Monday said the lawsuit is putting their religion on trial. At least three Chicago Muslim groups say a federal judge is being unfair in forcing the Quranic Literacy Institute to proceed with a trial it says it’s not prepared for.

But the parents pressing this $600 million lawsuit say they deserve justice, too, for the 1996 terrorist attack that killed their son, David, when he was in Jerusalem.

Wojciechowski said that Monday was another difficult day in court for Joyce and Stanley Boim as they heard the alleged connections between the death of their son David and Islamic charities in Chicago accused of funneling money to the terrorist group Hamas.

“It is very difficult to listen to this information ... knowing what was behind the bullet that killed my son,” Joyce Boim told NBC5.

Terrorism expert Matt Leavit took the stand Monday and explained that Hamas runs hospitals and schools in addition to sponsoring assassins and suicide bombers.

“We are showing how Hamas operates,” said attorney for the Boims, Steven Landes. “And that a template for how it operates in the Mideast sets a template for how it operates in the United States,” he added.

But for every accusation there has been silence from the attorney representing the now lone defendant, the Quranic Literacy Institute.

“I’m simply sitting there in the courtroom, essentially as a potted plant, letting the case go forward in, essentially, silent protest,” said the institute’s attorney, John Beal. His is a protest of Judge Arlander Keyes’ ruling denying the group a continuance.

Now local Islamic groups say that have doubts that any Muslim can get a fair trial. “I think what we saw in court today was a definite attack on Islam,” said Seema Imam, of the Muslim Civil Rights Center.

How is it that presenting evidence of Hamas structure as a terror group is an attack on Islam? If attacking Hamas is attacking Islam does that mean that the Hamas ideology is Islamic?


Palestinian Leaders Are Planning More Jihad

From National Review:

With Arafat's death, there has been an unprecedented amount of optimism in the West regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state and the possibility of peace. Yet amongst Palestinian officials there is little talk of such a peace, the continuation of Yasser Arafat's "jihad" against the Jewish state instead being endorsed. (To watch examples of these statements, visit

Some members of the Palestinian establishment close to Arafat are now stating in public that he never really wanted peace, and instead considered the Oslo Accords a strategy to destroy Israel in phases. It was reported on November 21 that Abd Al-Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based newspaper, Al-Quds Al-Arabi, discussed a meeting he held with Arafat shortly before the latter's return to Gaza from Tunis. When Atwan criticized the Oslo Accords, Arafat reassured him: "The day will come when you will see thousands of Jews fleeing Palestine. I will not live to see this, but you will definitely see it in your lifetime. The Oslo Accords will help bring this about."

The Palestinian ambassador in Iran, Salah Al-Zawawi, explained in an interview on Iranian Al-Alam TV on November 12: "[Arafat] knew that this path is the path of martyrdom and Jihad. He knew that this great cause requires martyrs, not leaders.... He fought the Jihad and we saw him in many battles...if you ask me what will surely be the end of this Zionist entity, I will say to you that this entity will disappear one of these days...It's a matter of time.... Our phased plan, which I already mentioned, is to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital...."

... on November 11, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades leader Raid Al-Aidi said on Al-Arabiyya TV, "We call from here to all the heroes...[to] strike this occupier anywhere, with no holds barred. We...will direct our painful blows against this monstrous entity. The Palestinian state will be achieved only by strengthening the resistance.... This occupier understands only the language of gunfire and gunpowder and we will teach this occupier, Allah willing, a lesson as we have taught it in the past, in Tel Aviv, Hadera, and everywhere. We will escalate our blows against this occupier...."

In the same program, Fatah Central Committee member Hani Al-Hassan explained that, "In Fatah we have a rule: the armed struggle sows and the political struggle reaps.... Therefore, when Oslo didn't bring results, the sowing came in the form of the Intifada.... We will see now whether the political situation allows us to reach political results and to bring about a change in our favor. Otherwise, we will go back to sowing."

Quoting former Egyptian president Abd-Al Nasser — "what was taken by force will be restored only by force" — is how the new leader of Fatah, Faruq Al-Qaddumi, described the Palestinian strategy against Israel on Al-Arabiyya TV on November 14. Al-Qaddumi has considerable popularity among the Palestinian street for never accepting Oslo. With his naming as leader of Fatah, Al-Qaddumi is openly challenging Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmad Qureia to be Arafat's successor. As he stated in the interview, "Anyone who thinks that I have abdicated my authority is mistaken."

He explained Fatah's position about Hamas: "The Hamas movement is our friend. It is a...movement of heroes. It is part of the national Palestinian movement. No...Fatah member could possibly harm Hamas." Al-Qaddumi is also close to Hezbollah, and during a meeting with Sheikh Nasrallah on September 4, 2003, they discussed "cohesion between the Lebanese and Palestinian resistance."

The Palestinian leadership is not alone in stating in public that terrorist attacks against Israel must continue. The Arabic and Iranian press have been particularly vocal. In response to an interviewer's question as to whether the Intifada will continue and grow stronger, Lebanese MP Zaher Al-Khatib said on November 13: "It will escalate and develop technologically. The martyrdom operations are no longer the only kind of operations in Palestine. The martyrdom operations have become a strategy. A strategy doesn't mean that we carry out these operations whenever possible; it means [real] military operations.... There is an infrastructure of resistance that wages battles, enters Ashdod, crosses borders, penetrates military zones, conducts operations as in Ashdod, and so on."

American officials intimately involved in the Oslo Accords now publicly state that more attention should have been paid to the issue of Palestinian incitement, and what the Arabs were saying amongst themselves about peace in Arabic. With Yasser Arafat gone, the U.S. should be paying close attention to his heirs to understand their true intentions.

If the Palestinians want to wage Jihad then it is incumbent upon Israel to fight back. It is the Israeli government's responsibility. to it's citizens. to win the war.

Europe Seems To Lack The Ability To
Think With Nuance
ABC News Lies About Pym Fortuyn

This article really bugged me for both reasons:

Dec. 7, 2004 — It was not what she said, but the way she looked and her manner of dress that had the crowd hooting and jeering as she addressed a conference in Paris last year. When Salma Yaqoob, a 32-year-old British Muslim activist, took the stand at the November 2003 European Social Forum, she was taken aback by the ruckus.

As chairwoman of the Stop the War Coalition in Birmingham, England, Yaqoob was in Paris to talk about the backlash against British Muslims sparked off by the war on terror during a session titled "Dimensions of Islam." But it was her veil, or hijab, that turned into the subject of an acrimonious dispute.

This was months before France passed a controversial law banning head scarves in public schools, and Yaqoob, a psychotherapist who took up community service shortly after the 9/11 attacks, says she was rattled by the audience hostility.

"I was genuinely shocked how people reacted just because I happened to be wearing a hijab," Yaqoob recalled in a phone interview. "It was actually a very upsetting experience. It was shocking to see people so passionate and, in my view, so ignorant of basic things, basic things like etiquette. [They] felt they had a right to behave that way in the name of what they thought was freedom and liberation."

In the Netherlands — a country famed for its relaxed attitude to everything from pot smoking to prostitution — at least 14 Muslim buildings and schools were attacked in the troubled days following the killing of a Dutch filmmaker by a suspected Islamist extremist. Postings in online chat rooms showed a rising anti-Muslim feeling. "Today is the day I became a racist," read one typical message.

And when a TV contest recently asked viewers to name the "greatest Dutchman ever," they chose Pim Fortuyn — a self-avowed anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant politician who was killed by a white animal rights activist in 2002.

First, America is commonly derided for it's supposed racism and xenophobia. However, you never hear of incidents like the one mentioned here involving Salma Yaqoob. Americans don't do that kind of thing. Of course, I'm sure it will happen, or has happened, but, if so, then it is extremely rare.

And, you know, I thought the Euros were good with nuanced thought. How nuanced is it to jeer a woman for wearing a hijab? If they were jeering her for her ideas that would be reasonable, but that's not what the article describes. I guess when the Euros get attacked by Muslim terrorist they immediately broadbrush all Muslims as terrorists. Hmm. Who woula thunk it?

The other thing that bugged me about this article is the fact that it blatantly, and really slanderously, lies about Pym Fortuyn. He was not "a self-avowed anti-Muslim ... politician." Nor was he anti-Muslim. In fact, I don't think he was even anti-Immigration.

Instead Pym Fortuyn was an openly gay man who had Muslim friends and lovers, and everybody knew it. And that was what gave him the credibility to criticize the more dangerous elements of the Muslim population in Denmark, and to attack the runaway North African immigration which contributed to these problems.

Now, isn't that a completely different thing?

Germans Say
Israel Is Exterminating The Palestinians

From the Jerusalem Post, via Little Green Footballs:

Six decades after the mass extermination of six million Jews in the Holocaust by Nazi Germany, more than 50 percent of Germans believe that Israel’s present-day treatment of the Palestinians is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews during World War II, a German survey released this weekend shows.

51 percent of respondents said that there is not much of a difference between what Israel is doing to the Palestinians today and what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust, compared to 49% who disagreed with such a comparison, according to the poll carried out by Germany’s University of Bielefeld.

The survey also found that 68 percent of Germans believe that Israel is waging a “war of extermination” against the Palestinians, while some 32% disagreed with such a statement.
In a first reaction, the chairman of Yad Vashem’s directorate Avner Shalev said Tuesday that the poll’s results, which he termed “very worrisome,” were indicative of a long-suppressed felling of anti-Semitism among the mainstream “so-called liberals” population which now, under the coating of anti-Israeli criticism, are becoming legitimate again. He added that the poll’s results, which he said any objective person would repudiate, are also the result of the release of pent-up feelings of guilt built up from the Holocaust.

Roger Simon says he believes Germany is trying to demonize the Israeli's to excuse themselves for the Holocaust. I agree.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Praise Be To Allah

There's been so much going on that I've been falling behind lately. So, in the name of Allah, here's a links dump:

Dennis Prager says it used to be the conservative who were easily offended, but now it's the left. I say that's just more evidence of a reversing of the poles in politics. The Right fights for the Human Rights of the Iraqi's and the Left supports fascists like the Palestinian Authority. The resulting confusion, and reorientation, has left us in a state where we need Mr. Bean to tell us what's up. Now, that's funny.

It's gotten to the point that the Pope has to seriously warn the world against Christianophobia.

Wretchard points out that the Left uses, what Elias Canetti called, the true tools of totalitarianism; "the right to question and to demand answers, the right to judge and condemn, and the right to pardon and show mercy."

Those are terrifying tools, true, but I would say that to shut down a Jewish school for no purpose other than to foment anti-Semitism in order to consolidate your power, is much more terrifying. That's what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. Great, huh? Roger Simon says,

"Jews have always been the canary in the coal mine. When they are attacked, everyone's freedom is in jeopardy. In the words of prominent Venezuelan journalist Carlos Blanco:
"That this red light be of use for all of those who fight for freedom; when a Jew is attacked for being such, we enter in a zone of total and absolute risk for the free thinking and existence of all, Jews and non Jews alike."

In France and all over the Arab world, they run canary killing programming on TV 24 hours a day. Hezbollah's TV Network al-Manar runs an eclectic mix of Jew-hatred including:

"The Spider’s House is a talk show dedicated in part to uncovering the weaknesses of the “Zionist entity.” The program claims that Israel can be destroyed through a combination of low-intensity warfare and a demographic shift in favor of Arabs, the latter facilitated by implementing the Palestinian right of return to all of pre-1948 Palestine."

Sounds like they've got their plan all worked out. I wonder if the world will buy it.

Hat tip to Dave Budge. Thank you very much for the help.

Thus Spake The Fu2rman
Denver And It's Political Correctness Fiasco

My good friend, the Fu2rman (I know him as Fu2), started a new blog recently. Here's an excerpt from a post:

You had better not have a Christmas Parade!

Denver found that out.

... when a church in Denver wanted to enter the Denver Parade of Lights and sing Christmas caroles, they of course, were rejected."Our policy, which we have applied consistently for years, is to not include religious or political messages in the parade --in the interest of not excluding any group," said Jim Basey, the president of the Downtown Denver Partnership.

I'm fine with no political messages, but why exclude to include? That just sounds stupid, did you hear yourself say that? Did you cringe as that left your lips? Did you hide under you desk the next day when you read it? Of course you did.

My friend Fu2rman is not an evangelical Christian like myself. He doesn't have any ill will towards Christianity, but he's not certainly not a church-goer. I mention this not to speak for him (I don't want to do that. He can write in and correct me if I'm wrong), but only to make a point. That is, he was the second non-Christian to call me yesterday and speak with livid anger about what happened in Denver.

Who was the other one? Well, remember my friend, the ultra-lib who pitches scripts in Hollywood? Yep, that friend. (Editor says: note how many non-Christian friends the Proprietor of this blog has. That's interesting, huh? An open-minded Christian? Couldn't be, could it?)

The Ultra-lib remarked in an angry, and sarcastically amused tone that the libs (his friends, hee hee) were "turning our country into a Totalitarian state, like the Communists." He went on to make a great point, which was that the fact that people, like himself, hate Bush so much is exactly what drives them to do these things (That's when he sounded sarcastically amused, by the way).

Well, jeez, beat it all. I agree with him completely. Finally, something upon which we can all agree. Even these guys.

Let the healing begin.

Monday, December 06, 2004

Rewriting History

Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs has long been expressing his anger over the MSM's use of words like "militant," "resistance," etc. when they really mean terrorist. Recently, he noted that Reuter's has taken to using the word "activist" in place of terrorist. That does seem downright evil, doesn't it?

Anyway, I guess Charles figures if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Read his newest:

Saudi Activists Stage Demonstration

Islamic activists tried to air their grievances by murdering Americans in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia today, but were thwarted when their oppressors hid in a fortified room. The activists were then disenfranchised by Saudi security forces.

He was referring to this news story.

Hee hee. That's classic.

Can you imagine if history were written this way:

The United States neutralized Japan's resistance in the town of Hiroshima. Eighty thousand people were subdued.

Adolph Hitler implemented his plan to quash the Jewish rebellion. All told six million people of Hebraic origin were chastened.

Stalin effectuated a strict nutrition plan for the Ukranians. One million citizens participated.

Man, I feel a new blog coming on.

Moderate Muslims Start Petition
Against Islamofascist Preachers of Hate

This is cause for celebration. However, this article makes the point that, while the moderate Muslism are doing the right thing here, it will be up to the UN to act on the petition. Eric Stalkebeck doesn't think it's likely. From Front Page Magazine:

While the U.N. has long been awash in its own depravity—as evidenced by Secretary General Kofi Annan’s recent “warning” to Coalition forces to avoid an assault on Fallujah, not to mention the burgeoning oil-for-food scandal—from time to time, opportunities still arise for that feckless institution to accomplish some good.

The latest one is a petition by several liberal Arab and Muslim thinkers advocating the creation of an international tribunal that would prosecute radical Islamist clerics whose sermons contain incitements to violence and terrorism.

The authors of the proposal, which originated in late October on the liberal Arab websites and, hope to eventually acquire 10,000 signatures, which they will then present to the U.N. Over 2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries have signed on thus far.

However, given that the petition does not call for severe measures against their favorite target, Israel, Annan and his minions will likely show little interest. This is unfortunate, because at alarming rates, Islamist clerics continue to encourage their followers to wage global jihad against non-Muslims and moderate Muslims alike.

In November, a group of 26 Saudi clerics and so-called “scholars” released a letter urging Iraqis to support “militants waging holy war against the U.S.-led coalition forces.”

The letter, which was posted on the Internet, described terrorist attacks on U.S. troops and their allies in Iraq as “legitimate” resistance and declared “fighting the occupiers is a duty for all those who are able.”

Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., quickly condemned the letter and said that it did not represent the views of the Saudi government. Yet several of the signatories hold teaching positions at state-run Saudi universities, and another, Safar Al-Hawali, has worked for the Saudi government as a “mediator” in its negotiations with Al-Qaeda—despite his close ties to Osama bin Laden and several of the 9/11 hijackers.

Thanks to his work with the House of Saud, Al-Hawali, who openly preaches the destruction of the U.S. and Israel and is thought to have maintained contact with bin Laden even after the 9/11 attacks, is now regarded as a moderate voice by media outlets like the Associated Press, BBC and Reuters.

Another extremist cleric who has been embraced by the mainstream press is the Egyptian-born Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, a leader of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood movement and a vocal advocate of suicide bombings.

In August, Al-Qaradawi, who was given a hero’s welcome by the mayor of London during a visit there last summer, issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling for the abduction and killing of American civilians in Iraq. In response to the ensuing uproar, Al-Qaradawi, in an effort to maintain his moderate image, released a statement claiming he had been misquoted.

Yet, that same month, Al-Qaradawi was one of 93 sheikhs to sign a petition calling on Muslims around the world to join with the Al-Mahdi Army of extremist cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr in its fight against American forces in Iraq. It was Al-Sadr’s jihadist incitements that spearheaded a bloody, months-long campaign by terrorists against Coalition forces in Najaf that only recently subsided.

But this inflammatory language isn’t limited to clerics in the Middle East. In recent months, France has deported several radical imams (Memes note: Good job France), and Britain continues to host some of the most incendiary preachers this side of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, leaders of the recently disbanded Al-Muhajiroun group, which sought to transform Britain into an Islamic state and even held conferences honoring the 9/11 hijackers (whom it called “The Magnificent 19”), continue to preach freely in London.

In Germany, authorities are considering requiring Muslim clergy to deliver sermons in German instead of Arabic. This after an imam in a Berlin mosque was captured on tape recently saying that, “Germans can only expect to rot in the fires of hell because they are non-believers.” For good measure, he even decried Europeans’ supposed lack of personal hygiene, proclaiming, “these non-believers, these Europeans, they do not even shave under their armpits, so sweat gathers in their body-hair and makes them stink.” The sermon, which was translated and broadcast on state television, has caused an uproar across Germany.

Canada is having similar difficulties. In a lecture posted on the website of Vancouver’s Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society in October, one Sheikh Younus Kathrada called for an “offensive jihad” and labeled Jews “the brothers of monkeys and swine.”

It’s clear that the kind of hateful rhetoric espoused by Kathrada and other radical clerics—which is broadcast regularly on Al-Jazeera and other Arab networks for millions of impressionable young Middle Easterners to digest—inspires Islamist terrorism. Now that the U.N. is going to be presented with a petition that would hold these preachers of hate accountable, it will be interesting to see how it responds.

If the U.N.’s reaction to Yasser Arafat’s recent death is any indication (flags outside the U.N. building in New York flew at half-mast, while inside, Kofi Annan led an hour-long tribute to the deceased terror master), the petition won’t go very far.

To defeat terrorism, one must be prepared to confront not only those who practice it, but also those who preach it; unfortunately, these are two steps which the U.N. has never shown the slightest interest in taking.