Monday, February 07, 2005

The Fanatics Have Fewer and Fewer Answers

From Christopher Hitchens, participating in a symposium, in Front Page Magazine, on the inevitabity of Democracy:

Christopher Hitchens: Since the overdue removal of Saddam Hussein, and the extraordinary elections in Afghanistan, there have been unmistakeable signs of democratic and modernising tendencies in Syria, in Lebanon and in Iran. One cannot therefore capitulate to fatalism and say that Islamic societies are immune to the common human wish for a civilized, law-governed, open society. To that extent, Mr. Sharansky is quite right, and it is very moving to see that the ideas of Academician Sakharov can be promulgated and re-transmitted in this way. Sharansky was also quite correct in pointing out the authoritarian subtext of the so-called "Oslo accords", and would no doubt agree that Arab Palestinian members of the Knesset were demonstrating the virtues of democracy, often against considerable odds, even when many of them were Communists.

Many of those Palestinian leftists and democrats were and are Christian, which brings me to another point. The Muslim world, especially under Turkish rule, was often exemplary in its attitude to minorities. But the contemporary Arab world is not. The Berbers, the Copts, the Jews, the Kurds, the's an awful record, which we do nothing to improve when we unconsciously accept the claim that Iraq, say, is an Arab and Muslim state when it is, in reality, no more so than America is a white and Christian one.

The critical argument concerns the possibility, to put it no higher, of a "Reformation" within Islam. In one sense, this is unlikely, because - rather to its credit - Islam has no Papacy or clergy which can simply ordain a change of doctrine or a revision of faith. However, from Indonesia to Western Europe, there is a struggle over the interpretation of the religion and its book, and the adaptation of both to other cultures and to modernity in general. The "fit" between this and democratization is not by any means an exact one, because it very often happens that the "reformers", like our Puritan forebears, are more exacting in their religious zeal than some of the Islamic regimes that they seek to challenge.
However, the process has at least begun, and the fanatics have fewer and fewer answers, which is why they employ ever-crueller and more stupid tactics. We must be ready at all times and in all ways to lend a hand in forwarding and encouraging this debate, which is why the nonsensically-named "war on terror" is actually a struggle, as an earlier Russian hero put it, "for your freedom - and ours".

Clearly, there is a tendency in human beings to see their enemies as monolithic, unchanging, and all-powerful. Being that our enemies are human beings, constrained by the same forces of humanity and nature as we, this is never the case. Hitchens here makes a great point that as we provide more and more positive answers for the Muslim world, the Islamofascists reasoning will come to look increasingly inhuman and barbaric to the peoples of the Arab World.

Ward Churchill
Anti-American, Anti-Semite

Wretchard, from Belmont Club, discusses Paul Campos' editorial stating that Ward Churchill is a fascist:

The most interesting part of Professor Campos' article lies in his description of fascism, all the elements of which, he argues, are present in Churchill's work.

As a political inclination and an aesthetic style, fascism is marked by, among other things, the following characteristics:

The worship of violence as a purifying social force.

A hyper-nationalistic ideology, that casts history into a drama featuring an inevitably violent struggle between Good and Evil, and that obsesses on questions of racial and ethnic identity.
The dehumanization and scapegoating of opponents ... demands that the evil in our midst be eradicated "by any means necessary," up to and including the mass extermination of entire nations and peoples.

The treatment of moral responsibility as a fundamentally collective matter.

Campos argues that these propositions would probably have been intolerable if uttered by a white man but were possibly countenanced because they emanated from an oppressed Native American who may happen to be -- oops -- a white man. But despite its potential for comedy, Professor Campos finds nothing funny in the matter. He asks how such a ridiculous situation could have arisen in the first place.

The question of whether a serious research university ought to hire someone like Churchill is laughable on its face. What's not so funny is the question of exactly how someone like him got hired in the first place, and then tenured and named the head of a department.

That, in the end, is a more important question than what will or ought to happen to Churchill now. Churchill is a pathetic buffoon, but the University of Colorado is far from alone in having allowed itself to toss intellectual integrity and human decency overboard in the pursuit of worthy goals. ...

That through whatever combination of negligence, cowardice and complicity we have allowed Ward Churchill to besmirch those ideals by invoking them in the defense of his contemptible rantings is now our burden and our shame.

While the University of Colorado is casting the Churchill controversy as a freedom of speech issue (that's simplifying it a little. See Eugene Volokh for a real lawyer's take) some thought ought to be given to University's obligation to provide a reasonable standard of instruction to students. Students attend a university to receive a sound education and a credential. There is an implicit contract between the student and university that a reasonable education will be provided in exchange for the time, effort and money spent studying. It is hard to see how the University's end of the bargain will be kept if it allows it students to be instructed in ethnic studies by a fake Indian teaching fascism. One might be forgiven for wondering whether the students aren't being shortchanged.

So, what are Ward Churchill's credentials? Edward Alexandre, at Front Page Magazine, provides some insight:

Prior to this incident, Churchill's scholarly reputation was based mainly on a squalid tract called A Little Matter of Genocide (1997), in which he argues that the murder of European Jews was not at all a "fixed policy objective of the Nazis," and accuses Jews of seeking to monopolize for themselves all that beautiful Holocaust suffering that other groups would very much like, ex post facto, to share.

He also argues that Jewish "exclusivism" had nearly erased from history the victims of other genocidal campaigns, and that Jewish scholars stressed the Holocaust in order to "construct a conceptual screen behind which to hide the realities of Israel's ongoing genocide against the Palestinian population."

He not only likened Jewish scholars who have argued for the unique character of the Holocaust to neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers; he said that the Jews are worse than the latter-day Nazis because "those who deny the Holocaust, after all, focus their distortion upon one target. Those [Jewish scholars] who deny all holocausts other than that of the Jews have the same effect upon many."

Given the current academic atmosphere, it is a safe bet that what might delicately be called Churchill's shortage of sympathy in the Jewish direction made him a strong candidate to head Colorado's Ethnic Studies program. Such "academic" extremism is the order of the day on campus, and Churchill’s ideology of hatred is just one small example of an all too prevalent phenomenon on campus.

In the aftermath of 9/11, a professor at University of New Mexico effervescently declaimed: "Anyone who can blow up the Pentagon gets my vote." An academician at University of Massachusetts told his students that "The American flag is a symbol of terrorism and death and fear and destruction and oppression."

At Columbia University, Professor Nicholas DeGenova vaulted to national renown when he declared, at an anti-war rally in March 2003, that "U.S. patriotism is inseparable from...white supremacy" and then expressed the "wish for a million Mogadishus in Iraq." (This was a reference to the 1993 incident in Somalia when eighteen U. S. troops were killed.)

In June 2002, Trent University philosophy professor Michael Neumann declared (in Alexander Cockburn's online publication Counterpunch) that "if an effective strategy [for promoting the Palestinian cause] means encouraging vicious, racist anti-Semitism or the destruction of the state of Israel, I still don't care." And Noam Chomsky, the godfather of anti-Americanism (and the person whom historian Arthur Schlesinger long ago (1969) called the consummate "intellectual crook") pontificated: "Let me repeat: the U.S. has demanded that Pakistan kill possibly millions of people..." And so on ad nauseam.

These professorial fulminations all follow an anti-American, anti-Semitic, tenacious attachment to the motto: "the other country, right or wrong." And this uniformity of opinion often has a comic element to it, for these extremist professors nearly always present themselves as brave dissenters confronted by a mob of thick-skinned louts; in fact, they belong, more than any other segment of American society, to a community of CONSENT, in which "diversity" means that people look different but think exactly alike.
But what is more disturbing than the opinions uniformly expressed is the hysteria, bordering on mental imbalance, which characterizes them. People we used to think of as harmless drudges pursuing moldy futilities are now revealing to us the explosive power of boredom, a power that may well frighten us.

God, it gets old, me pointing all these anti-Semitic, anti-American people from around the world. It almost seems like I'll just call anybody these names, for almost any reason. But, come on, I mean how could you call Ward Churchill anything else. Campos' declaration that Churchill is a buffoon is accurate, but, as Edward Alexandre points out here in the Front Page article the level of hysteria is disturbing and, even, frightening.

People like Churchill may not live in the real world, but their words impede on the real world and have an effect. We need to start taking them very seriously.

Eason Jordan
The New Benedict Arnold?
Malkin Talks To Senator Frank
About Eason Jordan

I have ignored the Eason Jordan story on this blog til now merely because I have been overwhelmed and I don't think I have anything to add to the great work of Hugh Hewitt, Captain's Quarters, LGF, Powerline, or Michelle Malkin. But, here's a news scoop I can't help but post. Michelle Malkin talked to Senator Barney Frank and he confirmed the story that Jordan did, in fact, claim, at the Davos Conference, that the American Military has "targeted" journalists:

Just got off the phone with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who spoke with me about Easongate. Rep. Frank was on the panel at Davos.

Rep. Frank said Eason Jordan did assert that there was deliberate targeting of journalists by the U.S. military. After Jordan made the statement, Rep. Frank said he immediately "expressed deep skepticism." Jordan backed off (slightly), Rep. Frank said, "explaining that he wasn't saying it was the policy of the American military to target journalists, but that there may have been individual cases where they were targeted by younger personnel who were not properly disciplined."

Rep. Frank said he didn't pay attention to the audience reaction at the time of the panel, but recalled that Sen. Dodd was "somewhat disturbed" and "somewhat exercised" and that moderator David Gergen also said Jordan's assertions were "disturbing if true." I have a call in to Sen. Dodd's office and sent an e-mail inquiry to Gergen.

I asked Rep. Frank again if his recollection was that Jordan initially maintained that the military had a deliberate policy of targeting journalists. Rep. Frank affirmed that, noting that Jordan subsequently backed away orally and in e-mail that it was official policy, but "left open the question" of whether there were individual cases in which American troops targeted journalists.

After the panel was over and he returned to the U.S., Rep. Frank said he called Jordan and expressed willingness to pursue specific cases if there was any credible evidence that any American troops targeted journalists. "Give me specifics," Rep. Frank said he told Jordan.
Rep. Frank has not yet heard back yet from Jordan.

Jay Rosen interviewed BBC director Richard Sambrook, who was also on the panel, and has significantly different recollections of what Jordan said.
(Pastorius note: Here's why you shouldn't believe Richard Sambrook):

Captain Ed, intrepid Eason-watcher, reacts to the Sambrook statement with proper skepticism and once again puts Jordan/CNN's stake in proper perspective.


Bill Roggio of will be on the radio at 1:20pm EST today to discuss the latest developments.

And Jim Geraghty asks: Is this about right and left? Or right or wrong?

Jordan's claims are either true (which I seriously doubt) or they veer very close to the treasonous. My opinion is that if it is proven that Jordan is lying, then we have a new bar set for traitorous behavior. Eason Jordan appears to be the new Benedict Arnold. He should not only lose his job, but he should be ostracized from American society altogether. Let him move to France. They'll love his lies there.

I love how the BBC's Sambrook is covering for Jordan. What a load.

British Police Refuse to Protect Muslims
Threatened With Death For Apostacy

Maybe posting won't be so light after all.


Anyway, this is from Melanie Phillips' blog:

Another important article by Anthony Browne in the Times last Saturday reported on the horrifying consequences for British Muslims who try to leave Islam for Christianity. They face not merely being shunned by their family and community, but attacked, kidnapped, and in some cases killed. And yet the police do not offer them protection:

'For police, religious authorities and politicians, it is an issue so sensitive that they are accused by victims of refusing to respond to appeals for help. It is a problem that, with the crisis of identity in Islam since September 11, seems to be getting worse as Muslims feel more threatened...Mr Hussein told The Times: “It’s been absolutely appalling. This is England — where I was born and raised. You would never imagine Christians would suffer in such a way.” The police have not charged anyone, but told him to leave the area. “We feel completely isolated, utterly helpless. I have been utterly failed by the authorities. If it was white racists attacking an Asian guy, there would be an absolute outcry,” he said. “They are trying to ethnically cleanse me out of my home. I feel I have to make a stand as an Asian Christian.” '

The government wants to create a new crome of incitement to religious hatred because it says it wants to combat 'Islamphobia'. Isn't this the real Islamophobia, where the police -- and, for that matter, the astonishingly silent churches -- are too frightened to confront the intimidation and violence being carried out in the name of Islam?

The "new crome of incitement" to which she refers is legislation which is being considered by Parliament on a law which would make it a crime to criticize Islam. In other words, in a time when the bulk of racism, and sometimes deadly racism, is coming from Muslims, the British government is working to give Muslims, and thus the racists within their rank, even more protection.

The Saudi Government
Publishes Racist Hate Material
Sends It To American Mosques

Yes, the headline is true. And, in addition, the American Mosques display the material. This is a big problem. And for some reason the mainstream press is ignoring it. The Dallas Morning News has to my knowledge, been the only paper in the U.S. to carry the story. From the Dallas Morning News, via LGF:

Anti-Jewish and anti-American propaganda published by the Saudi Arabian government has been on display at U.S. mosques, according to an American human rights group.

The publications — including some found in the largest mosque in the Dallas area — urge Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and to refuse service in “infidel” armies.

The preachings are in keeping with tenets of Wahhabi theology, the brand of Islam that prevails in Saudi Arabia.

The Freedom House report on Saudi writings quotes from 57 publications collected from 15 mosques. Statements from the publications include:

“[T]he cursing of the Christians is permissible, same as the cursing of the Jews.” — Islamic Research Magazine, 1999, found in the Islamic Society of Greater Houston North Zone
“Zionism ... is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance.” — Writings at the Dawn of the Fifteenth Century, no publication date, found in the Dar al Hijra Islamic Center in Falls Church, Va.

“To be dissociated from the infidels is to hate them for their religion, to leave them, never to rely on them for support, not to admire them, to be on one’s guard against them, never to imitate them and always to oppose them in every way according to Islamic law.” — Loyalty and Dissociation in Islam, no publication date, found in the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. — Reality of Monotheism and Polytheism, 2002, collected from Al-Farouq Masjid, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Update from LGF. This very morning the Dallas Morning News ran an editorial condemning the Saudi hate evangelism:

The 9/11 Commission report said America isn’t fighting a war on “some generic evil” called terrorism, but a war on Islamist terrorism. What are we to make, then, of the startling fact that some of our Saudi allies are seeding U.S. mosques with enemy propaganda?

The nonpartisan Freedom House recently released a report on the spread of Saudi-sponsored hate literature. In 2003, investigators visited leading American mosques and collected written material available to congregants. The documents, originating either with the Saudi government or Saudi-funded sources, advocate Wahhabism, the extremist form of Islam that Freedom House describes as a “fanatically bigoted, xenophobic and sometimes violent ideology.”

According to the report (available at, investigators gathered literature that teaches contempt for Jews, Christians and tolerant Muslims, as well as hatred for America. Material found in a Houston mosque even commands the faithful to establish a revolutionary fifth column.

Some of these documents came from the Dallas Central Mosque in Richardson. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is not altogether alien to this mosque. Last spring, it hosted a youth quiz competition, sponsored by two national organizations closely tied to the worldwide Islamist movement. Kids were tested on the work of premier jihad ideologist Sayyid Qutb.

The mosque’s imam, Dr. Yusuf Kavakci, has publicly praised two of the world’s foremost radical Islamists, Yusuf Qaradawi and Hasan al-Turabi, as exemplary leaders. Dr. Kavakci also sits on the board of the Saudi-backed Islamic Society of North America, described in congressional testimony as a major conduit of Wahhabist teaching. Yet Dr. Kavakci tells The Dallas Morning News he rejects Wahhabist teaching. Something doesn’t add up.

Charles provides links to the various Islamofascists cited in the article:

Sayyid Qutb is the author of “Milestones,” the Mein Kampf of the global jihad movement—and it’s highly disturbing to learn that Muslim children are being indoctrinated with this foul work of fascist xenophobia, in the United States.

You can find the document containing Dr. Kavakci’s praise of Yusuf Qaradawi and Hasan al-Turabi at the Islamic Association of North Texas web site; see the link titled “Hamidullah: A Biography.” (The document may disappear now that we’ve linked to it; we saved a copy.)

In the post above I comment on how the British government is going in the wrong direction in it's fight against Islamofascism within it's country. While America is doing a little better job, it is clear that our politically-correct Media is doing everything it can to ignore the Islamist racists in our midst. Once again, the Dallas Morning News is the only major media outlet who have covered this story.

Freedom Is The First Law Of God

Someguy, at Mystery Achievement posted some thoughts on Law and Freedom the other day. I think they are very much worth consideration. Someguy says his hopes for democracy taking root in the Muslim world has been buoyed by the recent elections. In addition, his hopes have been strengthened by a book he is reading call We Hold These Truths, by Fr. John Courtney Murray. Somguy summarizes some of Fr. Murphy's thoughts:

--Good laws commend themselves to (potentially) the consciences of all people because they all have the capacity to recognize the Good by virtue of their having been made in the image of God. This is what, in theory, makes the rule of law possible.
--The most important freedom protected by law is the freedom of worship (which includes the freedom not to worship).
--Laws designed to protect freedom of worship are properly understood not as articles of faith (that is, statements of creedal content which are owed what the New Testament refers to as "the obedience of faith"), but rather as "articles of peace" (that is, arrangements that establish and maintain social peace by ensuring fair and impartial treatment of all religious groups before the law in a religiously pluralistic society).
If the above is true, then what I propose is this: That Iraq--or any other Muslim nation adopting democracy and the rule of law--is capable of establishing and maintaining a peaceful, religiously pluralistic society.

Yes, I agree. My friend Jack, over at Jack of Clubs, has articulated, in personal conversations we have had, the need for an absolute free market of ideas. Jack is convinced that if all ideas are given the same opportunity to prove their worth, then the good ideas will win out.

I agree with Jack. Freedom of choice is the most basic component of the nature of man.

To me, the fact that we are free is the first Law of God. When God created us in His Image, we were created free. That is before everything else, and must be protected ahead of everything else. I think of this as an article of faith, and do not separate it from faith, as Fr. Murray does, because it is the first necessary thing required for us to worship God in the fullness of our nature.

Since 9/11, I have come to agree with John Milton in believing that the Fall of man was a "Fortunate Fall." I believe this because, watching events such as the Iraqi election reveal that there is no greater manifestation of God's Power and Glory than seeing things put right. It is fortunate that we have been given, by Grace, the ability to play a role in the expression of God's Glory.

Light Posting Ahead

I may not be posting as much for the next couple of weeks. I have bitten off a little more than I can chew personally, and I have found that for the last four or five days my inclination to actually think through the things I read has suffered.

Therefore, when I do post an article, I doubt that I will add much in the way of analysis.

Saturday, February 05, 2005

The Democratic Bloodbath

From the Media Research Center:

On Monday’s Early Show, CBS’s Dan Rather was ebullient. “This is an inspiring story and this is a joyful place today. Iraqis awoke today with a glint, a sparkle of freedom in their eyes,” Rather exulted one day after millions of Iraqis voted in a free democratic election. “Even some areas influenced most by Sunni insurgents had a solid turnout yesterday,” Rather noted. “The insurgents have suffered a significant setback.”

Rather was right to be cheered by Sunday’s events, but if the Iraqis had listened to the chorus of negativity coming from reporters in the days and weeks before the vote, he might not have had any good news to report. Pessimistic journalists suggested the election would be worthless and dangerous: Too few would vote to make the results “legitimate” while at the same time an army of terrorists would create a “bloodbath.”

Election Might “Demolish” Iraq: On his syndicated Chris Matthews Show this weekend, the openly anti-war MSNBC anchor comically suggested that the election might destroy Iraq. In a show taped before voting began, Matthews set up the topic: “Birth of a nation — will elections unite Iraq or ignite civil war? Will this weekend's vote create a country or demolish it?...For Iraqis, a moment teeming with risk and potential: liberation or devastation.”
■ A “Bloodbath” on Sunday: FNC war reporter Steve Harrigan, who spent most of the last two years in Iraq, was deeply pessimistic in a Friday morning appearance on Fox & Friends. “I think there’s going to be a bloodbath on Sunday,” he predicted. “All over the place, especially in Baghdad and a few other cities, Mosul....About half the country’s in big trouble.” NBC’s Matt Lauer hit the same theme as he began that morning’s Today: “Bloody countdown. Amid growing violence, will Iraq be able to hold its first free elections in more than 50 years?”

■ “No Way” Election Can Happen: Two months ago, some reporters suggested that the plan for holding elections on January 30 was an optimistic fantasy. On the November 26 Today, NBC’s Katie Couric said elections “seem to be really questionable at this point in time.” A few days later, on the December 5 Evening News, weekend anchor Mika Brzezinski declared that the situation in Iraq “seems only to worsen as election day gets closer and closer....Some are now saying there is no way the election deadline can be met.”

■ ...And No Legitimacy: Reporters argued the vote would mean nothing if the minority Sunnis stayed home. “If nearly a quarter of the population does not participate,” ABC’s David Wright wondered on World News Tonight January 5, “will the vote be legitimate?” And anyone predicting a high participation rate was labeled an “optimist,” i.e., unrealistic. “Election officials optimistically predict a 50 percent voter turnout,” reporter Kimberly Dozier announced on CBS’s Early Show January 25. In fact, the turnout was much higher, with early estimates that 60 percent of Iraqis voted.

■ Jennings Still Unsatisfied: On Sunday’s World News Tonight, ABC’s Peter Jennings seemed less than impressed. “It seemed a strange way to experience the democratic process, from the back of a heavily-armored vehicle,” he grumped. In “parts of the Sunni Muslim heartland, it looks as if the election process has been rejected,” Jennings sourly suggested. “Without Sunni participation, somehow, the future here is still pretty bleak.”

I'm waiting to hear aplogies. Have you heard any yet?

A Summary Leftist Idiocy
Since 9/11

From Victor David Hanson at the National Review:

Do we even remember "all that" now? The lunacy that appeared after 9/11 that asked us to look for the "root causes" to explain why America may have "provoked" spoiled mama's boys like bin Laden and Mohammed Atta to murder Americans at work? Do we recall the successive litany of "you cannot win in Afghanistan/you cannot reconstruct such a mess/you cannot jumpstart democracy there"? And do we have memory still of "Sharon the war criminal," and "the apartheid wall," and, of course, "Jeningrad," the supposed Israeli-engineered Stalingrad — or was it really Leningrad? Or try to remember Arafat in his Ramallah bunker talking to international groupies who flew in to hear the old killer's jumbled mishmash about George Bush, the meanie who had ostracized him.

Then we were told that if we dared invade the ancient caliphate, Saddam would kill thousands and exile millions more. And when he was captured in a cesspool, the invective continued during the hard reconstruction that oil, Halliburton, the Jews, the neocons, Richard Perle, and other likely suspects had suckered us into a "quagmire" or was it now "Vietnam redux"? And recall that in response we were supposed to flee, or was it to trisect Iraq? The elections, remember, would not work — or were held too soon or too late. And give the old minotaur Senator Kennedy his due, as he lumbered out on the eve of the Iraqi voting to hector about its failure and call for withdrawal — one last hurrah that might yet rescue the cherished myth that the United States had created another Vietnam and needed his sort of deliverance.

And then there was the parade of heroes who were media upstarts of the hour — the brilliant Hans Blixes, Joe Wilsons, Anonymouses, and Richard Clarkes — who came, wrote their books, did their fawning interviews on 60 Minutes, Nightline, and Larry King, and then faded to become footnotes to our collective pessimism.

Do not dare forget our Hollywood elite. At some point since 9/11, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Meryl Streep, Jessica Lange, Whoopi Goldberg, and a host of others have lectured the world that their America is either misled, stupid, evil, or insane, bereft of the wisdom of Hollywood's legions of college drop-outs, recovering bad boys, and self-praised autodidacts.

Remember the twisted logic of the global throng as well: Anyone who quit the CIA was a genius in his renegade prognostication; anyone who stayed was a toady who botched the war. Three- and four-star generals who went on television or ran for office were principled dissidents who "told the truth"; officers in the field who kept quiet and saved Afghanistan and Iraq were "muzzled" careerists. Families of the 9/11 victims who publicly trashed George Bush offered the nation "grassroots" cries of the heart; the far greater number who supported the war on terror were perhaps "warped" by their grief.

There were always the untold "minor" embarrassments that we were to ignore as the slight slips of the "good" people — small details like the multibillion-dollar Oil-for-Food scandal that came to light due to the reporting of a single brave maverick, Claudia Rosett, or Rathergate, disclosed by "pajama"-clad bloggers without journalism degrees from Columbia, sojourns at the Kennedy School, or internships with the Washington Post. To put it into Animal Farm speak: elite New York Times, CBS News, and PBS good; populist bloggers, talk-radio, and cable news bad.

In place of Harry Truman and JFK we got John Kerry calling the once-maimed Prime Minister Allawi a "puppet," Senator Murray praising bin Laden's social-welfare work, Senator Boxer calling Secretary of State Rice a veritable liar for agreeing with the various casus belli that Boxer's own Senate colleagues had themselves passed in October 2002. And for emotional and financial support, the Democratic insiders turned to George Soros and Michael Moore, who assured them that their president was either Hitlerian, a dunce, or a deserter.

Then there was our media's hysteria: Donald Rumsfeld should be sacked in the midst of war; Abu Ghraib was the moral equivalent of everything from Saddam's gulag to the Holocaust; the U.S. military purportedly tried to kill reporters; and always the unwillingness or inability to condemn the beheaders, fascists, and suicide murderers, who sought to destroy any shred of liberalism. Meanwhile, the isolation of a corrupt Arafat, the withdrawal of 10,000 Americans from a Wahhabi theocracy, the transformation of the world's far-right monstrosities into reformed democracies, and the pull-back of some troops from Germany and the DMZ went unnoticed.

What explains this automatic censure of the United States, Israel, and to a lesser extent the Anglo-democracies of the United Kingdom and Australia? Westernization, coupled with globalization, has created an affluent and leisured elite that now gravitates to universities, the media, bureaucracies, and world organizations, all places where wealth is not created, but analyzed, critiqued, and lavishly spent.

Thus we now expect that the New York Times, Harper's, Le Monde, U.N. functionaries who call us "stingy," French diplomats, American writers and actors will all (1) live a pretty privileged life; (2) in recompense "feel" pretty worried and guilty about it; (3) somehow connect their unease over their comfort with a pathology of the world's hyperpower, the United States; and (4) thus be willing to risk their elite status, power, or wealth by very brave acts such as writing anguished essays, giving pained interviews, issuing apologetic communiqués, braving the rails to Davos, and barking off-the-cuff furious remarks about their angst over themes (1) through (3) above. What a sad contrast they make with far better Iraqis dancing in the street to celebrate their voting.

Jihad Education Preschool
Through High School

From Jihad Watch:

BONN - A Koran school in the German city of Bonn has come under renewed official pressure with the revelation that a staff member's son-in-law supported al-Qaeda and was planning to blow himself up in a terrorist attack in Iraq.

The infants-to-teens King Fahd Academy narrowly escaped closure last year after education officials discovered teachers were calling for a holy war against Christendom at school assemblies and the children spent more time in indoctrination than on the three Rs.

Though reading, writing and arithmetic were well behind the standard at German state schools, hardline Islamists from around Germany were moving their families to Bonn to enrol children at the school.

Here you have an Islamofascist school in the middle of Germany, call for war against their people, and the Germans can't figure out what to do about it.

A generation of children will be infected with the idea and goal of destroying German society.

Is Germany intent on committing suicide?

Thursday, February 03, 2005

There Can Be No End To Jihad

Here's another excerpt from Christianity Today's interview with the Islamofascist Shiekh Omar Bakri:

Q: On what basis could America have peace? Could you explain the Hudaibiyya Treaty and its implications? Is it one-off or renewable?

A: What the U.S. 9/11 Commission Report stated was untrue—it is not necessary for America to convert to Islam to have peace. Muslims fight America because they are aggressors; we fight apostate Muslim governments because they are aggressors against Islamic law.

Peace could come if America withdrew its forces from the Muslim world, stopped exploiting Muslim resources such as oil, have decent relationships with Muslims, and stopped supporting the Zionist aggressors and Muslim puppet governments. In other words, "Hands off Muslim lands!" Muslims did not attack the USA—the reverse is true. 9/11 was an act of retaliation. As Bin Laden said, peace will come when the U.S. withdraws from the Muslim world.

The Hudaibiyya Treaty was a 10-year truce between Muslim Medina and the pagan Meccans, and it is a basis for today. It is also renewable. It establishes a Covenant of Security. However, this is not possible with occupiers—so it could not be established with the Zionists or their supporters.
(Pastorius Note: A Zionist is an Israeli to the Shiekh. So, we are supposed to stop supporting the existence of the state of Israel. And what is supposed to happen to Israel then?)
Q: Could you explain the concepts Bin Laden employs in his statements regarding 9/11 and other events: the House of War versus the House of Faith, and the other sphere, the House of Truce or Pact? Is the latter a basis for the end of hostilities? Can jihad ever end?

A: Dar al-Harb, which is somewhat misleadingly translated "House of War," refers to the sphere that wars against God or Muslims. The non-Islamic domain is either at war with Muslims or under treaty. Under Dar al-Ahad—the Domain of Security—the area becomes a suspended Dar al-Harb, because treaty prevents conflict, wherein there is freedom of speech, the right of religious propagation and no military aggression.
(Pastorius note: Wow, that treaty sounds like a real good deal; a "suspension of war". Wow, thanks.)

Today there is no Dar al-Islam—the whole world is Dar al-Harb because it is the sphere of non-shari'ah. (Pastorius note: Got that, anti-War protesters?) There is Dar al-Harb in terms of military aggression and occupation.

The aim of the Khilafah [Caliphate]—the ideal Islamic State, which does not presently exist—is to conquer the world, either militarily or intellectually through people converting to Islam. Under the Islamic State there is no compulsion to convert to Islam, just to have an Islamic political order.
The USA ceases to be Dar al-Amen for Muslims in America if: (1) America declares Islam to be the enemy; (2) it starts arresting or killing Muslims; (3) it bans Islamic preaching. Muslims are not allowed to fight America from within its borders when they normally live there—they must leave and then fight.

There can be no end to jihad—a hadith [narration of Muhammad] states this, but treaties can be a form of jihad. An example is the treaty relationship established between Medina and the Christian state of Najran, or the Jewish entity of Khaybar, where both were self-governing, but within Dar al-Islam.
(Pastorius note: So, wouldn't that make a treaty merely a rest stop on the way to and Islamic state? Answer, yes.)
Q: You have talked about the Islamic flag flying over Downing Street, and I have seen a hadith on your website saying that the end would not come until the White House is captured. How do you envisage these goals being achieved?

A: "The final hour will not come until the Muslims conquer the White House" is a hadith related by Tabarani, a great Muslim scholar. How?

The Khilafah is necessary for offensive jihad, though it could occur if Muslims warred to liberate captive Muslims. Realistically, it will probably occur through intellectual da'wah [Islamic missionary activity].

Q: How would a Caliphate operate?

A: Under the Khilafah, authority is centralized, but not administration. The Caliph appoints ministers, judges, governors, army commanders, etc. Constitutionally, although all analogies are imperfect, the Khilafah is closer to the U.S. presidential system than to the U.K. parliamentary system with a Prime Minister, although the major difference is that the Caliph operates under a divine mandate.

There could be no non-Muslim judges. Effectively, the Qur'an and Sunnah [practice and narrations of Muhammad related in Hadith] are the Constitution, Shari'ah is the law. The Caliph is chosen by Muslims, whether by popular election, or selection by Majlis as-Shura [Consultative Assembly]. Non-Muslims can enter the Majlis to represent their own community.
(Pastorius note: Once again, doesn't that sound like a good deal for us infidels?)
Q: What would be the rights of Christians in a restored Caliphate?

A: As citizens, in terms of welfare and security, education, etc., they will be equal. They will be exempt from national service, although they can volunteer. They will pay the Jizya poll-tax for security and signifying that they submit to Islamic law, (Pastorius note: Let me get this straight, we pay for security, right? So, we that's like "Protection" right? You're extorting money from us, so you won't have to break our kneecaps? Yeah right.) except if they join the army. This need not be levied with humiliation. Nor is it levied on women, children, clergy, elderly, etc., only on mature, working males.

No private schools will be allowed, and there will be an Islamically influenced national curriculum. No new churches will be permitted, but existing ones will be allowed. Private consumption of alcohol will be permitted, but not its public sale. All state officials must be Muslims, save for the Caliph's assistants to advise him about relations with non-Muslim citizens.
Muslims could not convert to Christianity on pain of execution. Evangelistic campaigns would be forbidden, but people would be free to present Christianity on TV, in debates, etc.

Arab News Tells Europe
It Is Anti-Semitic

Wow, look what the Arab News published:

There Is Growing Hostility Toward Israel in Europe
Robin Shepherd, The Washington Post

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia, 31 January 2005 — It may not have been apparent on the surface, but Europe’s recent commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz was steeped in irony. Even while the Old World stirringly recalls the horrors of Hitler’s death camps and vows never to forget the Nazi genocide of the Jews, it also embraces an increasingly and alarmingly antagonistic attitude toward the Jewish state that arose from the ashes of World War II.

As the Middle East conflict burns on, more Europeans are turning against Israel. A growing number subscribe to the belief that the impasse between the Israelis and the Palestinians is the wellspring of much of the world’s ills today, and that the blame for all this lies squarely with Israel — and by extension, with its staunchest ally, the United States. As President Bush seeks to find common ground with Europe in his second term, he might do well to acquaint himself more thoroughly with this reality. For as surely as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict divides Jews and Arabs, it also divides Europeans and Americans. If you’re looking for root causes of the growing trans-Atlantic split that go beyond the easy cliches about US unilateralism, it’s time to sit up and take notice.

Go to a dinner party in Paris, London or any other European capital and watch how things develop. The topic of conversation may be Iraq, it may be George Bush, it may be Islam, terrorism or weapons of mass destruction. However it starts out, you can be sure of where it will inevitably, and often irrationally, end — with a dissection of the Middle East situation and a condemnation of Israeli actions in the occupied territories. I can’t count how many times I’ve seen it. European sympathy for the Palestinians runs high, while hostility toward Israel is often palpable.

And the anger is reaching new — and disturbing — levels: A poll of 3,000 people published last month by Germany’s University of Bielefeld showed more than 50 percent of respondents equating Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians with Nazi treatment of the Jews. Sixty-eight percent of those surveyed specifically believed that Israel is waging a “war of extermination’’ against the Palestinian people.

Germany is not alone in these shocking sentiments. They have been expressed elsewhere, and often by prominent figures. In 2002, the Portuguese Nobel Prize-winning writer Jose Saramago declared, “What is happening in Palestine is a crime which we can put on the same plane as what happened at Auschwitz.’’ In Israel just last month, Mairead Corrigan Maguire, the Irish winner of the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize, compared the country’s suspected nuclear weapons to Auschwitz, calling them “gas chambers perfected.’’

Moreover, in a poll by the European Union in November 2003, a majority of Europeans named Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. Overall, 59 percent of Europeans put Israel in the top spot, ahead of such countries as Iran and North Korea. In the Netherlands, that figure rose to 74 percent.

Perceptions of Israel in the United States, meanwhile, contrast sharply. A poll by the Marttila Communications Group taken in December 2003 for the Anti-Defamation League had Americans putting Israel in 10th place on a list of countries threatening world peace, just ahead of the United States itself.

What accounts for this trans-Atlantic values gap?

Part of the explanation is that, despite all the Holocaust commemorations, the memory of that event really does appear to be fading in Europe. Increasing numbers of younger Europeans have no real sense of what the Nazis did. In Britain, Prince Harry isn’t the only one who’s oblivious to the realities of Nazi tyranny. A BBC poll of 4,000 people taken late last year, in the run-up to Holocaust Remembrance Day last Thursday, showed that, amazingly, 45 percent of all Britons and 60 percent of those under 35 years of age had never heard of Auschwitz — the Nazi death camp in southern Poland where about 1.5 million Jews were murdered during World War II. Such ignorance compounds anti-Israeli feelings; for those who have no understanding of the Holocaust, Israel exists and acts in a historical vacuum.

This faltering awareness of the most vivid example of racist mass murder in the 20th century is accompanied by enduring anti-Semitism. A poll in Italy last year, for example, by the Eurispes research institute showed 34 percent of respondents agreeing strongly or to some extent with the view that “Jews secretly control financial and economic power as well as the media.’’ The Eurobarometer survey quoted above also showed 40 percent of respondents across Europe believing that Jews had a “particular relationship to money,’’ with more than a third expressing concern that Jews were “playing the victim because of the Holocaust.’’

In the contorted universe of the chattering classes, Israel is at once America’s servant and the tail that wags the dog — doing America’s bidding while forcing it into madcap adventures such as Iraq. As Peter Preston, the former editor of Britain’s Guardian newspaper, put it in an extraordinary op-ed last October, bemoaning both US political parties’ alleged servility toward Israel: “Republican policy is an empty vessel drifting off Tel Aviv, and the Democratic alternative has just as little stored in its hold.’’

The left-leaning antipathy toward Israel is moreover buttressed by deeper and wider pathologies in Europe’s collective memory, particularly in our overriding sense of guilt about the past, a guilt that springs from the great 20th-century traumas of war and imperialism. The first has made Europeans, especially continentals, overwhelmingly pacifistic: In the German Marshall Fund’s 2004 Trans-Atlantic Trends survey, only 31 percent of Germans and 33 percent of the French could bring themselves to agree with the ostensibly tame proposition that “Under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice.’’ Such attitudes do not mesh well with television pictures of Israeli helicopter gun ships firing missiles at militant targets in the crowded Gaza Strip, whatever the justification for Israel’s actions.

Mixed with the supercharged ideological hostility of the European left, the demons of the continent’s past can make for an intoxicating cocktail of anti-Israeli sentiment.

How sick is Europe when the Arab News has to tell them they've got a problem.

Americans Are 5% of The World's Populations
And Give 35% of the Aid

From No Pasaran:

Of course, you have heard, or read (there is an email circulating), the list of statistics showing that, based on their numbers in the world, Americans allegedly own a disproportionate amount of riches, produce a disordinate amount of pollution, and are generally responsible for all of the inequalities in the world…

Speaking of "stinginess", the charge which was hurled at Uncle Sam after the tsunami struck in the Indian Ocean, Ann Coulter provides us with a statistic that is rarely heard around the world:
"Americans make up about 5% of the world's population and give about 35% of the aid. …

At a minimum, in order to discount the largesse of the United States, one must carefully exclude gigantic categories of aid, such as military aid, food aid, trade policies, refugee policies, religious aid, private charities and individual giving.
And don't Americans also pay almost one quarter of the UN's budget (22%, to be exact)?

It turns out that, according to the Rockefeller Foundation's Center for Global Development, Uncle Sam ranks far below countries such as Denmark, Norway, and France in what is called "peacekeeping", and this, although

"The U.S. did not merely write a check to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan and Iraq: The U.S. did most of the fighting and liberating as well as a significant share of the dying."
In addition to being
"the country that dispatched the Taliban and Saddam Hussein [it is the country that,] before that, ensured that the above countries [Denmark, Norway, and France] would not be speaking German or Russian"

This is important stuff for me to know. I went to school and earned a degree at a University. Therefore, I still have the statements of my professors rattling around in my memory banks that America is a selfish, evil, and tyrannical nation. Even though, I don't believe such things, it is good for me to have statistics to prove my own beliefs.

Why I Write Screaming Memes

Hi, Pastorius here. Screaming Memes began as a character I made up to contribute to the comments section of The IraqWarWasWrongBlog. Memes' name was originally Screaming Memes Dreams.

As I conceived him, Screaming Memes was a guy with a trust fund, an advanced college degree, little practical understanding of the world around him, and far too much time on his hands. His hatred of the United States Government is really just displaced anger, at his wealthy Manhattanite parents, for ignoring him.

When I began the Screaming Memes website, the idea was to spoof the "Bush is Hitler" crowd. To my mind, equating George Bush with Adolph Hitler is outlandish, hateful, and bordering on anti-Semitic.

The question the Screaming Memes blog addresses is, if George Bush is the equivalnet of Hitler, and he really is trying to institute a totalitarian regime within the borders of the United States, what would it look like? Would he send the military into the streets of our major cities to "keep the peace"? Would there be mass arrests? Would there be absolute repression of the media? Would he be formulating clandestine plans, and completely preposterous resaons, to invade other nations?

I was inspired to do Screaming Memes by my anger at "anti-War" protesters, and "Peace Activists" here in the United States, and by the foreign press, as revealed to me on the blogs Medienkritik and No Pasaran. When I am angered by something that I can not change, I find it best to diffuse my anger through humor.

Here are some examples of what has inspired me to write Screaming Memes:

Protesters. See the sign that girl is carrying., and the "anti-War" movement. You'll notice, in that last link that this ridiculous "Bushilter" meme has permeated the foreign press, and has been promoted by officials of foreign governments as well.

I find it horrifying, to tell you the truth, that so many people in positions of power and responsibility, are so unhinged from reality. If our leaders, media, and intellectual elite do not deal in reality then we stand the chance of slipping into a real Hitlerian chaos. In other words, I am convinced the danger comes from those who would spread the uncredible "Bushitler" meme, not from George Bush, or the United States.

So, I hope people will enjoy the Screaming Memes blog, in the spirit in which it is offered.

If you want to know more about CUANAS, click here and read the posts.

Wednesday, February 02, 2005

We Make Our Home
With God's Grace

The Topmost Apple has an important post this morning. It is a criticism of the behavior of Christians towards non-believers. Hard to look at, but important, nonetheless:

Natalie Angier is one of my favorite writers; I've read her columns for years in the New York Times in the Tuesday Science section.
This article is about why she's raising her daughter as an atheist. What struck me most as I read was not her passionate defense of science and of the scientific method; I'm totally with her there. What makes me sad is the very negative idea she has of what Christianity is. And not without reason, I have to say. Her eight-year-old daughter has been told, more than once, apparently, that she's "going to hell." Angier mentions the Boy Scouts, who have "kicked out Darrell Lambert, a model scout if there ever was one, because he refused to say he believed in God." She notes that "This year, according to the Washington Post, some 40 states are dealing with new or ongoing challenges to the teaching of evolution in the schools. Four-fifths of our states."
An excerpt from the article:

So, yes, of course, humility in the face of cosmic grandeur is always warranted; but let us not forget that Einstein sought to the very end of his long life to honor that grandeur by seeking to understand it, bit by bit, with his weak little intellect. How much better, in my view, is that approach, of humility crossed with an unslakable curiosity to delve the majesties of nature; over the sort of hooey humility that we benighted and defeated “liberals” are supposed to be mastering, that preached by the evangelical superstar John Stott, who, according to David Brooks, does not believe that “truth is something humans are working toward. Instead, Truth has been revealed.” As Stott writes: "It is because we love Jesus Christ [that] we are determined…to bear witness to his unique glory and absolute sufficiency. In Christ and in the biblical witness to Christ God's revelation is complete; to add any words of our own to his finished work is derogatory to Christ."
Just as Lewis Black said on “The Daily Show” about the proposal that gays should be barred from teaching, “Well, there goes the school play!” so with Stott we can bid the NSF, the NIH, MIT goodbye. Who needs Heisenberg’s uncertainty or Einstein’s relativity when we’ve got two ox, two mules and the nativity?
Oy vey, these are values? These and a subway token won’t get you on the subway.
How sad to miss out on the beauty of religion, the depth and grandeur of it. How sad that reasonable and loving people are so turned off by Christianity - and how sad that they often have reason to be so. I have to say that I'm starting to feel that way myself; I don't know how much more abuse I can take from other Christians before I'll be out the doors forever. I'm just one of many, of course, in that respect; the problem is that unfortunately, this is exactly what those abusive Christians want to have happen.
Here's the last paragraph of the article, and where the title of this thread comes from:

I don’t know the answer to fear of death, surprise surprise. But I find it interesting that religious people, who talk ceaselessly of finding in their religion a larger sense of purpose, a meaning greater than themselves, at the same time are the ones who insist their personal, copyrighted souls, presumably with their 70-odd years of memory intact, will survive in perpetuity. Maybe that’s the real ethic of atheism. By confronting the inevitability of your personal expiration date, you know there is a meaning much grander than yourself. The river of life will go on, as it has for nearly 4 billion years on our planet, and who knows for how long and how abundantly on others. Matter is neither created nor destroyed, and we, as matter, will always matter, and the universe will forever be our home.
Yes. And that's a religious statement right there, a profession of God, a statement that many people can (and will) believe in. Attention must be paid; The Church is going to destroy itself if it doesn't get its act together.
Read it all. Look at what's happening to this beautiful religion that believes that there is a "splendor burning at the heart of things," and that all people - all people - are of worth, even and especially the least of us.
Look at what's happening.

I used to be embarrassed to tell people I was a Christian because of all the stupidity, morbidity, and hate that is spouted in the name of Christianity. When my child was born, I thought about all the things I wanted for her, and wanted her to be able to achieve. I wanted to be good, and do good for others. I wanted her to be free, someone who does what she wants to do, not what others tell her to do. And I wanted her to be the kind of person who works to change things when she sees something that is not right.

When I looked at my own life, I realized that I wasn't any of these things. I worked a job I hated. And when I found something I didn't like, I walked away from it.

How would my child ever learn when that was the example I modeled?

From that day forward, I tell people that I am a Christian, because I do believe in Christ and his Graceful sacrifice for us. Just as I must model what a good person is for my daughter, I am responsible to model what a good Christian is to the world. I don't think I do it that well, but I'm giving it a shot.

The point is, while there are many Christians with whom it is an utter embarrassment to be lumped, that should not be our concern. Instead, praise and thanksgiving for His Grace should be our concern. And standing up for what is Right and Good should our my concern.

Why All Us Infidels
Deserve To Be Killed

Christianity Today published an interview with the raidical Islamic Shiekh Omar Bakri, from Britain. I think it is important to read this because the man is completely forthright about the tenets of Islamofascism. Here it is:

Q: Why do you believe hatred toward the United States could lead to the 9/11 attacks?

A: Islam is the final revelation, therefore those believing in it submit to Allah—the only One worthy of obedience in every sphere of life. To understand 9/11, we must go back to Tawhid— the exclusive worship of God in every sphere—religious, political, social, etc. Every human action must relate to this. 9/11 was undoubtedly an unpleasant moment for its targets or their relatives (Muslims and non-Muslim), but those committing it acted as a result of the predestined divine decree (although God does give man free will).

The "Magnificent 19" or "terrorists" are personally accountable for their actions. If these were based on God's commands, they will be rewarded; if against his commands, they will be punished.

The 19 referred to a divine text, Surah AL-Baqara 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you … " Muslims believe that non-Muslims are kaffir—those disbelieving in Islam. This is not an insult; it is a description. The God in whom we believe did not come from the womb of a mother. The USA is a kaffir state—and kaffir includes those U.S. Muslims who ally with non-Muslims, e.g. in the U.S. Army, as in Iraq, and are therefore legitimate targets of jihad.

Americans should listen to Muslims who believe in 9/11 and not to those Muslims who do not! "Terrorism" can be either positive or negative—i.e., for or against God. U.S. terrorism in Iraq is anti-God. U.S. voters have joint liability with the government they choose, as do Russian voters in regard to the actions of their government in Chechnya—yet they voted for Putin. Complicity in the acts of one's rulers makes one a legitimate target.

America is hated because they are aggressors against Muslims in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, Palestine, or by supporting corrupt, puppet Muslim regimes such as the Saudis, Egypt, the Gulf states, and the Shah of Iran. After World War II, America effectively declared war on Muslims and Islam—replacing the British and French Empires, controlling ex-British puppet rulers, but especially by giving military, financial, and diplomatic support to the Israelis. America uses its U.N. veto against Muslims. It establishes U.S. bases across the Muslim world—itself an act of aggression.
Q: Do you believe that 9/11 was in any way Islamically justifiable?

A: Speaking objectively as a Muslim scholar, and not inciting such acts, jihad can be effected outside the battlefield—it is not restricted by time, place, building, event, people, transport food, water (both of which may be legitimately poisoned in jihad), or by clothing—there is no need to wear a uniform.

Again, speaking objectively as a Muslim scholar, and not inciting such acts, 9/11 was justifiable because America had no Covenant of Security with the Muslims, although Muslims in the U.S. are under a Covenant of Security whereby they may not act militarily against America. Only qualified scholars in fiqh [Islamic jurisprudence] could have planned this—because the 19 used non-Muslim aliases to enter the country (which legally allowed them to act in jihad).

When I heard about it, I prayed to God that no Muslims in America did it because such is haram [forbidden in Islam]. After Al Qaeda admitted responsibility, it was obvious that qualified ulema [Islamic scholars] were behind it. Thus, Al-Qaeda has revived the culture of terrorism in Islam after 200 years.
Q: What about the hostage-taking and massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan, Russia, in September 2004?

A: As stated, there is no restriction on place (it could even occur in Mecca)—so schools are legitimate targets of jihad, but it is up to local mujahedeen [those who engage in jihad] to decide the best strategy.

Killing women and children never was and never will be part of the jihad in Islam, whether that be the women or children of the Muslims or non-Muslims. So if Chechen mujahedeen killed women and children in Beslan, I would condemn it. (Pastorius note: What the hell? Talk about cognitive dissonance. This guys is saying, it's against Islam to kill children, but if the local mujahedeen say it's ok, then it's ok) The children of non-Muslims, such as those at Beslan, who die in such circumstances go to Paradise. (Pastorius note: What consolation, huh?)
Q: Would you characterize Al Qaeda's jihad as being anti-Christian as well as being Anti-American?

A: Al Qaeda comes from the Ahl-us Sunnah wa Jamaah sect—also known as Salafis or Al-Huruba [strangers], or "People of Tawhid" [Wahhabi branch of Islam], which explains why Zarqawi in Iraq uses the term. The jihad is not specifically anti-American.

In terms of Islamic jurisprudence, only Muslims are innocent—non-Muslims are not. By default, all non-Muslims are rebel criminals against God. Muslims who engage in interfaith [gatherings] are apostate. God discriminates among man on basis of faith. The jihad is not specifically anti-Christian—it is anti-kaffir.
(Pastorius note: So, that mean their problem is with everybody, basically. How do you escape the aim of this guys terrorism? Answer is, stop being a Kaffir. Other than that, you don't)
Q: Bin Laden says that his jihad is defensive. Could you explain this?

A: Salafis do not use these terms, but defensive jihad is the response to when Muslims are attacked. Offensive jihad is when Islam is brought militarily by the Islamic state in conquest, or when Muslims are arrested [for their belief].

9/11 was not an attempt to conquer America, but rather an act of retaliation. Its aim was to force America out of the Muslim world by inflicting the same pain on them as they inflict on Muslims.
Q: Many Muslim scholars think that all Israelis, as "colonial dispossessors," but not all Americans or Russians, fit this category. What is the position of Islamic law? Is it halal (permitted by shari'ah law) to behead Western hostages in Iraq?

Women and children [i.e. boys under 15] or Muslims are not legitimate targets—nor are any noncombatants [clergy, disabled, insane, elderly, etc.]. Not even Israeli children or women, unless they serve in the military, which most do, or live in properties taken from dispossessed Palestinians (Muslim or Christian), which virtually all do.

However, if children are killed, the fault lies with the adult occupiers who brought them into a battlefield situation. There are two kinds of Jews in Palestine: firstly, the indigenous Palestinian Jews who always lived there with Muslims and Christians, with whom there is no problem unless they support the occupiers, and secondly, the illegitimate European colonists from Poland, Russia, etc., who are legitimate targets in jihad, because they dispossessed Muslims and covenanted [protected, indigenous] Christians.

Regarding beheading, it is halal to behead Muslim criminals! It is halal to kill hostages in a war zone. Regarding what can be done to secure their release, either they or their families could embrace Islam. Or, based on the principle in Islamic jurisprudence that what benefits Islam and the Ummah [global Muslim community] is best—such as when Salah ad-Din [Saladin] after the-recapture of Al-Quds [Jerusalem] said he would only restore the True Cross to the Crusaders if it benefited the Muslims— the relatives of hostages could offer to continually denounce the Crusades, the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement that divided the Middle East between the French and British, the 1917 Balfour Declaration that handed Palestine to the Zionists, U.N. Resolution 181 that established the Zionist entity, and also American government support for what the Zionist regime does to the Palestinians, as well as condemn the situations at Guantanamo Bay, Umm Qasr, Bagran, and Abu Ghraib prisons.
(Pastorius note: You got all that? You're going to need to remember it, if you ever get captured. They ought to include this list of grivances for which we all need to apologize, in the Geneva Convention priniciples as part of the rights of Prisoners Of War. After all, all rights come with responsibilities)

The mujahedeen then might consider that the benefits of releasing the hostages outweigh those in killing them. What happened in Spain demonstrated this: when the government announced withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the mujahedeen responded positively. Muslims appreciate the antiwar marches in the West. Bin Laden called on European peoples to condemn their governments.

So keep on marching you submissive kaffir, that way maybe you won't be fit to be killed. Wouldn't that be nice?

Anyway, read the whole thing. It really is worthwhile.

Hat tip: Jihad Watch

The UN And
The Face Of Modern Anti-Semitism

From Melanie Phillips:

The indefatiguable and beady-eyed UN watcher Anne Bayevsky pens a sharp and salutary corrective to the UN's PR stunt on Holocaust Day. As she points out, the fact that it marked the liberation of Auschwitz, with many pious imprecations of 'never again' and so forth, was a startling departure from its normal stance towards the Holocaust -- ignore or deny it, and towards the Jews -- libel and attack them with maximum prejudice in order to delegitimise the Jewish state. Bayevsky suggests that the whole performance was designed to repair the battered image of both the UN and Kofi Annan in the wake of the oil-for-food and Congo sexual scandals. But far from any real change, the UN is remains as bigoted and vicious towards the Jews as ever:

'Widening the lens, we notice that last month the U.N. adopted 22 resolutions condemning the state of Israel, and four country-specific resolutions criticizing the human-rights records of the other 190 U.N. member states. Also in December the public entrance of the U.N. sported the annual solidarity with the Palestinian people exhibit, featuring a display about Palestinian humiliation at having to bare midriffs at Israeli checkpoints. (No mention was made of the purpose of the checkpoints or the Israelis who have died from suicide belts on Palestinians who circumvent them.)

On exactly the same day that the secretary-general announced the holding of the commemorative session, January 11, 2005, he also pushed forward the U.N. plan to create a register of the Palestinian victims of Israel's non-violent security fence. (There are no plans to create a register of Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism.) In March the U.N. will begin its annual session of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, at which Israel will be the only U.N. member state not allowed to participate in full because U.N. states continue to prevent it from gaining equal membership in a regional group.
The U.N. remains without a definition of terrorism, never having transformed the names of Palestinian terrorists from abstract entities into the targets of specific U.N. condemnation or consequences of any kind. And any day now we can expect the secretary-general to continue his pattern of denouncing Israel's lawful exercise of self-defense as "extrajudicial killing" or as a morally reprehensible contribution to "a cycle of violence." In other words, U.N. demonization of Israel and the green light to the killers of Israelis that such demonization portends will not skip a beat. This is the face of modern anti-Semitism'.

The UN's slick and cynical performance over Auschwitz will make it even more difficult to persuade people that it is endemically prejudiced towards Israel and the Jews. And even though oil-for-food and the Congo scandals remain as undeniable evidence of its corruption, the world still refuses to face the unpalatable fact that its representative body is not a force for good on this planet but a powerful force for bad.

I have never understood the world's sympathy for the Palestinian's complaint about the "humiliating" checkpoints. We have checkpoints here, at airports, amusement parks, stadiums, sports arenas, etc. Basically, we have checkpoints at places where we anticipate terrorist acts to be carried out.

Given the fact that all of Israel has been the target of terrorist acts, perpetrated specifically by Palestinians who have crossed into Israel from the Palestinian territories, it is not at all out-of-line, or surprising, that Israel would have checkpoints at it's borders.

As for the wall, people who oppose seem to imply that it is something akin to the Berlin Wall. The Berlin Wall was built to keep people in. The Israeli wall is being built to help keep people out until they have been checked for explosives. How is that evil?

Besides, Israel is not the only country in the world building walls. Europe has been working on a couple of walls themselves recently, as has Saudi Arabia, India, Turkey, and several others. So, why is Israel the only one condemned? Well, why do you think?

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

What If Bush Was Right All Along?

From Mark Brown, of the Chicago Sun-Times, via the Anchoress:

Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.

You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.

Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.

By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?

Americans cross own barrier

If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).

I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.

Deciding democracy's worth

On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs.

In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.

Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.

And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.

But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.

Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.

Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.

So is the rest of the world.

For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.

Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.

No Mark, that won't be necessary. Just start a new party. The Democratic Party is dead.

Anyway, I like that Mr. Brown recognizes that an apology is in order. That's true. I don't think I've ever heard any career leftist journalist apologize for all the stances they took which were later proven to be wrong.

Well, there is David Horowitz.

The Left Doesn't Know The Difference
Between Good And Evil

Dennis Prager picks up my venom where it left off yesterday. From Front Page Magazine:

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005

It took a Polish rescuer of Jews in the Holocaust, cited this week 60 years after the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration and death camp, to best describe those people who cannot or refuse to know the difference between good and evil. They are "worth nothing."

Since I was an adolescent, I have been preoccupied with evil: specifically, why people engage in it and why other people refuse to acknowledge its existence. As I have gotten older, I often find the latter group more infuriating. Somehow, as much as I don't want to, I can understand why a Muslim raised in a world permeated with hate-filled lies about America and Israel, and taught from childhood that God loves death, will blow himself up and joyfully maim and murder children. As evil as the Muslim terrorist is, given the Islamic world in which he was raised, he has some excuse.
But the non-Muslims who fail to acknowledge and confront the evil of Muslim terror and the evil of those monsters who cut innocent people's throats and murder those trying to make a democracy -- these people are truly worth nothing. Unlike the Muslims raised in a religious totalitarian society, they have no excuse. And in my lifetime, these people have overwhelmingly congregated on the political Left.
Since the 1960s, with few exceptions, on the greatest questions of good and evil, the Left has either been neutral toward or actively supported evil. The Left could not identify communism as evil; has been neutral toward or actually supported the anti-democratic pro-terrorist Palestinians against the liberal democracy called Israel; and has found it impossible to support the war for democracy and against an Arab/Muslim enemy in Iraq as evil as any fascist the Left ever claimed to hate.
There were intellectually and morally honest arguments against going to war in Iraq. But once the war began, a moral person could not oppose it. No moral person could hope for, let alone act on behalf of, a victory for the Arab/Islamic fascists. Just ask yourself but two questions: If America wins, will there be an increase or decrease in goodness in Iraq and in the world? And then ask what would happen if the Al Qaeda/Zarqawi/Baathists win.

It is the Left -- in America, in Europe and around the world -- that should do all the apologizing: to the men, women and children of Iraq and elsewhere for not coming to their support against those who would crush them.

That most Democratic Party leaders, union leaders, gay leaders, feminists, professors, editorial writers and news reporters have called for an American withdrawal and labeled this most moral of wars "immoral" is a permanent stain on their reputations.

About 60 percent of the Iraqi people went to vote despite the fact that every Iraqi voter risked his or her life and the lives of their children, whose throats the Islamic fascists threatened to slit. Yet, the Left continues to label the war for Iraqi democracy "immoral" while praising the tyrant of Cuba.
Leftists do so for the same reason they admired Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung and condemned American arms as the greatest threat to world peace during and after the Cold War.
The Left "does not know the difference between good and evil." And that is why it is worth nothing.