Saturday, March 12, 2005

London Times Says Israel Will Attack Iran

From the London Times, via Drudge:

Revealed: Israel plans strike on Iranian nuclear plant Uzi Mahnaimi

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans for a combined air and ground attack on targets in Iran if diplomacy fails to halt the Iranian nuclear programme.

The inner cabinet of Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, gave “initial authorisation” for an attack at a private meeting last month on his ranch in the Negev desert.

Israeli forces have used a mock-up of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in the desert to practise destroying it. Their tactics include raids by Israel’s elite Shaldag (Kingfisher) commando unit and airstrikes by F-15 jets from 69 Squadron, using bunker-busting bombs to penetrate underground facilities.

The plans have been discussed with American officials who are said to have indicated provisionally that they would not stand in Israel’s way if all international efforts to halt Iranian nuclear projects failed.

Tehran claims that its programme is designed for peaceful purposes but Israeli and American intelligence officials — who have met to share information in recent weeks — are convinced that it is intended to produce nuclear weapons.

The Israeli government responded cautiously yesterday to an announcement by Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, that America would support Britain, France and Germany in offering economic incentives for Tehran to abandon its programme.

In return, the European countries promised to back Washington in referring Iran to the United Nations security council if the latest round of talks fails to secure agreement.

US officials warned last week that a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israeli or American forces had not been ruled out should the issue become deadlocked at the United Nations.

Not that this news comes as a surprise, but who leaked this? Maybe Sharon authorized it to be "leaked". In other words, maybe it is misinformation.

Hizballah Nazi Salute Posted by Hello

What more do you need to know?

Alliance With Fascists

From a speech by Phyllis Chesler, via Melanie Phillips:

Phyllis Chesler tells it as it is at Columbia University (a hotbed of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish feeling):

'The problem is this: The entire "politically correct" Western Academy--including the Feminist Academy--has been fully and fatally Palestinianized.

'Professors in every discipline are persuaded that the Palestinians, peace be upon those who have truly suffered at the hands of their own corrupt and vicious leaders, including the Islamikaze bombers, represent the world's ultimate and most noble of victims. These same professors, well trained (or might I say brainwashed) by Columbia's own Edward Said and others such as Noam Chomsky, now view both America and Israel as the "real" terrorists.
Orwell would weep. Both President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon have been called "Nazis" and "worse than Nazis"--by professors to whom we turn for the truth.

'Today, they deal in lies, not truth, they deal in hate speech, not truth speech. They exaggerate complex and tragic realities--in the service of the most vulgar Jew-hatred, and in the service of death. They do not stand for democracy or freedom or tolerance but stand against it. They condemn and despise the very country that allows them to have their say. Such progressive, liberal, left, feminist, and gay "politically correct" professors have also romanticized totalitarian Islamists.

'Indeed, the "good" people, those who really want human suffering and injustice to end, have made an alliance with fascists and terrorists to bring down western civilization--and why? Because it is not perfect, because it has not yet redeemed the entire world. But, until they can accomplish this anti-colonialist, anti-racist "Armageddon," our "best and our brightest" are willing to settle for-- God forbid!-- the destruction of the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
They scapegoat, demonize, and obsessively focus upon the most minor failings of the Jewish state -- even as they look away from the ongoing genocide in Sudan and the "gender cleansing" of Sudanese women, the genocides in Rwanda, in Bosnia; even as they consign millions of Muslims and Christians to suffer in medieval misery under barbaric Islamic regimes.'

No War Between Democracies

From an article entitled "No War, No Famine" at Project Syndicate:

STOCKHOLM: Two hundred years ago in his essay “Perpetual Peace” Immanuel Kant imagined a future “union of liberal republics.” In 1795, however, liberal republics were abstract ideas. Yet Kant imagined our present reality of flourishing liberal democracies. Moreover, Kant’s idea of perpetual peace seems even less far-fetched because no democracy has ever made war on another. Indeed, “No War Between Democracies” is as close as we are likely to get to an immutable diplomatic law.

Scholars have demonstrated the truth of this. Professor R J Rummel of the University of Hawaii investigated 353 pairs of combatants between 1816 and 1991. Democracy fought non-democracy in 155 cases. Dictatorship fought dictatorship in 198 cases. He found no examples of democracies at war with each other.

Curiouser and Curiouser

From the New York Post, via Medienkritik:


March 11, 2005 -- WASHINGTON — A former chief U.N. weapons inspector revealed yesterday that he was offered millions of dollars in bribes from Tariq Aziz, Iraq's ex-deputy prime minister — to give a favorable report on Saddam Hussein's weapons programs.
In the latest U.N. oil-for-food scandal bombshell, ex-weapons inspector Rolf Ekeus said he told the U.N. investigative panel headed by former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker about the bribe offer, which he said he rejected.

"I told the Volcker people that Tariq said a couple of million dollars was there if we report right," Ekeus told Reuters. "My answer was, 'That is not the way we do business in Sweden.' "

Why would Tariq Aziz offer a bribe if there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction

Photo Of The Day Posted by Hello

Hamas' Genocidal Agenda
Will Be On Palestinian Ballot

From Associated Press, via Little Green Footballs:

NABLUS, West Bank - The Hamas militant group announced Saturday it will participate in Palestinian parliamentary elections, a decision that could undermine Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ attempts to renew peacemaking with Israel.

In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, about 2,500 unemployed Palestinians stormed the parliament building, throwing stones at police and breaking windows. Police fired in the air and dispersed the crowd, but the confrontation was the latest sign of internal dissatisfaction.

Hamas — which launched a deadly suicide bombing campaign in Israel during four years of fighting — does not recognize Israel’s right to exist and has been committed to destroying the Jewish entity.

I know it doesn't sound like it, but this is good news. We already know that the preponderence of Palestinians support terror. But, this means that we shall see whether the Palestinian people want to murder "Jews", as the Hamas Charter calls for, or whether they simply want to eliminate Israel, as the Charter of the Palestinian Authority calls for.

That's a rather negligible difference, admittedly. Either choice is beyond the pale, as far as I'm concerned. But, I do believe that clarity will help. With it will come a clear line of demarcation between anti-Semite and genocidal anti-Semite.

For instance, which side do you think Europe will come down on? It will be interesting to see, won't it?

All Necessary And Appropriate Force
Against Those Nations, Organizations, Or Persons

From Michelle Malkin:

This Washington Post editorial is mostly critical of the Bush Administration's handling of the Josa Padilla case, but it includes an important concession:

In one important respect, we think Judge Floyd was too tough. He ruled that the government had no right to detain as an enemy combatant a U.S. citizen who had been arrested domestically in a civilian setting. But when Congress authorized the use of military force after Sept. 11, 2001, it gave the president the power "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" responsible for the attacks and "in order to prevent any future" attacks. If the war on terror is in any meaningful sense a real war, detaining people believed to be plotting attacks on the enemy's behalf must be part of the power to fight it. There may be times when enemy soldiers, even if U.S. citizens, must be held but cannot be tried in civilian courts.

Really, I don't know how you could fight a war in any other way.

Friday, March 11, 2005

It's All About The Ladies

This is so important I'm going to give it it's own post.

Go here, and see why it's all about the ladies.

Two worlds there. Which one do you want to live in?

Oh yes, and there's this about women's role in the new Iraqi government. They will hold 31% of the Assembly. Mrs. Narmin Othman, Minister of Women's Affairs, Iraq, has this to say:

We had election before but always there was one list, one man, and we could -- we should vote to him, and at the same time, which means that women will hold 31 percent of this Assembly; equally historic, 2,352 women were candidates out of 7,212. This is remarkable. And a first in Iraqi history, despite the threat of bombs, Iraqi’s voted. Maybe you heard, it was a wonderful and unique and incredible history in our election.

Woman without having any chance to reach the polls, she went in there and her son on her husband's shoulder to go to there to vote. A pregnant woman had a baby at the polling place and she get the name for her daughter, Al Intekhabat, it means election.

That brings a tear to my eye.

Beirut Babes For Democracy Posted by Hello

Forgive me the sexist title, but it's there to make a point. In light of my previous post about how the anti-Democratic Hizballah demonstrations were male-only, I thought it appropriate to comment on the reality of this photo.

These girls are not hiding their faces, and they are not attempting to hide their stand against the Syrian government. In fact they are openly flaunting both. They both possess a look of real intelligence and determination. These qualities are sexy.

Good for them, and good for the world.

Blessed be the Name of the Lord, Ruler of the Universe, who brings forth beautiful women from the womb. And thank you to these beautiful women for their courageous stand.

Here is a link to a photo essay on the changes in Lebanon.

Hat tip to No Pasaran.

A Sikh/Hindi Brit Diagnoses England
With A Bad Case of The New Anti-Semitism
Says Prognosis Is Bad

This is an anecdotal story from England. However, it ought to be understood in context of all the other stories of anti-Semitism coming out of merry old England. From Melanie Phillips:

A reader, who happens to be of mixed Sikh and Hindu parentage, emails me to say the following:
'In today's
Guardian Timothy Garton Ash explains why we should be sympathetic and kind to Muslims who consider Osama to be a hero and make statements like this:

'I ask another Muhammad ("just call me Muhammad"), a voluble 16-year-old, about last year's bombings just down the road, at the Atocha station. Well, he says, he doesn't like to see people dying "even if they are Christians and Jews". But in this case, because of what Aznar did in the Iraq war'.

"Even if they are Christians and Jews" tells you all you need to know about the mindset of many Muslims in Europe, as though CHristians and Jews are lesser people, scum, like dogs or animals. The left in this country is unable and unwilling to face up to the fact that there is a deep poison in the ideology of many of its idealised and romanticised "oppressed" lumpen masses. It is unable to accept that no matter what they do, there will still be people utterly deranged by an ideology of hatred that no amount of wretched and pathetic self flaggelation will defuse.

'I have e-mailed you before and told you about the rancid, casual, rabid anti-semitism that I encounter on a regular basis amongst Muslims I meet in my life. Because I am Asian, have brown skin, they sometimes assume I am Muslim, and even if they don't, they are freer to tell me their inner thoughts than they would to a white person. It is a level of hatred that is Nazi like in its extremity and virtually universal. I have met some brave Muslims who are sickened by it, but they are a minority and would never challenge the status-quo hatred that persists amongst them, for fear of ridicule, contempt, and perhaps even violence.

'It is only now that I am putting two and two together, though, and seeing how this links into the sly and crafty anti-semitism within wider British society, the type of anti-semitism in the salons that Philip Roth diagnosed so well in his writing when he lived in London and moved in the circles of "liberal" London. For them, the religious rapture of Islamist hatred for Jews is thrilling. Coupled with the vilification of Israel out of all proportion to its crimes, we have a heady brew of hatred and bigotry that the useful idiots of the left either choose to ignore, or actively participate in.

'Personally, I think that Jews, and to a lesser extent Hindus and Sikhs, face a future of marginalisation in Britain, caught in a pincer movement between the Islamist political game and the pandering of the left to every whim of the Muslim community. Look at Ken Livingstone and his outrageous remarks all to court the Muslim vote. This is the future of Britain. It is a tragedy.'

My guess is that there aren't just a minority of Muslims who disagree with this "Nazi-like" hatred. However, he probably is right that there is just a minority of brave Muslims willing to speak out against it. Of course, they don't have a public platform. And, unfortunately, the ones who do, rarely speak out against the extremism in their midst.

Condemning An Israeli Terrorist
And Those Who Honor Him

I was having an email discussion with a friend the other day, and something came up which I think I ought to post on this site. I'll try to give it context, so you can see why it came up. My friend wrote the following of Sharon's disengagement program and the settlers:

It seems to me that his bigger difficulty is going to be in evacuating theJewish towns without causing horror and backlash. What do you think about that by the way? I am torn there.

In order to understand my answer, one must understand that I don't purport to be any kind of expert on the history of the border dispute, or the peace process. I don't understand these things, and they really have little to do with this blog anyway. You'll notice that I don't post on the Middle East conflict very often, except if it is a Palestinian calling for the death of Jews. To my mind, that is morally wrong. So, I speak out on it. I consider the political dispute to be the realm of people who understand the history and legal rulings comprehensively.

So anyway, here's my answer to my friend. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given:

You know, honestly, I don't know what to think. Here's as far as I've been able to get with it:

1) The Settler Program (which I believe Sharon accelerated) seems unfair and counter to the Oslo Peace Accords

2) I can think of no reason why Jews should not be allowed to live in Palestine, if they buy the land legally.

3) I honestly don't know why any sane Jew would want to live in Palestine.

I read an article in the New Yorker, a few months back, on the Settler Movement. Now, of course, the New Yorker is liberal, but that doesn't mean it's always wrong. From my own personal experience with radicalized Christians and Jews, I believe that their characterization of the Settler Movement was probably relatively accurate, although probably not quite as prevalent as they imply. Basically, the people the New Yorker interviewed were Jewish Supremacists who believe Israel is their land because the Bible says it is.

They have made a hero out of Baruch Goldstein. In case you do not remember who he is, he's the guy who, during the time when the Oslo Accords were first being implemented, marched into a mosque and used a machine gun to mowed down 29 Palestinians as they were praying.

Since I had brought that up, I thought I would include a link to a story on Baruch Goldstein. So, I went to google and typed in something like,

Baruch Goldstein murder mosque

or something like that. The number one link provided by google was this:

On the Feast of Purim (February 1994), Dr. Baruch Goldstein, dressed as an army officer, entered the Tomb of the Patriarchs, and shot to death 29 Arabs and wounded approximately a hundred more. It is our great misfortune that Dr. Baruch Goldstein may G-D avenge his blood, who was brutally murdered by the Arabs is no longer with us.

The site, from which that quote is taken, deals with a dispute over the gravesite of Baruch Goldstein. The people who keep the site clearly think Baruch Goldstein is a hero.

I just want to go on record here on CUANAS and say that, to me, Baruch Goldstein was a terrorist, just as sure as any Palestinian suicide bomber is a terrorist.

That being said, I know of no major movement, within Israel, in support of people like Baruch Goldstein. As is true with America, Israeli society contains of a tremendous plurality of opinions, but the general consensus is they want to have a two-state solution.

Contrast such an attitude with that of the Palestinian Authority whose charter (which is on the official UN website) calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Washington Post Managing Editor Doesn't Seem
To Know What's Going On In China

From Michelle Malkin:

The Washington Post's managing editor, Philip Bennett, gave a fascinating interview to People's Daily Online, the official mouthpiece of the Communist Chinese regime.

Assuming Bennett's remarks were correctly transcribed (and there is a significant possibility that they were not), it seems fair to say he has bad feelings about the Bush Administration, which he says deliberately lied about WMDs in Iraq and is excessively secretive. He can't define democracy, but whatever it is he disputes the notion that it's advancing in Iraq. He doesn't seem to place much value in freedom of the press, as evidenced by his enthusiasm about the idea of working as a journalist in China, which routinely censors web sites and news. He is darn sure that America shouldn't lead the world. On the other hand, he is quite fond of China and its leaders. He didn't go so far as to accuse U.S. troops of deliberately killing journalists a la Eason Jordan, but once again the anti-American mindset comes through loud and clear.
I've included some highlights below, but read the
whole thing.

Bennett's views on democracy:

Democracy means many things. How do you define democracy? As a Chinese journalist, you may have your own definition of democracy which corresponds to your history and your way of seeing the world. I may have another definition. Someone else may have their own definitions. Democracy means a lot of different things.

On the failure of democracy (whatever that means) to advance in Iraq despite the country's first free, multi-party election in more than 50 years:

One of the jobs of our correspondents in Baghdad is to tell our readers what the Bush administration is trying to hide. Bush says democracy is advancing in Iraq, but our correspondents say the situation there is much more complex than that.

On the similarity of the roles of the press in the U.S. and China:

We receive a lot of criticism from the government for presenting views of events which are in odds with what they are trying to present. This is very important in our system and it is one of the fundemental roles of the press.

We have seen that similar roles of the press are developing in China as media expose corruption. In any system corrupt officials are trying to cover bad things up. We may look at the press coverage of issues like SARS epidemic. At the very beginning there were efforts to cover things up. [MM notes: Chinese government officials reportedly locked up some 100 people for "spreading rumors" or "false information" about SARS over the Internet.] But then the news came out everywhere through the press and even the textmessaging. Then the government was forced to admit what happened. This role is quite similar with the role we are trying to play here in the United States.

Of course, we have a lot of limitations on our ability to do that. The government of the US is becoming much more secretive, much more hostile to the press in terms of giving us access to the information. So a lot of what we do here is to fight for access to the information that we think the public should have. That takes a lot of our energy and resources.

Bennett is the Post's second-highest-ranking editor. He is likely to become the Post’s executive editor when Leonard Downie, Jr., retires, probably in a few years.

There's much more where that came from. I advise everyone to read it. Now, I want to contrast the world of Political Theory, which Phillip Bennett seems to live in, with the reality of China. Here, from Christianity Today, is the story of the arrest and torture of Christians, for the crime of being Christians:

According to a new release from the China Aid Association, a member of an underground house church in China openly testified about her experiences of torture during imprisonment by Chinese police. The testimony came at a recent press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C.
The 34-year-old Chinese Christian, Ms. Liu Xianzhi is from the South China Church. She was arrested by the Chinese police in 2001. She was brutally beaten and threatened to falsely accuse her pastor Gong Shengliang of "raping" her, according to the news release.
Amid a series of crackdown of underground churches in the last few years, as the Chinese government attempts to stop the rapid growth of the Chinese church, South China Church is one of those who are facing a crisis.
China Aid Association said that Ms. Liu is just one of 8,903 members of the South China Church who police have arrested for their religious beliefs. Even the Head Pastor of the Church, Pastor Gong, is serving a life sentence in prison based on multiple confessions obtained through torture.
These abuses in China have brought a renewed focus by congressional leaders and the UN.
Together with Ms Liu who was arrested in 2001, three members of the Church were originally sentenced to death. However, due to pressure from UN and human rights organisations, these death sentences were commuted. However, Liu was sentenced to three years in a labour re-education camp where she was again abused by the Chinese police, according to the new release.
Ms Liu escaped from China last month after serving her sentence in a labour camp making Christmas lights and rugs. Through open testimony at the National Press Club news conference, Ms Liu hopes that it will help bring freedom of belief and release from prison for her brothers and sisters in China.
The Laogai Research Foundation (LRF) reported Joseph Griebosky, president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy, reminded the audience that Liu's story is one of millions of Chinese victims.

My church has had Chinese Christians, and American Missionaries who have snuck into China, come and testify to these crimes. These crimes are not reported in the American Media. Why doesn't Phillip Bennett report the torture of Christians in China? That is a valid question. Justice demands that he answer.

But, you know what, that is not the only story out of China which is not being talked about by Mr. Bennett respected newspaper. From Free Republic, here is the story of the "Gender-cide" being committed by the Chinese government:

The World Health Organization is not one of my favorite groups, but last Friday the United Nations agency released a paper that should have prompted front-page headlines around the globe.

The report, released at WHO’s Regional Committee for the Western Pacific, said more than 50 million women were estimated to be “missing” in China because of the institutionalized killing and neglect of girls due to Beijing’s population control program that limits parents to one child.

Many of the girls were killed while still in the womb -- the victims of ultrasound technology that revealed the baby’s sex. Others, WHO said, were starved to death after birth, the victims of violence or were not treated when they became ill.

The report’s statistics showed that in 1994, 117 boys were born for every 100 girls in China. Though baby girls tend to have a higher survival rate than boys, that natural process has been dramatically reversed in China by infanticide, gross neglect, maltreatment and malnutrition of females in a culture that regards boys as more desirable -- especially when couples get only one chance at parenthood.

The trend transcends the infancy stage, too, the report shows. Girls are at higher risk than boys of dying before the age of five in China -- despite their natural biological advantages.

Just to put this story in perspective, WHO is documenting what can only de described as the biggest single holocaust in human history -- and doing it in a surprisingly clinical and low-key fashion. Nevertheless, it’s stunning, breathtaking news, by any standard. Once again, it shows, centralized, command-and-control government planning has resulted in a slaughter of the innocents. It’s news that cries out for a new word in our vocabulary -- “gender-cide.”

So there, Mr. Bennett, that's another story you can track down with your fine journalist's nose.

Phillip Bennett is a fool of colossal proportions. First the Eason Jordan story, now this. I am stunned by what leaders of the American Media are up to. I don't believe it is ignorance. I don't believe Mr. Bennett doesn't know what going on in China. I believe it is pure anti-Americanism.

Go home to your beautiful house in the beautiful suburbs, Mr. Bennett. Get together with your glamorous, powerful friends this weekend. Ease your mind. Put money away in accounts for a comfy retirement. Live the American Dream, while you piss all over it.

Thursday, March 10, 2005

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies
London University Magazine Calls For
The Violent Destruction Of Israel

From Melanie Phillips:

Activities at SOAS become ever more disgusting. An article in the latest issue of the School's magazine 'Spirit' -- a glossy publication freely available in the Union lounge -- is entitled 'When Only Violence Will Do' by Nasser Amin. It urges the destruction of Israel and violence against Israelis. In summary, it says that all Jewish 'colonies' (not just those after 1967) are wrongful and must be dismantled, violence is justified, Zionists must be exposed, and all Israelis are legitimate targets. Here are some exerpts:

'Those who espouse a negotiated 'settlement' ought to come to terms with the inconsistency of their view: it is contradictory to call for a West Bank-Gaza State and affirm the 'right' of the Israeli state to continue to exist. Rational consistency demands that if some Jewish colonies are wrongful, then all Jewish colonies are wrongful and all ought to be dismantled, not just those established after the arbitrary year, 1967. What consistent ethical principle would decree otherwise? Too many fail to recognise that pre-67 Zionism is just as iniquitous as post-67 Zionism. There are many in our world who are Zionists yet fail to recognise it. They ought to be exposed...

'People who are in a wretched state, being deprived of basic moral justice, because of the ongoing deliberate actions of others, have a right to violence against them, if no other course of action is as likely to meet their objective of improving their predicament. In particular, those peoples who are being denied a right to self-determination in their native soil by foreign colonialist occupations - a right their tormentors take for granted with respect to themselves - and suffer as a result have a right to armed resistance, if no other way is available. By contrast, there is no right to violence if the objective is ultimately to exploit further, conquer even more and steal more land, as is the case with Israeli violence.

'The oft repeated view that Israeli victims of Palestinian violence are mainly 'innocents', as Sheikh Yusuf implies, faces the easy objection that those who benefit from the immoral actions of a colonial state in which they have chosen to reside cannot be considered as innocent. They are personally complicit in national wrongdoing, exacerbated by the fact that all Israeli adults, including the women, serve in what is indubitably an imperialist-terrorist organisation, the IDF. By choosing to raise their children in a colony at war with an indigenous people, the Israelis jeopardise the lives of these genuine innocents, who deserve to be protected from the crimes of their parents. Non-violent resistance is no solution either. We know what the Israelis can do to unarmed peace activists. Violence, rather than feebleness, generates power for the oppressed".

You just gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth.

Indonesians Lose Confidence In Bin Laden
Gain Confidence In America

Thanks to the Anchoress for bringing this to my attention:

"In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States' global war on terrorism, more people in the world's largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.
"This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia conducted February 1-6, 2005, and just translated and released...
"Key Findings of the Poll:"
- For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.
-For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%)."
-65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30."
-Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims."

Says the Anchoress:

This is a major development, a substantial piece of good news, and a vindication of the Administration's policies, which means that of all the major media outlets in the world, only ABC , "Boston Globe", and the "Washington Times" have carried the original Reuters story.
No other American outlet, no European news provider, nothing in the Muslim world (except for the "Jakarta Post"), and only one mention in Australia.
Compare and contrast with the publicity given to any new poll that shows that "the foreigners hate us", "we have squandered the world's sympathy" and "anti-Americanism is on the rise." One could think that the media is biased or something.

Why Have So Many People
Come To Loathe The Mainstream Media?
A Comment By Bingo Bunny From LGF

This was comment #53 under an LGF post entitled "About Dan Rather's Farewell Broadcast":

#53 BingoBunny 3/9/2005 07:39PM PST

I will never forget 911 I watched it live hoping against hope it was some terrible accident..then the second plane hit.. and I screamed out that we were at war. And started calling all my friends to tell them what was happening.
The MSM saw what was happening in America the Dems and Republicans actually working together, and they began to shut it all down.. turned to the scum who wanted us to blame ourselfs, and egging the Dems into finding fault..ever so carefully with Bush and the war.
Until now they can have a hundred Dems a night on air calling Bush a hitler and the war Americas fault. I have watched this unfold since 911..and the LLL MSM will never brainwash me to ignore what they have and are doing to America. goodbye Dan.. don't let the love hit ya in the ASS>

That pretty much describes how I feel. Thanks BingoBunny.

Anti-Semitism In The Anti-War Movement

A friend of mine, who is a Pacifist, sent me this article from Sojourners Magazine, which my friend describes as a "very cool magazine on Peace & Justice activism from a Christian perspective". The article is very cool. It's a great thing to see a Pacifist come out strongly, and in very clear terms, against the anti-Semitism within their ranks. Read on:

'Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace, Anti-Occupation'

Is there anti-Semitism in the anti-war movement?
by Arthur Waskow

Some people have expressed anxiety about "anti-Israel" stances in the anti-war movement. By "anti-Israel," I mean a politics that blames all of Israel, and only Israel, for the present conflict, or sees it only as a colonialist patsy of the United States, or sees it as a settler state with no legitimacy.

I do not mean those who vigorously oppose both the Sharon government and terrorist suicide bombers, who call for an end to the occupation and its replacement with a two-state peace settlement in which Israel continues to have a special relationship with the Jewish people and Palestine has viable borders very close to the '67 borders, with mutually agreed adjustments. By my lights, such people are strongly and creatively pro-Israel.

By these criteria, there are indeed a few in the anti-war movement who are "anti-Israel." There are many more that are creatively and strongly pro-Israel.

There are now three important anti-war groupings. One is the quasi-coalition called ANSWER. It is tightly controlled by the Workers World Party, a Marxist faction with a strong anti-Israel, anti-U.S. bent to its politics. It demonizes Israel, treating it simply as a tool of imperialism and as the chief fomenter of the Bush administration's march toward war against Iraq. It is easy for this last attitude to slip into a left-wing version of anti-Semitism, in which the fantasy of a Great Zionist Conspiracy is attached to the present grandiosity of U.S. foreign policy and blamed for most of the world's ills.

Last fall, a much broader, true anti-war coalition was founded—precisely because many groups had found that working with ANSWER was extremely difficult. This coalition, United for Peace and Justice, includes a wide variety of peace, religious, labor, environmental, campus, veterans, and other groups. More recently, a second true coalition has formed, called "Win Without War." It is based on a dozen or so large-membership groups such as Sojourners, the Sierra Club, and the NAACP.

Why is there so little participation from the Jewish institutions that have in the past been vigorous for peace, for social justice, and for the environment? These usual groups are internally paralyzed by the Israel crisis. For example, even the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, supposedly the umbrella for Jewish social concerns, has almost no staff devoted to that pursuit; almost all are focused on public relations in support of the Israeli government and its policies.

Yet beneath this layer of official institutional paralysis, there is a part of the Jewish community that is committed to seeking peace and justice. But they are not focused in a single organization. Instead, they are now dispersed and wandering in a variety of different institutional structures—a Reconstructionist synagogue here, a Reform one there, a former American Jewish Congress chapter somewhere else; and others such as the Jewish Social Justice Network, Tikkun, The Shalom Center, and so on.

There are also some Jews who feel so betrayed by the perversion of Jewish values embodied in many aspects of the occupation that they fail to take into account the real pain and fear of Israelis and the real terrorism carried on by some Palestinian groups. They may adopt so blinkered a vision of the pain of Palestinians and Iraqis that they lose the ability to empathize with the pain of Israelis or Americans.

There is a danger that this attitude can degenerate into a kind of inverted Jewish identity in which most of the Jewish passion is based on rage at the actions of the Israeli government. But among almost all Jews who call themselves "pro-Israel, pro-peace, anti-occupation," the distinctive quality is a vision of what an Israel would be like that could authentically and joyfully speak (and be heard as speaking) in the name of the Jewish people, Torah, and God.

—Arthur Waskow

Rabbi Arthur Waskow is director of The Shalom Center in Philadelphia.
I must say, I'm also glad to see that this Pacifist admits that ANSWER is a Marxist organization, whose real purpose is not peace, but is instead, merely, opposition to America.
A guy like this almost makes me want to be a Pacifist.
By the way, I must say, I really respect my friend. He's a social worker and a Youth Pastor. He's told me some horrendous stories of having to go into the homes of severely troubled teens and their severely troubled parents. My friend is not a big guy. He's under 5'8" and is really pretty slight in build. Imagine how you would feel knowing there is a big deranged man standing between you and the door, and he's getting angrier and angrier by the second.
I don't have the courage or the patience for such people. My friend does. He does his work out of love. He's a real Christian. I do this blog out of love for what I see as a love for Justice. I think it's a good thing that I do this blog. But, I never for one minute think that my sacrifice in writing this blog measures anywhere near the sacrifice that my friend has made of his life. I am proud to call him my friend.
All that being said, he and I don't agree on certain issues, as you can imagine.

You know, it's really hard to argue with someone for whom you have so much admiration. It makes me feel dirty.
But, I wanted to post part of the email I wrote in reply to the email in which he sent me this article. I was repsonding to the part of this article which talks about "vigorously" opposing the Sharon government:

I don't believe Paicifists have to vigorously oppose him (Sharon). He uses violence, yes, but do you oppose the use of violence everywhere? Did you oppose it in Bosnia? Would you oppose it in Darfur, Sudan? Would you have opposed it in Nazi Germany?

Pacifism in my opinion makes sense as a goal, not a dictated rule.

You know what's odd about absolutist Pacifists to me, how can a person demand that governments live up to a standard which the Pacifist can only hope to live up to himself. For instance, when you have your baby, what would you do if a maniac walked up on the street and grabbed her and began to twist her neck? You would have to use physical violence to stop such a situation.

Just so, currently in Sudan there is a genocide being waged. 75,000 people have been killed this year. The truth is, 2 million black Sudanese Christians and Animists have been killed in the past 20 years, by the Arab government of Sudan. No one paid attention as long as it was Christians and Animists being killed. But last year they moved on to start killing the Black Sufi's. If you know anything about Sufism, it is a peaceful sect of Islam. So, what you have there is a militant Arab Muslim government killing black peaceful Muslims. I won't even go into the child rape, slavery, and mass gang rapes of women.

The point is, that needs to be stopped. And, violence is probably the only way to do it. The UN has been trying other measures for over a year now.

What do you think? Got any ideas?
I think the Sojourners article was a very coherent statement. I would love to hear a Pacifist give such a coherent answer to the question I posed.
Typically, what I hear from Pacifists, when such a question is posed, is that they would have done things differently leading up to the genocide, so that there would have been no genocide. Truthfully, I think that is a cop out. There are evil people in this world. No Pacifistice policies are going to put an end to that fact.
So, let me hear an answer. Because, honestly, I'd rather be a Pacifist. This is going to sound snide, but I'm being truthful, I would feel a lot better about myself if I were a Pacifist. I don't like advocating violence (as I do in supporting the War on Terror). It doesn't give me a surge of powerful feelings within myself. Instead, it makes me sick. But, I truly believe that it's the only way we are going to put an end to the Islamofascist Jihad.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

There's Something Funny About That Crowd

The Astute Blogger points out something I did not notice. When you see pictures of the Lebanese pro-Democracy demonstrations there are many female faces in the crowd (well, I did notice that. Lebanese women are particularly beautiful, after all). But, well read the Astute Blogger to find out:

YUP: that's right: While watching news reports on TV and looking at jpegs at blogs, I couldn't help but notice a HUGE difference between the two sides in Lebanon: on the one hand, the anti-Syria demonstrations in Beirut were obviously, totally PLURALISTIC: men and women; Christians, Druze, and Sunni; and people of all ages; and they were all HAPPILY proclaiming their the occupation of their country by the fear-mongering forces of anger and repression. On the other hand,
today's Hizballah demonstration was huge, but exclusively male - and angry looking; even their speakers sounded angry - ESPECIALLY Nasrallah.

I think this says a lot about each side - EVERYTHING, in fact.

Besides explicitly demonstrating their beliefs, each side implicitly demonstrated what kind of nation they would engender: the anti-Syrian side showed that they embody pluralism and democracy - and even "the pursuit of happiness." Hizballah showed that they are sexist, xenophobic, and violent-at-heart. This is a classic "Good versus Evil" match-up, and it's why we must be willing to support the anti-Syrian side with EVERYTHING we got!

AND ANOTHER THING: Were all those angry pro-Syrian men Lebanese?

I find that very VERY hard to believe. HERE'S WHY: news agencies estimated the Hizballah crowd at nearly one MILLION people - THAT'S 25% of Lebanon's population! And since it was a MALE ONLY crowd, that would mean that the total pro-Hizballah population (which after all - like the general population - include an equal amount of women) would account for 50% of the nation's population!

Well, that's MORE than the number of Lebanese Shia! YUP: according to the CIA, Lebanon has about 4 million people, of which only 35% are Shia. If half are male, then there are only 500,000 male Lebanese Shia - which means that maybe HALF of the pro-Syria, pro-Hizballah demonstrators WERE NON-LEBANESE - and were either Palestinian Arabs from the UN run refugee camps, or Syrians!

THEREFORE, I think ONE MUST CONCLUDE that many MANY MANY of the Hizballah men demonstrating were Syrian - or Palestinian Arabs from the UN refugee camps. (AT LEAST HALF!)

That's ANOTHER reason we must support the pluralistic, pro-democracy - LEBANESE side over the pro-Syrian forces!

The astute blogger is right. We have to help the Middle East move past this oppression of women. When a human being doesn't have choice in their education, transportation, marriage, clothing, suffrage, speech, etc., then that human being is a slave.

If Hizballah is capable of turning out an entirely male crowd of protesters, then there is something very wrong. The only conclusion we can come to from this is that Hizballah is a sort of state-within-a-state totalitarian regime, dictating the lives of women. That's frightening to ponder.

At this point, Hizballah has 10% of the Lebanese Parliament. They must be disarmed before they are able to intimidate enough to aquire even more votes in the coming elections.

There was another regime that rose to power through violent voter intimidation, back in the late 20's and early 30's. To this day, we regret that we did not stop them before they rose to power

Hat tip to Roger Simon.

The Euros and David Duke Agree
The Jews Are Nazis

So, what does America's most renowned white supremacist, David Duke, have to say about Ken Livingstone, the anti-Semitic Mayor of London's and his little kerfluffle with the Jews? From Melanie Phillips:

'You see, you can’t liken an individual Jew, no matter how obnoxious, to a concentration camp guard. You have stepped on the toes of the Holy People, the unassailable people, the people you can’t criticize or God help you!...The will of the people be damned, you cannot offend the real rulers. Get it in your head, you Gentile dolts, we do not live in Democracy. We live in a Jewocracy!'

In fact, David Duke says that Ken Livingstone "realized that Israel was a Jewish supremacist state that is every bit as “racist” as was Nazi Germany and is one of the modern day’s most brutal and murderous regimes."

You know, doesn't that sound familiar?

In May and June, the University of Bielefeld contacted 3000 "non-migrant" Germans. The purpose of the survey was to determine "the cut off point" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism. It found that "classical" anti-Semitism in Germany is waning, but secondary anti-Semitism, often couched in anti-Israel views, is on the rise, especially among the Left.

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.

68 percent of Germans believe that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinians.

Interesting, huh? Not much difference between European Public Opinion and that of our most notorious white supremacist.

Anti-Semitism at London University

The Mayor of London is a guy named Ken Livingstone. Livingstone recently got mad at a reporter, who happened to be Jewish, and insulted him by calling him a "Nazi camp guard. This is not Livingstone's first brush with anti-Semitism. He also commonly expresses affection for Islamofascists, such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Now, London's School of Oriental and African Studies has decided to elect Ken Livingstone as it's honorary president. Understand that in Britain, the word Oriental is used to refer to Arabs from the Middle East. From Melanie Phillips:

The emergency student union general meeting held at London's School of Oriental and African Studies on Friday to elect Ken Livingstone as its honorary president (see posts below) seems to have been, as might have been expected, a vicious affair in which hatred for Israel and Jews was on rampant display. This is the account written by Gavin Gross, an official of the Jewish Society (which, incidentally, along with the Israel Society, is excluded altogether from the School’s list of student union societies) :

‘An "emergency" motion was brought to create the post of Honorary President of the SOAS Union and to elect Ken Livingstone to the post. I believe the reason given for the emergency meeting was ludicrous - that the Mayor was due to appear soon at SOAS and the Union wanted to know whether he would be introduced as merely the Mayor or also as Honorary Union President. For such an important symbolic role, a canvas of the students should have taken place beforehand to nominate various candidates, and then a proper period of time for reflection and publicity should have been given before any vote. The Union instead proceeded to quickly force through this meeting to select Ken Livingstone, the only choice listed.

'I then tabled an amendment at the meeting to select Nelson Mandela instead. I limited all my remarks to discussing the merits of Mandela as a unifying candidate, reading excerpts from his speech on release from prison in 1990 (which I remember watching live on TV). I explained why I felt an African and world leader was a better choice for the School of Oriental and African Studies than Ken Livingstone, a divisive candidate. The proposers of the motion and its supporters (including many from the SOAS Islamic and Palestine Societies) spent little time discussing the merits of Ken Livingstone, but instead launched numerous attacks (while pointing towards me) on "apartheid Israel", the "war criminal" Ariel Sharon, the "Jewish lobby", the "Zionist press", the SOAS Jewish Society, and the "Zionist and Mossad conspiracy" to disparage the Mayor.

'This was not a debate on the Middle East. Quite what an assault on the state of Israel, Jews and the Jewish Society had to do with selecting an Honorary President of the Union I don't know, but it demonstrated the bigotry and pathological obsession that some SOAS students have with Israel and Jews. Many Jewish students in the room felt intimidated by being there. It confirmed my initial fears that the meeting, held on an emergency basis to rush through the selection of Ken Livingstone, had little to do with the sudden desire to have an Honorary President. Instead it had everything to do with insulting Jewish students by rewarding the Mayor for attacking a Jewish reporter and Israel, and providing a platform for extremist students to publicly vent their hostility towards Israel and the Jewish Society in the Union. It also shows what real-world impact is being felt by Jewish students in London following the Mayor's series of disgraceful remarks. Near the end of the meeting, I was also personally attacked by the Environment officer of the SOAS Union, who called me a f***ing w***er from the microphone.

'I remind you this is the same Union that in February 2005 voted to ban Roey Gilad, political attache of the Israeli Embassy, from speaking on campus, simply because he is an Israeli official.
'The day after the meeting, I also received an extremely abusive email from the Academic Affairs officer at the SOAS Union, which I have forwarded to the proper authorities.’
We wait to see whether SOAS will now take action against this venomous prejudice and hatred which make such a mockery of an academic institution, quite apart from being a gross affront to decency.

Note, this is a school does not allow official Jewish Organizations on campus.

A Note Of Caution On Events In The Middle East

A note of caution on the Middle East from Daniel Pipes:

These developments find some neo-conservatives in a state of near-euphoria. Rich Lowry of the National Review calls them “a marvelous thing.” Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post writes that “We are at the dawn of a glorious, delicate, revolutionary moment in the Middle East.”

I too welcome these developments, but more warily. Having been trained in Middle Eastern history makes me perhaps more aware of what can go wrong:

Yes, Mahmoud Abbas wishes to end the armed struggle against Israel but his call for a greater jihad against the “Zionist enemy” points to his intending another form of war to destroy Israel.
The Iraqi elections are bringing Ibrahim Jaafari, a pro-Iranian Islamist, to power.

Likewise, the Saudi elections proved a boon for the Islamist candidates.

Mubarak’s promise is purely cosmetic; but should real presidential elections one day come to Egypt, Islamists will probably prevail there too.

Removing Syrian control in Lebanon could well lead to Hezbollah, a terrorist group, becoming the dominant power there.

Eliminating the hideous Assad dynasty could well bring in its wake an Islamist government in Damascus.

Note a pattern? Other than the sui generis Palestinian case, one main danger threatens to undo the good news: that a too-quick removal of tyranny unleashes Islamist ideologues and opens their way to power. Sadly, Islamists uniquely have what it takes to win elections: the talent to develop a compelling ideology, the energy to found parties, the devotion to win supporters, the money to spend on electoral campaigns, the honesty to appeal to voters, and the will to intimidate rivals.

Melanie Phillips comments:

All doubtless very true. Which only serves to confirm the point that quick-fix elections are not the end of the process but only the beginning; that it is free societies based on the rule of law, independent courts, proper opposition parties and a free press that are crucial if the aggression of rogue states is to be neutered; and that the big change the west has to make is to believe that most ordinary people everywhere do not want to be jailed, tortured or murdered whether by a despotic eye-doctor or a religious fanatic, and therefore to be prepared to hold assorted feet to the fire until those free societies are achieved.

Oh, but isn't that Fascism?

That's sarcasm, lest anyone doubt me.

The Iranian Counteroffensive Begins

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, March 8 - A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgments about Iran's weapons programs, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's work.

The report comes as intelligence agencies prepare a new formal assessment on Iran, and follows a 14-month review by the panel, which Mr. Bush ordered last year to assess the quality of overall intelligence about the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

The Bush administration has been issuing increasingly sharp warnings about what it says are Iran's efforts to build nuclear weapons. The warnings have been met with firm denials in Tehran, which says its nuclear program is intended purely for civilian purposes.

The most complete recent statement by American agencies about Iran and its weapons, in an unclassified report sent to Congress in November by Porter J. Goss, director of central intelligence, said Iran continued "to vigorously pursue indigenous programs to produce nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been conducting inspections in Iran for two years, has said it has not found evidence of any weapons program. But the agency has also expressed skepticism about Iran's insistence that its nuclear activities are strictly civilian.

Iran is one of the largest oil-producing nations in the world, but they are endeavoring, at great expense, to build nuclear power plants, which can be used to produce nuclear material suitable for nuclear weapons. There is a possibility that Iran is building these nuclear power plants for peaceful reasons. However, with all that oil at their disposal (basically for free), they don't need to energy.

So, maybe their peaceful reason for desiring nuclear power is because they want to protect the environment.

There are many people who believe America is going to sit on it's hands while Iran builds nuclear weapons. I have a hard time believing that, but maybe it's true. However, if we don't do something about the problem, then Israel, more than likely, will.

About the title of this post. I don't mean to imply that I believe this 9-member bipartisan commitee is working on behalf of Iran in a counteroffensive against U.S. claims that they are building nuclear weapons. However, I am saying that this report will be used by all those who want to sabotage the War on Terror.

It's probably accurate to say that our intelligence is not up to snuff. But, when you look at oil-rich Iran building nuclear power plants, the question should be not whether our intelligence is sufficient, but whether our common sense is.

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Germany Is Going Back To Their Roots

From CNN:

BERLIN, March 8 (Reuters) - Passengers on planes descending into Berlin's Tegel airport were greeted by the sight of a huge swastika scraped out of snow on a frozen lake a few kilometres from the runway, police said on Tuesday.
The Nazi symbol, which is banned in Germany, was visible from planes arriving from all over Europe for most of Monday morning before water police, having tested the ice thickness, could venture out to erase it.
Alerted after a pilot told the airport control tower, police in a squad car sent to the lake failed to see anything from the shore.
A police helicopter later spotted the 8 by 5 metre (26 by 16 foot) swastika and sent the water police team.
The suspected neo-Nazi stunt recalls an affair five years ago when a 60-by-60 metre swastika, visible only from the air, was discovered in a forest 100 km north of Berlin.
A devoted Hitler follower had planted russet-coloured larch trees in 1938 which formed a swastika for a few weeks each autumn and spring as the leaves changed colour.

Hizballah Terrorist Organization
Demonstrates In Support Of Assad In Lebanon

From Reuters, via Little Green Footballs:

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Hundreds of thousands of flag-waving Lebanese flooded central Beirut Tuesday for a pro-Syrian rally called by Hizbollah that dwarfed previous Lebanese protests demanding that Syrian troops quit Lebanon.

As the mainly Shi’ite Muslim crowds thronged Riad al-Solh square, a security source said Syrian forces had begun moving eastward under a phased withdrawal plan announced Monday.

“The redeployment to the Bekaa Valley has started in line with the first phase,” the Lebanese source said.

The huge Hizbollah rally was the first major show of popular support for Syria in Beirut since the Feb. 14 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri touched off daily anti-Syrian protests, mainly involving Maronite Christians.

Those protests, which drew tens of thousands Monday, take place in Martyrs Square, just 300 meters (yards) from the scene of the gathering organized by Hizbollah and its allies.

The rival demonstrations, each using the Lebanese cedar flag to show patriotism, reveal deep rifts in Lebanon over Syria’s role and international demands for Hizbollah to disarm.

Hizbollah and Lebanese security sources said one million people attended the rally, which Hizbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah called to thank Syria for its “sacrifices” in Lebanon and to oppose a U.N. resolution saying militias must disarm.

I didn't realize there was a religious rift to this conflict between Syria and Lebanon. Great. As if we don't have enough problems. It's hard enough when the U.S. is fighting to free Muslims Iraqi's. Can you imagine if we go to was against Syria and our main supporters are Lebanese Christians?

Hizballah, by the way, only has ten percent of the sears in Parliament. The large crowds they attracted in Lebanon signify a very large portion of their contingency. I don't know what to make of this. Considering the fact that Hizballah is a terrorist organization, there could be some intimidation involved in generating such sizable crowds. Or, it could be that there are just that many sick people in Lebanon.

Captain's Quarters notes that a news story from Reuter's say that Syria has indicated that they will indeed be pulling their Intelligence Service, as well as their troops, out of Lebanon. Captain Ed comments:

That may take some doing. By some accounts, the security presence in Lebanon may comprise hundreds of thousands of outright spies, bureaucrats, functionaries, and Lebanese collaborators. Just as in other tightly-controlled societies with omnipresent state police -- think Gestapo -- the lines blur between the agency itself and all the secondary players that allow it to function with such ruthless efficiency. Pulling the official mukhabarat out of Lebanon may wind up having only a small impact on Lebanese life, at least at first. Of course, the flip side comes if the Lebanese gain control of the intelligence files, an unlikely event if the Syrians manage an orderly retreat back home. If the Lebanese saw the files, the recriminations and the revenge could destabilize the entire country.

No one, so far, has mentioned the role of Hezbollah. Given their now-overt efforts to keep Syria in Lebanon, the armed auxiliary to Syria's occupation should either be disarmed or sent off to Damascus with the rest of the occupiers. That may also prove rather tricky, as the terrorists don't show any inclination to do either. However, they've undeniably acted as agents of both the military and the mukhabarat, and the Lebanese will have to do something to neutralize the terrorists if they want to achieve true sovereignty.

I'm guessing the fact of Hizballah presence and support of Syria is the reason behind Assad's stunning willingness to comply with the United States. It could be that he merely intends to use Hizballah as his troops and spies.

Holland Debates State-Sanctioned Killing Of Children

From Knight-Ridder:

BERLIN - Attempting to prod the government of the Netherlands to weigh in on an ongoing battle over expanding euthanasia, a group of senior Dutch doctors has reported itself to prosecutors for having "killed" 20 newborns.
Dutch justice ministry officials had no comment last week on whether there would be any legal action in the cases. The doctors hope their move will prompt parliament to recognize officially that doctors have been euthanizing critically ill children beyond what Dutch law allows.

The law says people can elect suicide over continued treatment for terminal conditions, but it does not apply to children under 12. Debate over the sanctioned killing of children has been raging in the Netherlands for months and has drawn the attention of the Vatican (news - web sites) and anti-euthanasia groups from around the world.

The nation's Supreme Court first approved of euthanasia, under certain circumstances, in 1984. Ten years later, the parliament outlined rules to follow to avoid prosecution. In 2002, members of parliament voted it into law.

But the law has dealt with patients who have requested death. This discussion - which is in a very preliminary stage and expected soon on the parliament's calendar - is about those who cannot request death, or voice a choice for life.

There was a song by a band called Semisonic that was popular here in America a couple years ago. Went a little something like this:

Closing time - time for you to go back to the places you will be from.
Closing time - this room won't be open 'til your brothers or your sisters come.
So gather up your jackets, and move it to the exits -
I hope you have found a friend.
Closing time - every new beginning comes from some other beginning's end.

Yeah, I know who I want to take me home.
I know who I want to take me home.
I know who I want to take me home.
Take me home...

Monday, March 07, 2005

Not In Their Name

The news has been good lately. Even hardcore Bush haters are noticing it. Australian blogger, Tim Blair, notes an interest comment from a reader of Austin Bay, and an pertinent column from Mark Steyn:

“Dumbocracy” seems to be taking hold in the Middle East, and Jon Stewart is having second thoughts about George W. Bush’s chimpoid Hitlerian fascist Halliburtonism. Commenter Rob at Austin Bay suggests “Not in Your Name” rallies to celebrate this progress. Mark Steyn would agree:

The other day in the Guardian Martin Kettle wrote: ‘The war was a reckless, provocative, dangerous, lawless piece of unilateral arrogance. But it has nevertheless brought forth a desirable outcome which would not have been achieved at all, or so quickly, by the means that the critics advocated, right though they were in most respects.’

Very big of you, pal. And I guess that’s as close to a mea culpa as we’re going to get: even though Bush got everything wrong, it turned out right. Funny how that happens, isn’t it? In a few years’ time, they’ll have it down pat — just like they have with Eastern Europe. Oh, the Soviet bloc [the Middle East thugocracies] was bound to collapse anyway. Nothing to do with that simpleton Ronnie Raygun [Chimpy Bushitler]. In fact, all Raygun [Chimpy] did was delay the inevitable with his ridiculous arms build-up [illegal unprovoked Halliburton oil-grab], as many of us argued at the time: see my 1984 column ‘Yuri Andropov, The Young, Smart, Sexy New Face Of Soviet Communism’ [see the April 2004 Spectator column ‘Things Were Better Under Saddam: The coalition has destroyed Baathism, says Rod Liddle, and with it all hopes of the emergence of secular democracy’ — and yes, that really ran in these pages, on 17 April, not 1 April.]
By the way, when’s the next Not In Our Name rally? How about this Saturday?

Then, the commenters comes up with perfect name for the Not In Our Namists:

Millions of Nionists can flood into Trafalgar Square to proclaim to folks in Iraq and Lebanon and Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority that all the changes under way in the region are most certainly Not In Their Name.

An Interview With The "Moderate"
Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas

An interview with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, from Time Magazine, via Melanie Phillips:

Asked who was responsible for the Tel Aviv bombing, Abbas replied:

‘It was individuals. We arrested five. If you ask me who is responsible, the Israelis are responsible. The bombers came from the suburb of Tulkarem to Tel Aviv, crossing the wall. So who is responsible? The wall and the Israelis…

The Israeli's are responsible for when the Palestinians attack them. They should expect to be attacked.

Then, Time asked Abbas about Hamas being in the Palestinian Parliament:

TIME: Israelis and Americans are shocked to think Hamas could be in your parliament.

ABBAS: Why not? They should be in the parliament. They will share responsibility.’

Share responsibilty for what? As I highlighted yesterday, Hamas is an organization formed around the idea of killing Jews and destroying the state of Israel. Is that what Abbas is implying Hamas will share responsibility for?

Should it surprise us if that's what he means? Maybe not, considering the fact that even under the new "moderate" government of Mr. Abbas, still, the Palestinian Liberation Organization charter, on the official U.N. website of the Palestinian Authority, calls for the destruction of the state of Israel.

Pic Of The Day Posted by Hello

"Peace Rally" in San Francisco, March 20, 2004.

Thanks to Zombie for the photo.

The Mohammed al-Durra Story
Did France 2 Produce a Anti-Semitic Propaganda Film
With The Help Of A Palestinian Cameraman?

More European collusion with terrorist organizations. From Clifford May at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies:

The image is as disturbing and iconic as any seen during the many decades of the Arab-Israeli conflict: Mohammed al-Durra, just 12 years old, caught in a cross-fire in Gaza, trembling against a wall, his father desperately attempting to shield him. And then, heartbreakingly, Mohammed al-Durra, shot and killed by Israeli gunfire.

His death, in September 2000, inspired poems -- and suicide bombings. According to the 2001 Mitchell report it was one of the events that set off the intifada.

A poster of Mohammed al-Durra is in the background of the video of the butchering of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Osama bin Laden used the boy's image in recruitment tapes and began a list of indictments against America by saying that President Bush “must not forget the image of Mohammed al-Durra and his fellow Muslims in Palestine and Iraq.”

But there is something most people don't know about this story: It didn't happen the way I described it above. It may not have happened at all.

This is not a new revelation. Back in 2002, a documentary made by the German State Television station, ARD, concluded that Palestinian rather than Israeli gunfire must have killed the child. In June 2003, the veteran journalist James Fallows wrote an article in the Atlantic Monthly presenting “persuasive evidence that the fatal shots could not have come from Israeli soldiers.”

More recently, Denis Jeambar, editor-in-chief of the French newsweekly, L'Express, and documentary filmmaker Daniel Leconte, were permitted to review the raw, unedited video of the shooting. They reached the same conclusion. “The only ones who could hit the child were the Palestinians from their position,” Leconte told the Cybercast News Service (CBN). “If they had been Israeli bullets, they would be very strange bullets because they would have needed to go around the corner.”

What's still not clear is whether Mohammed al-Durra's story was a tragic misunderstanding – or a spectacular fraud, intended to stoke the fires of anti-Israeli hatred and establish, in the public mind, a moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and Israeli soldiers.

The original footage of the incident was produced and distributed to news organizations world-wide – at no cost -- by the government-owned France 2 television network. Only one cameraman, Talal Abu Rahma, a Palestinian, filmed the incident. None of the other cameramen and journalists present that day witnessed it. The France 2 reporter on the story, Charles Enderlin, was not at the scene. The information for his voiceover came exclusively from Rahma.

At this point, at least, Enderlin does not claim to be sure of his facts. Instead, he says that his assertion that Israelis killed al-Durra “corresponded to the reality of the situation, not only in Gaza but in the West Bank.”

Let me just jump in here and say that this reminds me of Dan Rather's assertion that the Memogate documents were "fake but accurate", and also of Representative Hinchey claim that he was a "hero" because he put forth his suspicions that Karl Rove masterminded Memogate, even though he didn't have any evidence.

Dennis Prager has voiced his concern that when it becomes obvious that the perspective of the Left is completely logically sustainable, that fascism could result. There certainly is a fascististic element to slandering a person, or a group of people, and justifying it by saying that it seems like something they would do.

It appears that France 2 TV has conspired, with a Palestinian cameraman, to produce what amounts to a anti-Semitic propaganda film. This is definately Leftist Fascism at work.

But wait, there's more:

Recently, the International Herald Tribune quoted France 2's news director hedging: “No one can say for certain who killed [al-Durra].” But in his report, Enderlin was quite certain: “The shooting comes from the Israeli position,” he said; and “One more volley and the child will be dead.”

That's not all. Although Israel initially issued an apologetic statement that al-Durra might have been accidentally killed in crossfire, it later assigned a civilian physicist, Nahum Shahaf, to investigate. He, too, determined that the fatal shots could not have come from Israeli rifles. But he went further, concluding that Rahma staged the incident. “Going through the film in slow motion,” wrote journalist Stephane Juffa, “he could even see the cameraman's finger making a ‘take two' sign, used by professionals to signal the repeat of a scene.”

Juffa obtained testimony from “Dr. Joumaa Saka and Dr. Muhamad El-Tawil, two Palestinian doctors of the Gaza Shifa hospital, who said that al-Durra's lifeless body was brought to them before 1 P.M.” But France 2 reported that the shooting did not begin until 3 P.M. “How can someone be killed by bullets that were fired hours after he was already dead?” Juffa asks. He believes the answer is simple: The child in the morgue and the child in the France 2 report were different children.

Because France 2 is government-owned, French President Jacques Chirac could step in and right a wrong that has resulted in hundreds of deaths. To do so, argues Juffa, would promote the peace process because “for peace we need reconciliation and for reconciliation we need the truth.”

Someguy at Mystery Achievement weighs in:

Chirac could make a public announcement about the falsity of the report, fire Enderlin, and demand greater accountability from the station's journalists. But according to the article, he has not made the slightest effort to do so. Whether or not he does, he should never be let off the hook for his culpability in the murder of Daniel Pearl, nor for any other murders committed by Islamic terrorists recurited using this French-government funded pro-terrorist propoganda.