Saturday, June 04, 2005

Our War With The European Mindset, Part 1

You will notice that I have had an atypically difficult time laughing at Europe regarding the demise of their Constitution. In spite of the fact that I think it is a good thing that France and Holland rejected it overwhelmingly, I just can't find any glee. I have said that I think a united Europe would be a good idea. As I have said repeatedly on this blog - although it may be easy to forget amid all the sarcasm and vitriol which I direct at the Old World - I don't hate Europe.

I think of Europe as our older partner in Western Civilization. I honestly don't know if England, the US, Australia, Japan, and India can maintain Western Civilization without Europe. Honestly, I fear that our culture may be doomed if we aren't able to keep our European brothers afloat.

But, how do you talk a culture, already under the influence of ether and an overdose of sleeping pills, into finding the will to live. We can only pump their stomachs so much, and too much of the dose has already taken effect. At some point, it is completely up to them. Sink or swim. Fight the urge to give in, or drown into death.

Having said all that, let's look at the facts. In World War II we fought against Germany, Italy, and Vichy France. I'm sure a lot of people would take exception to the idea that France fought against us, but there is little doubt that much of the French population was on the side of the Nazi's.

And unfortunately, it is that way to this day. That may seem to be a very extreme statement, but it isn't when you really look at the tide of history. If you had polled the populations of Germany and France in the 1930's, they would not have agreed with Hitler's proposal (stated in Mein Kampf) to completely obliterate the Jews of Europe. They wouldn't have agreed with his imperialistic desires. They wouldn't have agreed with the extremity of his views on Euthanasia.

But, they would have excused them.

The people of Europe sat back and said, "Well, Hitler doesn't really mean everything he says. He's just blowing off a lot of hot air. You have to understand the German culture. That's the way they are. But, they would never really go that far."

These are the same things which are said of the Islamofascists today. I was discussing the death of the Jew-hating Hamas leader, Sheikh Yassin, with a European relative of mine and, in doing so, I condemned the Guardian for it's fawning obituary of him. Hearing my opinion, my relative offered all the excuses I layed out above. I must understand that the Arab culture has a "bombastic" speaking style. They don't really want the Jews dead. They don't really intend to take the entire land of Israel.

"But, it says that that's what they intend to do in their Charter," I protested.

"Well, they don't really mean it"

Oh yeah. Ok.

During World War II, the European Philosopher, F.A. Hayek, sat down and contemplated the ideologies of Western world, in an effort to discover how nations, which had thought of themselves as relatives, had suddenly blown up in a blaze of hatred for each other. Here's what he said:

"When the course of civilization takes an unexpected turn - when, instead of the continuous progress which we have come to expect, we find ourselves threatened by evils associated by us with past ages of barbarism - we naturally blame anything but ourselves.

Have not all our efforts and hoes been directed toward greater freedom, justice, and prosperity?

If the outcome is so different from our aims - if, instead of fredom and properity, bondage and misery stare us in the face - is it not clear that sinister forces must have foiled our intentions, that we are the victims of some evil power?"

... we all are, or at least were until recently, certain of one thing: that the leading ideas which during the last generation have become common to most people of good will and have determined the major changes in our social life cannot have been wrong.

We are ready to accept almost any explanation of the present crisis of our civilization except one: that the present state of the world may be the result of genuine error on our own part, and that the pursuit of some of our most cherished ideals has apparently produced results utterly different from those which we expected.

... we must not forget that this conflict has grown out of a struggle of ideas within what, not so long ago, was a common European civilization, and that the tendencies which have culminated in the creation of the totalitarian systems were not confined to the countries which have succumbed to them.

As we watch Europe struggle with it's possible futures, and deny the Islamic population bomb in it's midst, and tell us that we don't really have an enemy, that instead we have just invented the war out of imperialistic hubris, we should remember that Europe did the same thing in the 1930's. They struggled with their future, would it be democratic, or totalitarian? They denied the danger of Hitler. And they castigated Churchill for his warnings against the menace in their midst.

The only difference between then and now, is that the European mindset has been inculcated within the United States, and has gained frightening force in the world of the American media and Academia.

So now, we, here in America, sit in the very same position that F.A. Hayek described Europe as being in in during the leadup to World War II. We are drastically divided in ideology. Half of us want America to win the war, and half of us think there is no war to be fought.
Those who think there is no war to be fought are ideologically in league with the Europeans. They deny that Iraq was a state-sponsor of terrorism. They deny that Iran, or Syria, are a threat. Many aren't even that concerned that Iran would aquire nuclear weapons. "After all, they are a sovereign nation. Who are we to tell them what to do?"
The really shocking thing is how many seemingly reasonable people even think the Afghanistan War was wrong. That it was only fought in order to clear the way for the establishment of an oil pipeline controlled by America.

As ludicrous as these ideas sound to us who live in middle America, these are not rare notions. They are rampant in the world of Academia, and among memebers of our media. If you ever wanted to understand why it is that the media behaves the way it does, constantly trying to dig up dirt on our military - about Abu Ghraib, about Guantanamo, about one soldier shooting one unarmed Jihadi in a mosque - I will give you the reasons.
The American Media and Academia are virulently angry with America. To them the Bush Administration is an arm of the "Bush Crime Family." The war is an illusion created in the interest of imperialism. It was planned prior to 9/11. In fact, 9/11 was just a nifty opportunity. There were no WMD's. Saddam was not a threat. It's all about oil.

The thing we fail to take into account is that these people really mean it. "It's all about oil" is not just a slogan to them. They really believe that Bush started a $300 billion war so that he and his cabal of cronies in the White House could make off with the $7 billion a year Iraqi oil industry.

If one believes such a thing - that Bush would purposely endanger the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, and waste hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money in doing so - then yes, Bush is among the worst tyrants in the history of the world. And indeed he would also have to be one of the most malevolent dictators of all time, in order to have enacted such a blackout in the media, because this info just isn't getting out to us, is it?

Why am I going in to all this, and what does it have to do with Europe? Hayek explained that the nations of Europe hadn't seemed that different from each other during the leadup to WWII. Sure, there were differences of opinion between them. But the reality was that even nations like Britain contained within them, sizable constituencies which were in agreement with the other nations of Europe, such as Germany and France.

So today, a significant portion of the population of Europe and America agree with the Islamofascists, that America really is imperialistic, that Capatalism is evil, that American culture is poisoning their pristine worlds, that the Jews are pulling the strings of American foreign policy, and that American really did get what was coming to it on September 11, 2001.

But, why would our friends and neighbors align themselves with the Islamofasicsts? It's well-documented that the Jihadi ideology calls for death to the indidels and the Jews, the adulterers, homosexuals, and apostates. It calls for the destruction of Democracy, the sujugation of women, the suppression of free speech, and the end of art and music.

Surely, our friends and neighbors do not agree with such ideas. No, it couldn't be. No one want to see the destruction of Democracy, do they?

Think again. The truth is most of us do believe that our society is immoral in one way or another. Most of us do see things in our culture with which we disagree, and which we would like to change. And many of us would be willing to subvert the will of our neighbors in order to put society right, if we could just find a way to do it.
And there are ways to do it. There are always methods for getting things done, if we are willing to use them.

Piss Christ by Andres Serrano, 1989

Go ahead, piss on God. It couldn't be worse than the fact that we murdered Him. Yes, that's right, we took Him from his friends at dawn. We kicked him, and beat Him. We whipped Him. We made Him carry our cross. And then we hung Him on it, until He died.

I am so sick of all this idolatry from the media, who are all of the sudden so concerned that a Koran got stepped on, or got hit with wayward urine. The Koran is not God, it is an object. To confuse an object with God is idolatry.

The Koran is not Holy as an object, nor is the Bible for that matter. Muslims and Christians may consider their books to be Holy, but I am not dutybound to agree. If they are Holy in any sense, it is in the ideas they put forth. Ideas are not objects. They can not be bound up in objects. They fly free, indeed, must fly free, to mean anything. They must fly from one thing to another touching the lives and hearts of many people or they are worth nothing.

If it is the book itself that is considered Holy, we must ask why. I'm sure the reason is because it contains the Word of God. But, if that is the case, then isn't every t-shirt and key chain that contains the Word of God, also Holy? Or are such trinkets not Holy because they contain only a portion of the Word of God? And if that is the case, then what percentage of the Word of God needs to be contained on any given trinket, before it is considered Holy?

The media are a group of people who are typically not concerned with the desecration of religious images, but all of the sudden they are starting a crusade against the United States military for the inadvertant desecration of the Koran. We have to wonder why they care. Could it be that they are not only guilty of idolatry, but hypocrisy?

Let's face it, the truth is that Piss Christ is an accurate portrayal of reality. We are not done crucifying Christ yet. God has promised us that it is finished, that it is all over, and yet we continue it. He has forgiven us already, but we are not done killing Him.

And this recent media foray into hypocritical idolatry is just more piss on Christ. Do not fool yourself for a minute, when we murder the Truth, we are at war with God.

Let's look at what the media has wrought. From Little Green Footballs:

Mainstream media is indulging in a nauseating, hysterical orgy of bias and incitement over the Pentagon’s announcement of five cases of Koran mishandling (out of tens of thousands of interrogations); the worst example I’ve seen yet is this blatantly dishonest headline from al-Reuters:

Jailers splashed Koran with urine - Pentagon. (Hat tip: Riding Sun.)

The incident in question involved one guard, who urinated near an air vent, prompting a detainee to claim that drops of urine came through the vent and got on his Koran.
In short, if it happened at all, it was an accident.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American jailers at the Guantanamo prison for foreign terrorism suspects splashed a Koran with urine, kicked and stepped on the Islamic holy book and soaked it with water, the U.S. military said on Friday.

U.S. Southern Command, responsible for the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, described for the first time five cases of “mishandling” of a Koran by U.S. personnel confirmed by a newly completed military inquiry, officials said in a statement.

In the incident involving urine, which took place this past March, Southern Command said a guard left his post and urinated near an air vent and “the wind blew his urine through the vent” and into a cell block.

It said a detainee told guards the urine “splashed on him and his Koran.” The statement said the detainee was given a new prison uniform and Koran, and that the guard was reprimanded and given duty in which he had no contact with prisoners.

No mention in this story that there are many more cases of detainees desecrating their own Korans, by using them as pillows, ripping them up, flushing them in toilets ... and peeing on them.

He also said they found 15 cases of detainees mishandling their own Qurans. “These included using a Quran as a pillow, ripping pages out of the Quran, attempting to flush a Quran down the toilet and urinating on the Quran.”

The reality is we caught these Jihadi's on the battlefield, making war against us. We brought them to Guantanamo and gave them these Korans. We also gave them prayer mats, Halal meals, and a call to prayer five times a day complete with an arrow pointing the way to Mecca.
Then when these Jihadi's accuse us of harming the very same Korans that we gave them, our media immediately believes them, even though they are members of an anti-woman, anti-homosexual, anti-Jewish, anti-American organization called Al Qaeda.
What is going on here? I'd say we all ought to stare at the photo above real hard. We ought to find ourselves in it, because we are there. He who says he has no sin is a liar, and it is our sin which killed Christ.
But, I do not mean to say that we are all equivalent in sin. And when we are being violated we ought to pray, as David did, for deliverance from our enemies.
When one group is engaging in murder and the destruction of human rights, and another is trying to stop them, and instead establish Democracy, and then a third group comes along and aids the first group, then that third group has aligned with evil against good.

Posted by Hello

A Partial History of Muslim Theft
Of the Holy Sites of The World's Great Religions

Here's a small excerpt from an article which tells the history of how Islam steals the Holy sites of other religions by dreaming and inventing ways in which they are Muslim Holy sites, and then murdering people until everybody agrees. From Gates of Vienna:

The al Aqsa Mosque provides Jerusalem, or al Quds, the distinction of being the “third holiest city in Islam”. Built atop the ruins of Solomon’s Temple, its sacred status derives from the fact that the Prophet visited it in a dream. Mohammed never actually went to Jerusalem in the flesh, but his somnambulance was enough to establish its claim as a holy shrine of Islam. The Muslims did not have to destroy the infidel Jewish Temple themselves, since the Romans had already done it.

Read the rest.

Fighting Silence With Silence
Are The Police in Denmark Afraid of Muslims?

Longtime CUANAS reader and commenter, DS, has checked in with a report on the mood in Denmark:

Europe slowly die to the muslims. France is as good as dead, but in more strict countries, like Denmark, there is tendence to rebellion.

Lately, a doorman killed one muslim and hurted another one (brothers). Appearently a group of ten people came up to the doormand with shovels, bottles, and other similar weapons to beat him (properly to death, if no one succeded in interfering). The reason simply was that, though the muslim brothers and the doorman was "good friends", the doorman won't let them in the club (he was doing his job). The family is now hidden because of the threats. A note is that you aren't allowed to carry weapons in the Denmark, so he must have feared for his life.

Some tendency in Denmark is also that more people seams to achieve guns, and policemens also use the guns more often. However, the policemens still are afraid of the muslim gangs (and mostly attack bike gangs and hashish pushers, who don't randomly beat up people walking the street), why most people have little respect to the police. People also do more and more civil arrests.

Hopefully it won't be too late when Europe finally wake up, and see what's going on.

DS' assertion that the police are "afraid" of the Muslims is given credence by a report from The Copenhagen Post, via Fjordman, which seems to confirm his version of the events:

Nørrebro is a quarter in Copenhagen with an extremely high concentration of immigrants. It has been unofficially declared an "Islamic state" by some of its residents:

Nørrebro clams up on gang shootings

Police investigations of recent shootings and gang violence on the streets of Copenhagen are going slow, as members of the Nørrebro quarter's immigrant community with connections with criminal gangs have clammed up, the police said.

In recent weeks, two men have been killed in street shootings. An injured gang leader was subsequently freed by a group of masked men from the State Hospital, where he was under police surveillance.

Police said the silence in Nørrebro about the incidents was deafening, and they were replying in kind. 'We are still investigating many things in relation to the cases, but none of it will be released to the public for the time being. The criminals are not to know what we are doing, and we know from experience that some information can harm the investigation, when we talk about these extremely closed groups,' Chief Inspector Ove Dahl told daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten.

Shootings and gang violence on the streets of Copenhagen in recent weeks demonstrate that the city's plan to integrate disadvantaged teenagers has failed utterly, Social Democratic councillor and integration spokesman Thor Grønlykke said on Thursday.

Grønlykke said his own majority in the city council had not managed to carry out its plan to integrate disadvantaged ethnic minority youth in the immigrant quarter of Nørrebro and prevent them from forming criminal gangs.

I love the line about how the silence in the Norrebro neighborhood is "deafening" and the police are "replying in kind." I know they didn't mean to say that they are fighting silence with silence, but you know, it fits with DS' characterization that the police fear Muslims.

Maybe it's a Zen thing. You know, like, if the gangs are silent, and we become silent, maybe we will all achieve enlightenment, and come to know that our strivings are futile, for we are all one.

Giuliani To Be Nominated For Nobel Peace Prize

From the Swedish paper, The Local, via Fjordman:

Former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani will be nominated for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for his fight against crime in the Big Apple, a Swede leading the campaign told AFP on Thursday.
"It's not just peacemakers and mediators who win the prize nowadays. Humanitarian efforts are also rewarded," a former Swedish MP and ex-consul general in New York, Olle Wästberg, said.
Giuliani served as mayor from 1994 until 2002, after guiding the city through the trauma of the September 11, 2001 terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.
In a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, Wästberg wrote: "The principal motive is that Giuliani symbolizes the civic contributions that led to New York becoming one of the safest cities in the world, a city where people need no longer fear violence."
He said that compared to 1994 when Giuliani took office, there were now 10,000 fewer murders, 15,000 fewer women raped and 800,000 fewer families and businesses suffered from theft or burglary.
"I believe that he has, through his political efforts, saved more human lives than most people alive today," Wästberg said.
"In addition to preventing crime, he has prevented a lot of people from sitting in prison," he said, calling American prisons "unequivocally inhumane".
Giuliani's nomination will come too late for the 2005 edition of the prize, to be announced in October. Candidates' names must be sent to the Nobel Committee in Oslo and postmarked by February 1 each year.
Those entitled to submit nominations for the prize include past laureates, current members of parliament and cabinet ministers from around the world and some university professors.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God.

Friday, June 03, 2005

Teacher, He Got Water On My Koran

From AP:

The Pentagon on Friday released new details about mishandling of the Quran at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, confirming that a soldier deliberately kicked the Muslim holy book and that an interrogator stepped on a Quran and was later fired for "a pattern of unacceptable behavior."

In other confirmed incidents, a guard's urine came through an air vent and splashed on a detainee and his Quran; water balloons thrown by prison guards caused an unspecified number of Qurans to get wet; and in a confirmed but ambiguous case, a two-word obscenity was written in English on the inside cover of a Quran.

The findings, released after normal business hours Friday evening, are among the results of an investigation last month by Brig. Gen. Jay Hood, the commander of the detention center in Cuba, that was triggered by a Newsweek magazine report — later retracted — that a U.S. soldier had flushed one Guantanamo Bay detainee's Quran down a toilet.

The story stirred worldwide controversy and the Bush administration blamed it for deadly demonstrations in Afghanistan.

Hood said in a written statement released Friday evening, along with the new details, that his investigation "revealed a consistent, documented policy of respectful handling of the Quran dating back almost 2 1/2 years."

How can this man claim we treat anybody or anything with respect? I mean, look at these charges, kicking, water balloons, errant urine? The horror. The horror.

From Michelle Malkin:

Erik Saar, who served as an army sergeant at Gitmo for six months and co-authored a negative, tell-all book about his experience titled "Inside the Wire," inadvertently provides us more firsthand details showing just how restrained, and sensitive to Islam to a fault, I believe the officials at the detention facility have been.
Each detainee's cell has a sink installed low to the ground, "to make it easier for the detainees to wash their feet" before Muslim prayer, Saar reports. Detainees get "two hot halal, or religiously correct, meals" a day in addition to an MRE (meal ready to eat). Loudspeakers broadcast the Muslims' call to prayer five times a day.

Every detainee gets a prayer mat, cap, and Koran. Every cell has a stenciled arrow pointing toward Mecca. Moreover, Gitmo's library yes, library is stocked with Jihadi books. "I was surprised that we'd be making that concession to the religious zealotry of the terrorists," Saar admits. "[I]t seemed to me that the camp command was helping to facilitate the terrorists' religious devotion." Saar notes that one FBI special agent involved in interrogations even grew a beard like the detainees "as a sort of show of respect for their faith."

Now, let's get down to reality here:

Number one, the Koran is not God. It is only a book. Just like the Bible. To treat it as a sacred object is a form of idolatry. And, for God's sake, we wouldn't want to be idolatrous.

Now, let's move on to more intense stuff. Muslims stone adulterers and homosexuals to death. They kill family members who leave the faith, or dishonor them by having sex outside of marriage.

Go to the Voices of the Martyrs website, and read the stories of Christians who are murdered for telling others about their faith.

Muslims blew up Buddhist religious statues in Afghanistan, which were millenia old.

Muslims used the Church of The Nativity as a place of battle, and they got drunk, and murdered people inside it. That's right inside the building located at the birthplace of Christ.

Muslims blow up other Muslims while they are at prayer in Mosques.

Oh yes, and Muslims saw guys heads off, after forcing them to admit that they are Jews.

What have we Westerners done to Muslims in retaliation for all these crimes?

Nothing. NOTHING.

What has the mainstream media written about all these crimes?

Blame us.

Enough already.

You Mean It's Not OK To Say That Jews
Are The Sons Of Apes And Pigs?

Well, what do you know? When the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wants to distribute Korans, what kind of Korans do you think they distribute?

Yes, that's right, Korans with additional anti-Semitic commentary. From Little Green Footballs:

... a controversial U.S. Muslim lobby group is giving away free copies of Islam’s revered book.

The particular edition, however, “The Meaning of the Holy Quran,” previously was banned by the Los Angeles school district because commentary notes accompanying the text were regarded as anti-Semitic.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations has included the edition in the Islamic book-package it offers libraries nationwide and now is giving it away to help “improve America’s image” through a program called “Explore the Quran.”

“We want to turn a negative image into a positive one,” said CAIR’s Florida director, Altaf Ali, at a news conference in Cooper City, Fla, announcing the project. “America’s image is taking a beating, and it’s affecting us all, of different faiths.” WorldNetDaily contacted Ali at his Florida office, but he refused to be interviewed for the story.

The Saudi-funded CAIR is a spin-off of a group described by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a “front group” for the terrorist group Hamas in the U.S. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

A Florida-based group, Americans Against Hate, drew attention to CAIR’s distribution project, noting the book’s commentary and index makes it clear the Quran’s references to “apes” and “pigs” are descriptions of Jews.

Khaleel Mohammed (organizer of the Muslim March Against Terror), an assistant professor of religious studies at San Diego State University, says the Saudi-approved edition was first published by Abdullah Yusuf Ali in 1934 at “a time both of growing Arab animosity toward Zionism and in a milieu that condoned anti-Semitism.” Ali, according to the professor, constructed it as a “polemic against Jews.”

Until recently, he said, it’s been the most popular version among Muslims.

Yet, despite revisions over the years, Mohammed added, the footnoted commentary about Jews “remained so egregious” that in April 2002 the Los Angeles school district banned its use at local schools.

Hey, lesson learned, right? Now, that CAIR knows that anti-Semitism isn't acceptable, I'm sure they will stop.

The Motto of Western Civilization on the Decline

From The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:

"He was really an OK guy to me, besides holding a gun to my head," she said.

"She" being the 29-y.o. customer/hostage at a convenience store, who survived the hail of bullets unleashed upon "Mr. OK Guy™" by the police S.W.A.T. officers, when "Mr. OK Guy™" began firing at them as they attempted to pull her out of the store.

Go read the rest.

French Newspaper Le Monde, Convicted of Anti-Semitism
Italian Newspaper Publishes The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion
BBC Says The Israeli's Stole Christmas

From Melanie Phillips:

Tom Gross reports in the Wall Street Journal (subscription only, but available at at the end of June) the remarkable fact that the most prestigious newspaper in France, Le Monde, has been found guilty by a court of antisemitism -- and the no less remarkable fact that no-one in France appears to care.
The Versailles court of appeal last week found the paper guilty of 'racist defamation' when it ruled that a comment piece it published in 2002, "Israel-Palestine: The Cancer," had whipped up anti-Semitic opinion. The authors, sociologist Edgar Morin, lecturer Daniele Sallenave and MEP Sami Nair, along with Le Monde's publisher, Jean-Marie Colombani, were ordered to pay symbolic damages of one euro to a human-rights group and to the Franco-Israeli Association, while Le Monde was also ordered to publish a condemnation of the article -- which as of yesterday it had not yet done, and the ruling had had virtually no coverage elsewhere in France. Gross observes:

'"Israel-Palestine: The Cancer" was a nasty piece of work, replete with lies, slanders and myths about "the chosen people," "the Jenin massacre," describing the Jews as "a contemptuous people taking satisfaction in humiliating others," "imposing their unmerciful rule," and so on. Yet it is was no worse than thousands of other news reports, editorials, commentaries, letters, cartoons and headlines published throughout Europe in recent years, in the guise of legitimate and reasoned discussion of Israeli policies.

'The libels and distortions about Israel in some British media are by now fairly well known:
  • the Guardian's equation of Israel and al Qaeda;
  • the Evening Standard's equation of Israel and the Taliban;
  • the report by the BBC's Middle East correspondent, Orla Guerin, on how "the Israelis stole Christmas."
  • Most notorious of all is the Independent's Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, who specializes in such observations as his comment that, "If ever a sword was thrust into a military alliance of East and West, the Israelis wielded that dagger,"

  • and who (Fisk) implies that the White House has fallen into the hands of the Jews: "The Perles and the Wolfowitzes and the Cohens . . . [the] very sinister people hovering around Bush."

'The invective against Israel elsewhere in Europe is less well known. In Spain, for example, on June 4, 2001 (three days after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 21 young Israelis at a disco, and wounded over 100 others, all in the midst of a unilateral Israeli ceasefire), the liberal daily Cambio 16 published a cartoon of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (with a hook nose he does not have), wearing a skull cap (which he does not usually wear), sporting a swastika inside a star of David on his chest, and proclaiming: "At least Hitler taught me how to invade a country and destroy every living insect."

'The week before, on May 23, El Pais (the "New York Times of Spain") published a cartoon of an allegorical figure carrying a small rectangular-shaped black moustache, flying through the air toward Sharon's upper lip. The caption read: "Clio, the muse of history, puts Hitler's moustache on Ariel Sharon."

'Two days later, on May 25, the Catalan daily La Vanguardia published a cartoon showing an imposing building, with a sign outside reading "Museo del Holocausto Judio" (Museum of the Jewish Holocaust), and next to it another building under construction, with a large sign reading "Futuro Museo del Holocausto Palestino" (Future Museum of the Palestinian Holocaust).

'Greece's largest newspaper, the leftist daily Eleftherotypia, has run several such cartoons. In April 2002, on its front cover, under the title "Holocaust II," an Israeli soldier was depicted as a Nazi officer and a Palestinian civilian as a Jewish death camp inmate. In September 2002, another cartoon in Eleftherotypia showed an Israeli soldier with a Jewish star telling a Nazi officer next to him "Arafat is not a person the Reich can talk to anymore." The Nazi officer responds "Why? Is he a Jew?"

'In Italy, in October 2001, the Web site of one of the country's most respected newspapers, La Repubblica, published the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," in its entirety, without providing any historical explanation. It did suggest, however, that the work would help readers understand why the U.S. had taken military action in Afghanistan.

'In April 2002, the Italian liberal daily La Stampa ran a front-page cartoon showing an Israeli tank, emblazoned with a Jewish star, pointing a large gun at the baby Jesus in a manger, while the baby pleads, "Surely they don't want to kill me again, do they?"
In Corriere Della Sera, another cartoon showed Jesus trapped in his tomb, unable to rise, because Ariel Sharon, rifle in hand, is sitting on the sepulcher. Sweden's largest morning paper, Dagens Nyheter, ran a caricature of a Hassidic Jew accusing anyone who criticized Israel of anti-Semitism.
Another leading Swedish paper, Aftonbladet, used the headline "The Crucifixion of Arafat."

You see, that last one makes sense because, as any European worth his salt knows, the Jews killed Jesus. What Americans might not know is that the idea of Jewish deicide has been used by European leaders for centuries to stir up hatred against the Jews, which usually led to murderous massacres.

What massacre are the Euros planning now? Could it have anything to do with handing Israel to the Palestinians in its entirety?

The Reality of The Global War on Terror

Another great article from Victor Davis Hanson at National Review. We need to look at this one in pieces, because he makes some points about The Global War on Terror which are so profound that they will be in the history books of the future:

The three-year-plus war that began on September 11 is the strangest conflict in our history. It is not just that the first day saw the worst attack on American soil since our creation, or that we are publicly pledged to fighting a method — “terror” — rather than the concrete enemy of Islamic fascism that employs it.

Our dilemma is that we have not sought to defeat and humiliate the enemy as much as wean a people from the thrall of Islamic autocracy. That is our challenge, and explains our exasperating strategy of half-measures and apologies — and the inability to articulate exactly whom we are fighting and why.

Every war that has ever changed things significantly gained it's win, and effected it's change through humiliation. In World War II we fought the Nazi's until they were just about ready to give in, and then we firebombed Dresden. In Japan, the people were just about ready to give up, and then we dropped the Atomic bombs. In the Civil War, the South was all but defeated and then we burned Atlanta to the ground.

Whether we like it or not, this is how peace and change is won. Sooner or later, we will make this tactic our own in the GWoT, or we will lose. in light of George Bush's current state of "Drifting," I'm afraid that what is going to happen is the Islamists will regain their sense inevitability and momentum, and will eventually be emboldened to strike back at us hard.

I am afraid that the only thing which will cause us, the placated West, to humiliate is the kind of anger that comes from really believing we could be defeated. September 11th brought that message home to me, with a power that I will never forget. I look around at my countrymen and know that they have not learned the truth of our vulnerability.

On with Mr. Hanson. This next part is particularly profound. Give it your thought please:

Imagine that a weak Hitler in the mid-1930s never planned conventional war with the democracies. Instead, he stealthily would fund and train thousands of SS fanatics on neutral ground to permeate European society, convinced of its decadence and the need to return to a mythical time when a purer Aryan Volk reigned supreme. Such terrorists would bomb, assassinate, promulgate fascistic hatred in the media, and whine about Versailles, hoping insidiously to gain concessions from wearied liberal societies that would make ever more excuses as they looked inward and blamed themselves for the presence of such inexplicable evil.

All the while, Nazi Germany would deny any connections to these “indigenous movements” and “deplore” such “terrorism,” even as the German people got a certain buzz from seeing the victors of World War I squirm in their discomfort. A triangulating Mussolini or Franco would use their good graces to “bridge the gap,” and seek a “peaceful resolution,” while we sought to “liberate” rather than defeat the German nation.

That is the reality of the Global War on Terror. If we do not face this fact, we will be defeated.

... a larger percentage of Middle Easterners, if it cost them little, gain psychological satisfaction when fellow defiant Muslims (terrorists or not) “stand up” to Westerners, who enjoy power, status, and wealth undreamed of in the Middle East.

Even if they would hate living under Taliban-like theocrats, millions at least see the jihadists as about the only way of “getting back” at the Western world that has left them so far behind. This passive-aggressive sense of inferiority explains why millions of Muslims flock to Europe to enjoy its freedom and prosperity, even as they recreate there an Islamist identity to reconcile their longing and desire for what they profess to hate.

Still, most in the Middle East wish simply to embrace the human desire for prosperity, freedom, and security within the umbrella of traditional Muslim society — and will support American efforts if (a) these initiatives seem to be successful, and (b) are not seen as American.

Consequently, the United States has not been able to bring its full arsenal of military assets to the fray. It is nearly impossible to extract the killers from the midst of civilian society. Too much force causes collateral damage and incites religious and nationalist anti-American fervor. Too little power emboldens the fascists and suggests America (e.g., Nixon’s “pitiful, helpless giant”) cannot or will not win the war.

Like a parent with a naughty child, a maddening forbearance is the order of the day: They burn American flags, behead, murder, and promise death and ruin to Americans; we ignore it and instead find new ways of displaying our sensitivity to Islam.

So, how could the Islamists defeat us? Here's how:

Although the enemy is weak militarily and its nihilist ideology appeals to few, it still has powerful ways to meet our own overwhelming military power and economic strength.

The Doctrine of Deniability
First is the doctrine of the deniability of culpability. In the legalistic world of the United Nations and international courts, Islamists depend on their patrons’ not being held responsible beyond a reasonable doubt for the shelter and cash they provide to those who kill Westerners. Elites in Syria or Iran deny that they offer aid to terrorists. Or if caught, they retreat to a fallback position of something like, “Do you really want to go to war over our help for a few ragtag insurrectionists?”

A second advantage is oil. A third to half the world’s reserves is under Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf States, Iraq, and Iran. None until recently were democratic; most at one time or another have given bribe money to terrorists, sponsored anti-Americanism, or survived by blaming us for their own failures.

These otherwise backward societies — that neither developed nor can maintain their natural wealth — rake in billions, as oil that costs $2-5 to pump is sold for $50. Some of that money in nefarious ways arms terrorists. Should an exasperated United States finally strike back at their patrons, we risk ruining the world economy — or at least so it will be perceived by paranoid and petroleum-dependent Japan, Europe, and China.
Without an energy policy of independence, this war will be hard to win, since Saudi Arabia will never feel any pressure to purge its royal family of terrorist sympathizers or to cease its subsidies for Wahhabist hatred.
Postmodern Rot - We don't really believe in anything
Except, uh, you know, like, Human Rights and stuff
A third edge for the terrorists lies in the West itself. After 40 years of multiculturalism and moral equivalence — the wages of wealth and freedom unmatched in the history of civilization — many in the United States believe that they have evolved beyond the use of force. Education, money, dialogue, conflict resolution theory — all this and more can achieve far more than crude Abrams tanks and F-16s.

A bin Laden or Saddam is rare in the West. In our arrogance, we think such folk are more or less like ourselves and live in a similar world of reason and tolerance. The long antennae of the canny terrorists pick up on that self-doubt. Most of the rhetoric in bin Laden’s infomercials came right out of the Western media.

As September 11 fades in the memory, too many Americans feel that it is time to let bygones be bygones. Some now consider Islamic fascism and its method of terror a “nuisance” that will go away if we just come home. We are a society where many of our elite believe the killer bin Laden is less of a threat than the elected George Bush. Al Qaeda keeps promising to kill us all; meanwhile Ralph Nader wants the wartime president impeached for misuse of failed intelligence.

The Cult of The Underdog - The Naiive Belief That The Underdog is the Oppressed
Fourth, in an asymmetrical war the cult of the underdog is a valuable tool. Europeans march with posters showing scenes from Abu Ghraib, not of the beheading of Daniel Pearl or the murder of Margaret Hassan. They do not wish, much less expect, al Qaeda to win, but they still find psychic satisfaction in seeing the world’s sole superpower tied down, as if it were the glory days of the Vietnam protests all over again.
How else can we explain why Amnesty International claims that Guantanamo — specialized ethnic foods, available Korans, and international observers — is comparable to a Soviet Gulag where millions once perished? So there is a deep, deep sickness in the West.

Our Response?
In response, we have embarked on the only strategy that offers a lasting victory: Kill the Islamic fascists; remove the worst autocracies that sponsored terrorists; and jump-start democratic governments in the Middle East.

Our two chief worries — terrorists and weapons of mass destruction — wane when constitutional societies replace autocracies. Currently few democratic states harbor and employ terrorists or threaten their neighbors with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, even if they have ample stockpiles of each.

Where will it all end? Our choices are threefold.

We can wind down — essentially the position of the mainstream Left — and return to a pre-September 11 situation, treating Islamism as a criminal justice matter or deserving of an occasional cruise missile. This, in my view, would be a disaster and guarantee another mass attack.

Or we can continue to pacify Iraq. We then wait and see whether the ripples from the January elections — without further overt American military action into other countries — bring democracy to Lebanon, Egypt, the Gulf States, and eventually the entire Middle East.
This is the apparent present policy of the administration: talking up democracy, not provoking any who might disagree. It may well work, though such patience requires constant articulation to the American people that we are really in a deadly war when it doesn’t seem to everyone that we are.

Or we can press on. We apprise Syria to cease all sanctuary for al Qaedists and Iran to give up its nuclear program — or face surgical and punitive American air strikes. Such escalation is embraced by few, although many acknowledge that we may soon have few choices other than just that.

What Victor Davis Hanson calls pressing on, I will call escalation. And I believe it is the only way we will win. At this point the momentum is going against us. We can not afford to allow that to happen for long.

Human Rights Organizations
The Last Refuge Of The Postmodern Scoundrel

From Front Page Magazine:

Patriotism was, in Samuel Johnson’s 18th century world, ‘the last refuge of a scoundrel.’ Johnson did not say patriotism was scandalous, but charged corrupt public figures with using patriotism to excuse their crimes. It appears, early in the 21st century, that ‘human rights’ will be the last refuge of modern scoundrels who twist the truth to suit their political agenda. Amnesty International’s bizarre statements calling America ‘the leading purveyor and practitioner of torture’ and threatening leading Americans with arrest for war crimes if they travel abroad lean that way.

These statements by William Schultz, AI US executive director, are just the latest in a trend. Amnesty has been pushing the envelope of propriety for a long time. It has developed a deserved reputation as a hard-left, anti-American institution more concerned with promotion of its own political agenda than with succor for the oppressed. Its not as if the world suddenly has a dearth of oppressed people for whom AI could legitimately speak. But rather, the organization has cynically ignored those hapless souls in order to aim its venom at America.

And make no mistake, Amnesty’s accusations are the most loathsome and despicable imaginable. Especially offensive is Amnesty’s calling the terrorist prison in Guantanamo an American ‘gulag.’

It is worse than lack of principle or judgment to use a highly charged word like ‘gulag’ recklessly; a word with such a terrible connotation. It is an intentional distortion of fact. Furthermore, Amnesty’s failure to speak up when such a word fully applies is an immoral, criminal omission for an organization that professes in holier-than-thou terms to be speaking for those with no voice.

In contrast to its incessant attacks on America, for at least the past 10 years Amnesty has given a pass to the world’s worst human rights violator: Kim Jong Il’s North Korea. In 1995 a story broke in the Los Angeles Times about the extent of North Korea’s death camps and the extraordinarily large percentage of the population that was imprisoned in them. (At any given time Kim Jong Il holds an estimated 300,000 prisoners out of a population of approximately 22 million.)

Prisoners are sentenced without trial, executions are frequent, human beings are subject to experimentations with poison gasses, slave labor is common, there is no medical attention for the prisoners, and starvation is rampant. Prisoners are worked, often to death, in so-called ‘economic zones’ under slave conditions, and are forced to do extraordinarily heavy labor in mines, roads, and tunnels without proper equipment or adequate food. They die unmourned and lie in unmarked graves.

The LA Times story was based on testimony from two North Korean defectors – both later testified before Congress about their experiences in a real gulag, Kim Jong Il’s prison. One defector, Kang Chol Hwan, authored a book, Aquariums of Pyongyang, that fully described his horrific personal experiences and ultimate escape from the hellhole of North Korea.

Significant in the Times story was a brief note that both of these defectors had described their experiences to Amnesty International. To the shock of those who knew the full story, Amnesty categorically rejected their sworn testimony on the grounds that it was "untrustworthy."

Over the next few years a succession of witnesses and escapees including the noted Doctors Without Borders member, Dr. Norbert Vollertsen, testified in several venues about the government-sponsored horrors taking place in North Korea. Vollertsen even brought a series of shocking photos with him showing starving children in striped prison uniforms terrifyingly similar to photos of Nazi death camps. Amnesty ignored and dismissed Dr. Vollertsen’s reports.

Similarly, testimony from Sun Ok Lee, herself a former Party member in North Korea, falsely accused and sentenced to six years in forced labor camps. One would think that her autobiography, Eyes of the Tailless Animals: Prison Memoirs of a North Korean Woman, along with reams of Congressional testimony detailing her brutal experiences would be sufficient to get at least an expression of interest from Amnesty, but it has not been so.

A bit of background may show some of the reasons why Amnesty International is willing to expose nits in the eye of the United States but overlook logs in communist dictatorships abroad. The US executive director of AI, William Schultz, has been with the organization for several years. He was influential in rejecting the 1995 North Korean defector’s testimony. Schultz is also reported to be affiliated with groups such as the Unitarian Universalist Association that was extreme in its condemnation of South Korea during the 1970s and 1980s but mute in any judgment about the brutality occurring north of the DMZ in the evil twin, North Korea. Many of his colleagues have visited North Korea, celebrating such occasions as Kim Il Sung’s birthday and enthusiastically participating in seminars on the ‘Juche Ideology.’

Israeli Apartheid Watch
Arab-Israeli Student Score
Highest Average Math Scores In Country

Thanks to LGF commenter Manker, for making me aware of this bit of news from Israel:

TEL AVIV - As 140,000 high school seniors prepare to sit the mathematics portion of their matriculation exams Thursday, Yedioth Aharonoth reports that last year, the country's Arab students produced the country's highest scores.

Education Ministry officials said they were pleased with the results. Head of the ministry's Pedagogy Department, Leah Rosenberg, said the results were "fantastic."

"In the past, we had a pretty good idea of how each city would score (on the exam)," she said. "Now, we see that hard work can bring positive results, notwithstanding socio-economic realities."

Thursday, June 02, 2005

A Palestinian And An Israeli Walk Into A Bar and ...

From Jewish World Review:

With the Knesset's defeat this week of the proposed referendum on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's planned withdrawal of Israeli forces and expulsion of Jewish communities from Gaza and northern Samaria, the last parliamentary obstacle to the establishment of a de facto Palestinian state with provisional borders was overcome.

Although attention in Israel has been obsessively focused on our internal debate over the legitimacy and morality of Sharon's plan, the real story is what is happening on the Palestinian side of the tracks. For as Israel departs, it will leave a vacuum which will quickly be filled. And while Israel argues with itself, the Palestinians are now establishing the foundations of the Palestinian state that will arise in August.

US President George W. Bush and his senior advisors are already moving forward with plans to restart peace negotiations with the "reformed, democratic, terror fighting" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas and his "reformed Palestinian security services" and his "reformed, transparent" bureaucracy.

After Yasser Arafat rejected Israeli and American peace offers in 2000 and the Palestinian terror war was launched against Israel, the chattering classes spent the better part of four years mindlessly debating whether Arafat was behind the war or whether he was simply too weak to do anything to stop it. The debate was both absurd and counterproductive. It was absurd because the answer to the question was largely irrelevant.
If Arafat was behind the terror war then he was illegitimate, and if he was too weak to prevent it from being waged he was worthless. The debate was counterproductive because it prevented those involved from accepting the fact that the PA was a terrorist entity and that Israel had to do whatever was necessary to protect its citizens from massacre.

Today, Arafat's replacement, Mahmoud Abbas, has been accepted as a legitimate leader by the West. He has been invited to visit Bush at the White House. In order to strengthen Abbas, the US is transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to the Palestinians while pressuring Israel to transfer security authority over towns in Judea and Samaria to PA militias and release terrorists from Israeli prisons.

For its part, Israel has stopped trying to round up fugitive terrorists and has allowed Palestinian forces to deploy in Gaza, Jericho and Tulkarm. It has released hundreds of terrorists from prison — two of whom were just rearrested last Sunday night for assembling Kassam rockets in Jenin — and is preparing to release several hundred more in short order.
But developments within the PA this week indicate that both Israel and the US have been horribly wrong in their decision to accept Abbas. As was the case with Arafat, for many it is unclear whether or not Abbas wishes to or is capable of reining in terrorists, and it is equally unclear that the question is beside the point.
At the same time, in contrast to Arafat, because they have placed so much stress on Abbas's legitimacy, both the Bush administration and the Israeli government are clearly averse to mentioning that there is a serious problem with what has been happening in the PA since he took over. Their aversion is increased against the backdrop of Sharon's proposed evacuation of Gaza and northern Samaria and the effective establishment of a Palestinian state with provisional borders in its wake.

This week we learned that on the military front the Palestinians are gearing up for the Israeli evacuation in two principal ways. First, they are acquiring weapons systems — such as SA-7 Strella anti-aircraft missiles — that constitute a major leap forward in their warmaking capacity against Israel.
Second, they are organizing their military-terrorist forces in a way that will prepare them for the next round of terror war against Israel.
Abbas's offer two weeks ago to the Palestinian terror groups outside the PA umbrella to move their headquarters from Damascus to Gaza after Israel's evacuation of the area shows that in his strategic thinking, the territory, once empty of Israeli presence, will be transformed into a center for global terror.

The Palestinian strategy is informed by the belief that Israel is vacating Gaza as a result of Palestinian terror; once all Israeli presence is gone, the main war effort will move to Judea and Samaria, where terror again will force an Israeli retreat.

On a political level, this week we saw that Abbas is carrying out a radical reform of Palestinian institutions. However, his reform program bears no resemblance to the reform demanded by US President George W. Bush. Rather than expunge Fatah terrorists from the PA's bureaucracy and deny legitimacy to terror organizations while working to destroy them, Abbas has decided to empower, finance and legitimize them.

This week it was announced that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have reached an agreement with Abbas for these jihadist terror groups to officially become a part of the PLO.
In exchange for this agreement to join the PLO, Abbas reportedly agreed that Hamas will receive 40 percent of the membership in all PLO institutions. He also accepted that Hamas and Islamic Jihad will retain their arms terror cadres.

For the US, the fact that Abbas has now brought Hamas and Islamic Jihad — groups that, like Fatah's Aksa Martyrs Brigades, appear on the State Department's list of terror organizations — formally into the PLO tent presents a less violent but still urgent problem. The PLO is allowed to operate an office in Washington, DC, because every six months, the president sends a letter to Congress stating that the PLO is not engaged in terrorist activities. Until now, Bush has glossed over the Fatah Aksa Martyrs Brigades involvement with the PA as Arafat himself tried to hide that they were an integral part of the PA apparatus.

How will the president be able to continue ignoring the pervasiveness of terror in the PLO now that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are overt and official members of the organization? How will the president be able to meet with Abbas or have his representatives meet with PA functionaries when the PA itself, after July's legislative elections, will be wholly penetrated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists (joined by Fatah-Aksa Martyrs Brigades terrorists) parading around as legislators and bureaucrats?

The question is, aside from Abbas's overt preparations for the next round of jihad and his bringing Hamas and Islamic Jihad into the PLO, what has to happen for Washington to abandon him and to accept that the emergent state of Palestine is part of the problem, not the solution?

I believe there is more to Sharon's "disengagement" policy, than simply running from a problem. Sharon has been known as a Warrior all his life. Why would he all of the sudden, now that he has the reins of power, turn into an pacifistic appeaser?

A Warrior is most dangerous when he acts counter to the way he would ordinarily be expected to act.

Say you are in a fight with a really big guy in a bar, and he all of the sudden goes quiet on you, and says, "Sure, you can have my girlfriend, and while you're at it, why don't you have my beer? Oh yes, and here are my car keys."

What would you think? Would you think the guy had seen the error of his ways. That he now realized that fighting doesn't solve problems, it only exacerbates them? Or, would you think that the big guy had an even bigger plan? That maybe he's waiting for you to feel like the big guy, and that once you get out into the parking lot, with his girlfriend, and his beer, and his car, he's going to kick the holy crap out of you?

I mean really, what do you think?

Drifting, Falling

Drifting, falling
Watching all your dreams roll by
They roll by
Somewhere out there
She sees you and she sighs
My, my, my, my, my

- Drifting, Falling
by The Ocean Blue, 1989

Lately, I've been finding myself starting to doubt George Bush.

I see that nothing is happening in Lebanon. The elections only garnered a 22% turnout. Given the huge size of the pro-Democracy demonstrations of just a couple months ago, and the huge amount of bravery it took on the part of the Lebanese people for such a show of force to be effected, we can be assured this would not have been the case, had the people of Lebanon believed they had a legitimate choice on the ballot.

I see that nothing is happening with respect to Syria, considering an anti-Syrian journalist was just killed in Beirut. The murder of an anti-Syrian politician is what began the movement towards Democracy in the first place. Such things would not be happening, if Hizbollah and the remnant Syrian intelligence forces feared Bush as they seemed to just a short time ago.

I see that nothing is happening in Iran. An election is looming, and the parties and the people are making their plans, but the US is strangely mute. And what about the bombs? I haven't heard Bush make any statements on Iranian nukes lately. What's going on?

And finally, I see that we are actually going backwards in Israel. From Melanie Phillips:

‘In the White House Rose Garden, Mr. Bush described Abbas as a "man of courage," explaining that he takes "great faith in not only [Abbas'] personal character, but the fact that he campaigned on a platform of peace — he said, 'Vote for me, I am for peace.' And the Palestinians voted overwhelmingly to support him."’

Can this be the same Bush who refuses to talk to terrorists, the same Bush who insists on holding people accountable for their actions, the same Bush who gave his name to the doctrine that there can be no deals or even negotiations unless houses are put in order and terrorist infrastructures dismantled and moves towards the rule of law, democracy and a free society are in evidence? ‘Campaigning for peace’ is patently a cop-out since every tyrant and two-bit dictator says he is ‘for peace’. The acid test is the dismantling of the factories of terror and hatred and the construction of the institutions of a free society. That is the rationale for regime change in the region; that is why the painful construction of a free society in Iraq is absolutely central; that is why the entire edifice of the defence of the west rests upon the relentless pressure on rogue states to become answerable to their people.

The roots of terrorism will not be destroyed unless tyrannies turn into free societies. This is the very pivot of Bush’s foreign policy. And yet he appears to be making an exception for the Palestinians, whose conspicuous absence of democracy and equally conspicuous refusal to halt terror production is being indulged or brushed aside. It is not enough for unnamed administration sources to murmur that the President said hard things about Abbas’s failure behind the scenes. It’s the show that’s put on at the front of house that’s doing the damage.

And that damage was even greater than the display of egregious fawning in the White House Rose Garden. For as Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute has pointed out, not only did Bush fail to correct Abbas when he made demonstrably false claims about the provisions of road map, but Bush himself also said some extremely alarming things. Most worrying was his declaration to Abbas:

‘Changes to the 1949 Armistice lines must be mutually agreed’

which directly contradicted his commitment to Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004:

‘It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final-status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.’

This was a staggering reversal and a huge advance for the Palestinians. While Bush’s commitment to Sharon was vague and conditional, his statement to Mazen introduced an explosive new policy aim. As Satloff writes:

‘For years, Palestinians have wanted the United States publicly to accept the 1967 lines as the reference point for negotiations. In the arcane lexicon of Middle East diplomacy, by positing the1949 lines as the reference point, Bush granted the Palestinians more than they had asked for and effectively made the Palestinians a successor to the signatories of the armistice.

So, now instead of negotiating based upon how things were in 1967, Bush has readjusted the parameters of negotiation based upon how things stood in 1949.

Oh, for God's sake. How could he just inadvertantly do that? Michael Ledeen says Bush is "Drifting." Thanks to Gates of Vienna, for making me aware of this article from Michael Ledeen:

The Washington Post gets full marks for exposing the alarming lack of seriousness with which President Bush is now dealing with what is euphemistically called "The Global War Against Terrorism." Numerous key positions — including the State Department’s top slot, vacated at the end of last year by Cofer Black, and the head of the new counterterrorism center — are vacant, and the National Security Council is working hard to define our current strategy, led by the impressive Frances Townsend.

After nearly four years?

Indeed, if you talk to military officers engaged in the GWOT, more often than not you will hear a lament, because that war has yet to be defined. Despite all of the president’s tough talk, despite the often extraordinary performance of our soldiers and some notable accomplishments by intelligence officers, the "enemy" remains vague, and we are mainly playing a sucker’s game of responding to attacks and helping those who help us on the ground, as in post-Fallujah Iraq. Our other main claim to fame in fighting terrorism, Afghanistan, is currently suffering from cynical neglect by us and our allies, and from considerable corruption, some of it our own.

In short, as the president’s critics are rightly reminding him, more time has passed since 9/11 than transpired between Pearl Harbor and the surrender of the Japanese empire, and our most lethal enemies are still in power and still killing our people and our friends. It is good that the desire for freedom is now manifest among the oppressed peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia, and it is very good that dramatic strides toward self-government have been taken by the Georgians, Kyrgistanis, Ukrainians, Iraqis, and Lebanese. But it is not good enough. Indeed, it is shameful that we have yet to seriously challenge the legitimacy of the terror masters in Tehran and Damascus, who represent the keystone of the terrorist edifice.

Our enemies know this, because, to their delight and perhaps their surprise as well, they are still in power throughout the Middle East. Until and unless they are removed, the terror war will continue, our friends in the region will be killed, tortured, and incarcerated, and the president’s vision of regional democratic revolution will go down the memory hole. He is at yet another great turning point, and, as after the fall of Afghanistan and again after the defenestration of Saddam’s Baghdad, he is drifting, perhaps hoping that he has risked enough, that history is firmly on his side ...

President Bush has indeed unleashed the specter of revolution upon the hidebound and tyrannical rulers of the Middle East, but they have not accepted it as their destiny. Indeed, in several of the main battlegrounds — Iran and Syria, for example — advocates of freedom are being rounded up and delivered to jailers, torturers, and executioners.

So far as I can tell, no one in this administration has denounced the new wave of oppression, as one would have expected them to have done. Why the silence? Does the president believe that democracy will spread even if outspoken democrats are crushed?

To speak so clearly for the spread of freedom, and then remain mute when those who rise in support of freedom are bludgeoned, is to repeat the terrible mistake of his father in 1991, who infamously inspired an uprising against Saddam and then abandoned the Shiites and Kurds to mass graves and torture.

If the United States wants to avoid the repeated use of force to effect regime change, then it is going to have to be steadfast in the application of the weapon of momentum. George Bush can not afford to squander the credit he has earned for morality, nor that which he has earned for ferocity.

If he does not keep up the pressure, the opportunity will have been wasted, and any further change - such as the dismantling of Iranian nuclear weapons systems, or of the Palestinian terrorocracy - will come at the price of much American blood.

The Ku Klux Klan Circa 1930 - They Burn Crosses, Don't They? Posted by Hello

Islamofascists In London Burn Crosses Too

From No Pasaran:

UNITED KINGDOM - 27 May 2005
Muslim Protestors Burn Cross on Streets of London

"More than 300 Muslim protestors set fire to a wooden cross outside the American Embassy in London last Friday 20th May.
The crowd, led by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Yassar al-Siri, were protesting against the alleged desecration of a Qur’an by American military interrogators at Guantanamo Bay. This followed claims by Newsweek magazine that a copy of the Qur’an had been put down a toilet.
American and British flags were also burnt, and the protestors chanted calls for violence against the US and UK. Amongst the protestors were about 50 women, some of whom had brought their children.
At the time this protest took place, Newsweek had retracted their story about the alleged incident in Guantanamo Bay. Yet the cross-burning still took place, and has caused little interest in the British media. Riots in Afghanistan about the same issue had already caused the deaths of 16 people."

Isn't it telling that there haven't been westerners engaging in Newsweek riots yet?
Where's the BBC on this one? Not a peep. Nix. Nada. Bupkus. A goose egg.

Dude, I can't figure it out. Am I the dangerous racist, or are they? I've got a bad case of Werstern Perplexity Syndrome. Could you tell me the way to the nearest cliff?

Posted by Hello

I Keep Repeating To Myself,
"I Am A Paranoid Racist. I Am A Paranoid Racist."
But, They Keep Issuing Fatwas and Blowing Stuff Up

From Front Page Magazine:

Declaring that some of the words used by Orianna Fallaci in her book about Islam were "without doubt offensive to Islam and to those who practice that religious faith," an Italian judge has ordered her to stand trial for anti-Islamic defamation. Meanwhile, Condoleezza Rice has in effect accused all of America of anti-Islamic defamation, saying that a single mishandling by a single U.S. serviceman of a single copy of the Koran is a terrible offense that tarnishes the image of our country.

Yet even as our Secretary of State condemns America for its bigotry, the Saudi government funds the massive distribution of anti-American hate literature at U.S. mosques—and the Saudi Crown Prince, far from being criticized, let alone indicted, for spreading defamation of Christians and Jews, is invited to President Bush’s ranch for a chummy get-together. At the same time, the main cleric of the Palestinian Authority issues Hitlerian calls for the utter destruction of America and the Jews—and Secretary Rice praises the Palestinians for their march to peace and democracy and the U.S. government gives the Palestinians hundreds of millions more in U.S. taxpayer dollars.

People have pointed to all this recent kow-towing to Muslims as evidence of dhimmitude, the subjection of non-Muslims to a humiliated, second-class status under Muslim rule. But looking at the total pattern described above, I wonder if dhimmitude is an adequate description of it. The condition of dhimmitude, as miserable as it is, is relatively straightforward: dhimmis have no power, they're in a defeated, subordinate position, and they have no choice but to accept the harsh treatment meted out to them by their Muslim overlords. But what we have now is in a sense worse than dhimmitude. After all, we are the more powerful party. We are the ones who bestride the world like a colossus. We are the country that arrogantly or idealistically claims to be setting standards for all the nations of the earth.

And yet, from our superior position of unquestioned military power and insufferable moral pretentiousness, we engage in a vicious double standard against ourselves, in which we condemn and punish our fellow Westerners for using critical language about Islam (let us remember that Americans as well as Europeans have been threatened with legal action for condemning Islam), while we reward our Muslim enemies who are openly engaged in a war of vilification and civilizational destruction against us.

I know this to be true. I write on this site almost everyday. I make every effort to be as clear as possible that my beef is with Islamofascism. I invariably define Islamofascism as the Jihadi belief system which seeks Islamist world domination, as well as the imposition of Sharia Law in the states it conquers. Sharia Law is the code of Islamic Law called for in the Koran, whereby people are stoned to death for adultery, apostasy, and homosexuality.

How anyone could disagree with my vilification of such an ideology, I have no idea. And yet, on more than one occasion I have had people tell me that I am a racist. Aquaintences argue with me and tell me I am paranoid. Friends roll their eyes at me and make jokes about my "mission."

I guess a paranoid racist is not accepted in his home town.


And Bono Shall Lead Them

From Christianity Today:

The world's poorest peopled continent, Africa, is the thread tying U2's front man to Orange County pastor ... Rick Warren, who recently hosted Rwanda's president for Saddleback Church's 25th anniversary, will soon launch his PEACE plan connecting U.S. churches to churches in Africa and around the world.

Bono, who some complain has turned U2 concerts into "a televangelist's miracle-working dog-and-pony show" by urging concertgoers to donate to the band's hunger-relief charity, has been preaching debt-relief and AIDS programs for African nations for years now.

Oddly, it's Bono, Warren, and their fans on Capitol Hill who can get politicians to work past culture war name-calling, says David Brooks, in The New York Times.

Issues like poverty, hunger, and AIDS can bring together liberals and evangelicals—the only two groups in the country with the passion to work for social justice.

"We can have a culture war in this country, or we can have a war on poverty, but we can't have both," Brooks says.

"That is to say, liberals and conservatives can go on bashing each other for being godless hedonists and primitive theocrats, or they can set those differences off to one side and work together to help the needy."

Brooks says, "When I look at the evangelical community, I see a community in the midst of a transformation—branching out beyond the traditional issues of abortion and gay marriage, and getting more involved in programs to help the needy. … I see Chuck Colson deeply involved in Sudan. I see Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals drawing up a service agenda that goes way beyond the normal turf of Christian conservatives."

For example, check out what Samaritan's Purse is doing among disabled, former enemy veterans in Cambodia.

Unfortunately, says David Gergen, nobody knows who Rick Warren is—well, except for the more than 22 million who have read his books or participated in a purpose-driven something or other. The U.S. News & World Report editor at large says he's been asking audiences if they've heard of Warren, and, invariably, only a few have. And the gulf separating those who've read Warren and those who haven't is growing, Gergen says. "As the gulf grows, it is distressing some while frightening others and starting to tear us apart politically."

It's perfectly legitimate for these conservative Christians to participate politically, Gergen says. "Just because many of today's most ardent churchgoers come from the Right is no excuse for people on the Left to now say that religion must be kept out of politics. A people's values are inevitably rooted in its spiritual beliefs."

Though Christians can abuse the legitimate infusion of religion and politics (such as when Christians say political opponents are "against people of faith"), and though "people of faith have legitimate grievances against secularists," Gergen says, "we must also recognize that there are multitudes of people on both sides of the divide who share many of the same beliefs and aspirations." Alleviating poverty and taking care of creation are some of those shared beliefs and aspirations.