Saturday, June 18, 2005


You On My Mind In My Sleep Posted by Hello

Hamas As A Political Party
Is A Violation Of The Oslo Agreements


Haaretz came up with an interesting suggestion for Ariel Sharon. From the Eurabian Times:


Sharon can demand that the Americans explain to Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) that Hamas' participation in the Palestinian Legislative Council elections is a blatant violation of the Oslo B agreement, which states that the ballots will be closed to organizations and individuals that commit or advocate racism or pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or undemocratic means.


Racism practically drips off every page of the Hamas charter of August 1988. "The Nazism of the Jews," says the charter, is what provoked World War II, in which the Jews "collected immense benefits from trade in war materials, and prepared for the establishment of their state ..."


Wow, I didn't know that the Oslo Agreements made such a stipulation. If that is so, then the Palestinian Authority was in violation of their own agreement from the minute they signed it. After all, the Palestinian Authority Charter (posted on their UN website) calls for the destruction of Israel.



Those Islamofascists Get Me So Angry
All I Can Do Is Smoke
Like An Pissed-Off Frenchman


From Female First UK:




BONO SHOCKED BY ETHIOPIAN WOMEN'S REACTION TO BREASTFEEDING.

U2 frontman BONO was horrified during a visit to Ethiopia, when he saw local women pelting a breast-feeding aid worker with stones.

The American woman was oblivious of the offence she was causing, and had to escape the angry onslaught from female Muslims who had no qualms about injuring her or her baby.Bono recalls, "I remember one vision of the people who are with WORLD VISION, which is an American aid agency.

"One of the women was breast-feeding a child on the horse. She was so comfortable. She didn't mean to be insensitive.
"But the Muslim women did not like this and came out and started throwing stones at her because she was showing her breasts."


I like Bono (it's a childhood habit) but he seems like a human being peculiarly constructed to take this kind of affront in stride. I bet it doesn't change his worldview one bit.

Well, he might decide to take off the Batman necklace, but other than that ...

Posted by Hello

A Catch 22 For Dick Durbin


Dick says that we're treating Guantanamo inmates in a manner directly comparable to the way the Nazi's treated their prisoners. Well, ok. So, read this, from Reuters:


SANAA, June 18 (Reuters) - Human rights activists voiced concern on Saturday that Guantanamo Bay detainees could face torture if they are repatriated to Gulf Arab states.

"Hundreds of people face the threat of ending in another 'black hole' if they are transferred from Guantanamo to their countries," said activists, lawyers and relatives of detainees in a statement issued jointly with Amnesty International.
Let's send them to Europe.

Is Amnesty International Committing Fraud?


From Pavel Litvinov writing in the Washington Post, via LGF.

Pavel Litvinov was a dissident, active in human rights causes in the Soviet Union. He now lives in the United States:


Several days ago I received a telephone call from an old friend who is a longtime Amnesty International staffer. He asked me whether I, as a former Soviet "prisoner of conscience" adopted by Amnesty, would support the statement by Amnesty's executive director, Irene Khan, that the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba is the "gulag of our time."

"Don't you think that there's an enormous difference?" I asked him.

"Sure," he said, "but after all, it attracts attention to the problem of Guantanamo detainees."

The word "gulag" was a bureaucratic acronym for the main prison administration in Stalin's Soviet Union. After publication of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's "The Gulag Archipelago," it became a symbol for the system of forced-labor camps that have been an integral feature of communist countries. Millions of prisoners confined in the gulag had not been involved in violence or committed any crime -- they were there because they belonged to a "wrong" social, national or political group or expressed a "wrong" opinion.

The cruelty and scale of the gulag system are described in numerous books, so there is no need to recount them here.
By any standard, Guantanamo and similar American-run prisons elsewhere do not resemble, in their conditions of detention or their scale, the concentration camp system that was at the core of a totalitarian communist system.

For example, incidents of desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo by U.S. personnel have been widely reported. But those Korans were surely not brought to Guantanamo by the prisoners themselves from Afghanistan. They were supplied by the U.S. administration -- in spite of the obvious fact that most of the prisoners misguidedly found in the Koran the inspiration for their violent hatred of the United States.

By contrast, Russian author Andrei Sinyavsky, who was sentenced in 1966 to seven years' forced labor for his writing, was approached one evening soon after his arrival in a labor camp by a prisoner who quietly asked Sinyavsky whether he wanted to listen to a recital of the biblical account of the apocalypse. (Possession of a Bible was strictly prohibited in the gulag.)
The man took Sinyavsky to the furnace room, where a group of people were squatting in the dark recesses. In the light of the furnace flame, one of the men got up and started to recite the biblical passages by heart. When he stopped, the stoker, an old man, said: "And now you, Fyodor, continue." Fyodor got up and recited from the next chapter.
The whole text of the Bible was distributed among these prisoners, ordinary Russians who were spending 10 to 25 years in the gulag for their religious beliefs. They knew the texts by heart and met regularly to repeat them so that they would not forget. And this happened in 1967, when the gulag had become smaller and the Soviet regime milder than it had been under Stalin.

Amnesty International, with its fact-based, objective and balanced approach to the defense of human rights, has been a source of hope for dissidents everywhere. A central idea of Amnesty has been the concept of prisoner of conscience as a person who neither uses nor advocates political violence. Just to know that you have been adopted as a prisoner of conscience, that somewhere in the world there are people who know your name and are working for your release, gives a prisoner hope.

When I arrived in the United States after serving my term in Siberian exile, I met hundreds of dedicated Amnesty activists throughout the country who wrote letters to leaders of world governments demanding the release of prisoners of conscience. This activity created a special solidarity of human rights activists across national borders. Naturally, communist leaders denounced Amnesty as a CIA front, and right-wing dictators dismissed its members as communist plotters.

It was only natural that Amnesty flourished in the United States and in Western Europe, where human rights are taken seriously and their defense became an official part of U.S. foreign policy, largely due to the efforts of President Jimmy Carter. There were heroic attempts to create Amnesty groups in countries with dictatorial regimes, including the Soviet Union, but most of those attempts were crushed by arrests and forced emigration.

There is ample reason for Amnesty to be critical of certain U.S. actions. But by using hyperbole and muddling the difference between repressive regimes and the imperfections of democracy, Amnesty's spokesmen put its authority at risk. U.S. human rights violations seem almost trifling in comparison with those committed by Cuba, South Korea, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

The most effective way to criticize U.S. behavior is to frankly acknowledge that this country should be held to a higher standard based on its own Constitution, laws and traditions. We cannot fulfill our responsibilities as the world's only superpower without being perceived as a moral authority. Despite the risks posed by terrorism, the United States cannot indefinitely detain people considered dangerous without appropriate safeguards for their conditions of detention and periodic review of their status.

Words are important. When Amnesty spokesmen use the word "gulag" to describe U.S. human rights violations, they allow the Bush administration to dismiss justified criticism and undermine Amnesty's credibility. Amnesty International is too valuable to let it be hijacked by politically biased leaders.


Agreed.

Note that Mr. Litvinov says that the idea behind Amnesty International was to "adopt" "prisoners of conscience," which was a term defined as people "who neither uses nor advocates political violence."

I know this to be true, because I did some charitable work for Amnesty International back in the 1980's.

My question is, how is it that the leaders of Amnesty International think it's ok to hijack their organization by taking up the cause of murderous Islamofascists?

By taking up such causes they are redefining what Amnesty International stands for as an organization, and in so doing, they are swindling the people who donate money to their organization with the understanding that it defends "prisoners of conscience."

In other words Amnesty International is now collecting donations under false pretenses.

Isn't that fraud?

Democrats Get Wasted, Pass Out, and
Wake Up In A Pool Of Their Own Vomit


A group of Democrats staged a mock impeachment hearing in the basement of Capitol Hill the other day, and guess who showed up? The Jew-haters. From Little Green Footballs:



The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration “neocons” so “the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world.” He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

“Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation,” McGovern said. “The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic.”

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq’s threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his “candid answer.”

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations — that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an “insider trading scam” on 9/11 — that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.



There was more highjinks. Go read about it at LGF. But, the thing I find interesting is that the Democrats got so out of control at this play-pretend impeachment procedure, that Howard Dean is trying to rein them in:


WASHINGTON -- A handful of people at Democratic National Headquarters distributed material critical of Israel during a public forum questioning the Bush administration's Iraq policy, drawing an angry response and charges of anti-Semitism from party chairman Howard Dean on Friday.

"We disavow the anti-Semitic literature, and the Democratic National Committee stands in absolute disagreement with and condemns the allegations," Dean said in a statement posted on the DNC Web site.

According to Dean, some material distributed within the DNC conference room implied that Israel was involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

One witness, former intelligence analyst Ray McGovern, told Conyers and other House Democrats that the war was part of an effort to allow the United States and Israel to "dominate that part of the world," a statement Dean also condemned.

"As for any inferences that the United States went to war so Israel could 'dominate' the Middle East or that Israel was in any way behind the horrific September 11th attacks on America, let me say unequivocally that such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric," Dean said.

"The inferences are destructive and counterproductive, and have taken away from the true purpose of the Judiciary Committee members' meeting," he said. "The entire Democratic Party remains committed to fighting against such bigotry."


Imagine you get so drunk at a party one night that you pass out and when you wake up, you can't remember what happened. And then, you roll over and Ozzy Osbourne is laying on the floor next to you. And he looks at you and says, "Mate, you wouldn't believe what you did last night, you freakin' maniac."

Friday, June 17, 2005

"A Breath Of Freedom"
BBC Helps Islamofascist With His Image Makeover


The Iranian politician Akbar Rafsanjani is giving himself a maveover. The BBC decided to help. From Little Green Footballs:


"I'm in Club Rafsanjani!" jokes a young girl on her mobile telephone to her mother in Fereshteh, an affluent area of north Tehran.

Dressed in three-quarter length trousers, a tight overcoat and colourful headscarf, she is one of several young Iranians handing out election stickers for Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the frontrunner in Friday's presidential elections.

Techno music is playing from Mr Rafsanjani's office and there are even two disco lights on the upper floor. Some of the Persian pop songs come from the banned satellite channels in California.
Meanwhile, boys in black jackets and pointy shoes wearing big shades and greased back hair are thrusting posters of the 71-year-old cleric into car windows.

They give out cakes and even copies of a special CD made for Mr Rafsanjani's campaign to motorists passing by.

The stickers are written in English, not Farsi and some boys are plastered in them - across their foreheads, on every arm and leg.

Mr Rafsanjani has found an unusual following among the youth of Iran, who hope he will address their problems if he comes to power.
There is a breath of freedom because elections are coming and these young people can take risks because they have a powerful backer.


I wonder if the youth of Iran think "their problems" come from the Jews, because Rafsanjani has outlined a solution to that particular situation:


Rafsanjani added that with the formation of Israel, colonialists created insecurity in the region, exposing states to threats so as to bring them under the dominion of colonialism. The survival of Israel depends on the interests of global arrogance and colonialism, and as long as this base is beneficial to them, they will preserve it.

If one day, he said, the world of Islam comes to possess the weapons currently in Israel's possession [meaning nuclear weapons] - on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This, he said, is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.


This man has proposed using nuclear weapons on the country of Israel, but the BBC writes articles about him which create the impression that he is a "backer" of the people, "a breath of freedom."

Jewish Cemetaries Desecrated In London and Budapest


From Associated Press:


LONDON - Vandals desecrated 86 tombstones dating to the 1870s in a Jewish cemetery in London, spraying some of them with Nazi swastikas and racial slurs while knocking them over, police said Thursday.

The attack was reported a day after Hungarian authorities said about 130 tombstones were knocked down and broken at the Kozma Street Jewish Cemetery in Budapest. Culture Minister Andras Bozoki said the government would "provide all assistance" necessary to repair the tombstones.

London police said a large hole was made in the heavy wooden doors of a mausoleum building in West Ham Jewish Cemetery, and the structure was sprayed with swastikas. The mausoleum contained members of the wealthy Rothschild banking dynasty.

Dozens of headstones around the mausoleum lay on the ground, some of them cracked or caved in. Jagged knee-high bases stood over the broken fragments of the stones, which previously stood about 5 feet tall. The barely legible inscriptions were mostly in Hebrew.

What Kind Of Dolls Are Permitted In Islam?


From Fjordman:


Question: since we're not allowed to make images of humans and animals, should children be allowed to play with toys in the shape of humans or animals?.

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

With regard to those in which the shape is incomplete, in which there is only a part of the limbs or head, but the shape is not clear, there is no doubt that these are permissible, and these are like the dolls with which ‘Aa’ishah used to play. (Narrated in al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440).

But if the shape is complete, and it is as if you are looking at a person – especially if it can move or speak – then I am not entirely at ease with the idea of them being permissible, because this is a complete imitation of the creation of Allaah. It seems that the dolls with which ‘Aa’ishah used to play were not like this, so it is preferable to avoid them. But I cannot say that they are definitely haraam, because there are concessions granted to young children that are not granted to adults in such matters.

It is natural for young children to play and have fun, they are not obliged to do any of the acts of worship so we cannot say that that they are wasting their time in idle play. But if a person wants to be on the safe side in such matters, he should cut off the head or hold it near the fire until it softens, then he should press it until the features disappear.

Hamas Wants To Kill The Jews
Europe (Eurabia) Meets With Them



From Reuters, via Atlas Shrugs:


GAZA (Reuters) - The Palestinian militant group Hamas disclosed on Thursday that European diplomats had held talks with some of its members, an apparent shift in EU policy that drew sharp criticism from Israel.

It was the latest sign of a softening of a diplomatic boycott against Hamas after the Islamist group, which advocates Israel's destruction, made a strong showing in Palestinian local elections held against the backdrop of a shaky ceasefire.


Yeah, that's right advocates Israel's destruction. And they don't mince words. Here's an excerpt from the Hamas Charter:


The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."


"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."


If at first you don't succeed, try try again?

It does not matter how much power an organization amasses. It does not matter whether they are democratically elected, if they advocate the genocide of another people, a just society will condemn them and marginalize them.

So, why is Europe meeting with them? Because Europe is Eurabia, a government bent on triangulating power by alligning themselves with murderous Islamofascists, against the United States. Power is what matters to the Eurabians, not justice.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies


Here's an excerpt from this week's Victor Davis Hanson column, in which he notes that a Syrian Jihadist gave us the War on Terror from the Jihadist perspective. From National Review:


In a single day last week, in various media — the liberal International Herald Tribune and the Washington Post — the following information appeared.

A Syrian smuggler of jihadists to Iraq, one Abu Ibrahim, was interviewed. He made the following revealing statements:

(1) that the goal of the jihadists is the restoration of the ancient caliphate ("The Koran is a constitution, a law to govern the world")

(2) that September 11 was "a great day"

(3) that two weeks after the attack, a celebration was held in his rural Syrian community celebrating the mass murder, and thereafter continued twice-weekly

(4) that Syrian officials attended such festivities, funded by Saudi money with public slogans that read, "The People ...Will Now Defeat the Jews and Kill Them All"

(5) that despite denials, Syrian police aided the jihadists in their efforts to hound out Western influence: They were allowed to enforce their strict vision of sharia, or Islamic law, entering houses in the middle of the night to confront people accused of bad behavior. Abu Ibrahim said their authority rivaled that of the Amn Dawla, or state security. "Everyone knew us," he said. "We all had big beards. We became thugs."

(6) that the Syrian government does not hesitate to work with Islamists ("beards and epaulets were in one trench together")

(7) that collateral damage was not always so collateral: "Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were fighters."

(8) That once Syria felt U.S. pressure, there was some temporary cosmetic change of heart: "The security agents said the smuggling of fighters had to stop. The jihadists' passports were taken. Some were jailed for a few days. Abu Ibrahim's jailers shaved his beard."

(9) that supporters in Saudi Arabia always played a key role: "Our brothers in Iraq are asking for Saudis. The Saudis go with enough money to support themselves and their Iraqi brothers. A week ago, we sent a Saudi to the jihad. He went with 100,000 Saudi riyals. There was celebration amongst his brothers there!"

Note how in this one Washington Post story how almost every one of our Western myths promulgated by the antiwar Left is shattered by a candid jihadist himself. First, there was always radical Islamic anti-American hatred that preceded Iraq. Indeed, celebrations were spontaneous immediately after September 11 on the mere news of slaughtered Americans.
We have been told that jihadists and secular Baathists have little in common, and that only our war brought them together. But like the Japanese and Nazis in World War II, autocrat and jihadist have shared interests in hating liberal democracies — and well before our response they were jointly fanning efforts against the United States.

Note too the passive-aggressive nature of Syria that gives into rather than resists American pressures. When the U.S. threatens, it backsteps; when we relent, it goes back on the offensive.
Americans worry that captured terrorists have proper Korans and are allowed traditional grooming. Arab jailors immediately shave the traditional beards of those they arrest.

Saudi Arabia claims to be our ally, but its Wahhabi roots are so deep and its oil revenues so vast that much of its multilayered ruling class could not cease its support for jihad even if it wished. We forget that their 'war against terror' is a war against Muslim terrorists who attack Muslims — not necessarily against Muslim terrorists ("militants") who attack Westerners.

Some claim that anti-Semitism is an exaggerated charge, yet the jihadists blame the Jews, not just Israel, instinctively.

Westerners also worry about collateral damage; the terrorist Ibrahim confesses that military operatives routinely count on falsely claiming civilian casualties.


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

But, predictably the Left doesn't want to hear our enemies tell the truth:


Arab reformers, few though they are, most certainly don't blame the West for the misery of the Middle East. Instead, they confess that the Arab world itself is parasitic: "Western governments, reformers say, should question why curriculums are so weak and why Arab societies contribute nothing to the world's scientific or technological advancements."

In the words of one persecuted novelist Turki Al-Hamad, "The problem is not from the outside, the problem is from ourselves; if we don't change ourselves, nothing will change."

In the United States, we are told that we have created terrorists. Saudi liberals would beg to differ. So the theologian Al-Maleky confesses, "If Wahhabism doesn't revise itself, it will produce more terrorism."

Free-thinking Arabs refute all the premises of Western Leftists who claim that colonialism, racism, and exploitation have created terrorists, hold back Arab development, and are the backdrops to this war.

Indeed, it is far worse than that: Our own fundamentalist Left is in lockstep with Wahhabist reductionism — in its similar instinctive distrust of Western culture. Both blame the United States and excuse culpability on the part of Islamists. The more left-wing the Westerner, the more tolerant he is of right-wing Islamic extremism; the more liberal the Arab, the more likely he is to agree with conservative Westerners about the real source of Middle Eastern pathology.


Well, if the liberal Westerners are telling us they agree with the Islamic extremists, then we ought to listen. You just gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Iran
It's Time To Change


From National Review:


Iran's people face yet another faked election this Friday, with eight candidates for president, all handpicked by the regime, facing off in a tragic parody of democracy.

The parody is obvious. Hundreds of other candidates were disqualified well before the vote by the Council of Guardians, including every single woman who sought to run. The Council of 12 radical clerics, desperate to maintain the absolute rule of the clergy, was careful to allow only candidates they could count on to tow the line if elected.

Whoever wins on Friday, the regime wins. At least, that's the way the mullahs have it figured.
The tragic side of this Friday's elections can be felt in the thirst of the Iranian people for freedom, and their mounting frustration with the indifference of the international community, including the United States, to their appeals for help.

Two weeks ago outside of Paris, I spoke with Abolhassan Banisadr, the Islamic republic's first (and only) freely elected president. He was deposed in a coup in 1981 and has been a target of assassination by regime hit teams ever since. Banisadr told me that internal tracking polls conducted by the regime, leaked to his supporters, showed that the regime's own interior ministry expected voter turnout to be around 27 percent. Banisadr is calling on his supporters inside Iran to boycott the elections.

In Tehran, where anti-regime protests have erupted all week, turnout is expected to reach a scant five percent.

As Iranians realize that the mullahs have no intention of allowing elections to infringe on their absolute power, calls for a massive boycott have come from virtually all factions of the Iranian opposition.

Groups that normally oppose each other, from monarchists to the center-left National Front, have joined together in their calls for a boycott.

Mohsen Sazegara, a founder of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who became disenchanted with the regime and has been jailed twice for speaking out against clerical rule, has called on Western governments not to recognize any government issued from these elections. If the elections themselves are illegitimate, he told me in Washington last month, anyone who comes to power through them will also be illegitimate.

But the mullahs have a scheme. This past Sunday, bombs killed ten persons in Ahwaz and Tehran. The regime has blamed opposition groups, but pro-democracy advocate Sardar Haddad tells me the regime has a track record of staging violence to further its own ends.

"They want an excuse to get the army out on the street to put down anti-regime demonstrations as the elections approach," he said. "The last thing they want, with all the international media now in Iran, is for thousands of demonstrators to be photographed protesting the regime."

Iranians are united in their thirst for freedom, says Roozbeh Farahanipour, a leader of the July 1999 student uprising now living in the United States. Speaking to a pro-democracy rally on the National Mall last weekend that was sponsored by Citizens United, Farahanipour applauded the Bush administration for "speaking out against the lack of freedom and human rights in occupied Iran."

But he and other pro-democracy fighters want us to do more. "We need real help, tangible support from the world's sole super power," Farahanipour said.

How can the United States help?

First, by recognizing the struggle of Iranians for freedom. The administration should denounce the murderers of dissidents, and applaud the freedom fighters, and we should call both heroes and villains by name. In facing tyranny, we must demonstrate clarity of purpose and identify evil where we see it.

Second, the U.S. should encourage other democratic nations to join in refusing to recognize a new government in Iran issued from undemocratic elections.

Third, as Farahanipour and others have suggested, we should massively fund the pro-democracy movement inside Iran.

As the clock of Iran's nuclear-weapons program ticks steadily closer to midnight, we have very little time to accelerate the pro-democracy clock.

And yet, failure to invest heavily in freedom — say, by spending $100 million this year — could cost us far more down the line, both in treasure and in lost American lives.

With its new nuclear capabilities, the clerical regime has become a clear and present danger for the United States. We have very little time to get this right.

Durbin Says America
Is Like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot
All Rolled Into One


From the Washington Times:



The Senate's No. 2 Democrat has compared the U.S. military's treatment of a suspected al Qaeda terrorist at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay with the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Pol Pot, three of history's most heinous dictators, whose regimes killed millions.


In a speech on the Senate floor late Tuesday, Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, castigated the American military's actions by reading an e-mail from an FBI agent.


The agent complained to higher-ups that one al Qaeda suspect was chained to the floor, kept in an extremely cold air-conditioned cell and forced to hear loud rap music. The Justice Department is investigating.


About 9 million persons, including 6 million Jews, died in Hitler's death camps, 2.7 million persons died in Stalin's gulags and 1.7 million Cambodians died in Pol Pot's scourge of his country.


No prisoners have died at Guantanamo, and the Pentagon has acknowledged five instances of abuse or irreverent handling of the Koran, the holy book of Muslims.


After reading the e-mail, Mr. Durbin said, "If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."


I just got this new job. I get up early and go down to East Los Angeles with a group of men. We all wear black uniforms. We round up immigrants and herd them onto trains. I'm not sure where they are going, once we send them off. I know it's something about work camps.

Immigrants need jobs, so it seems like a good idea to me, even if they don't want to get on the trains.

Attention Europeans: Come Help Us, Please


From Medienkritik:


A while back, David made mention of an NDR (North-German Broadcasting, a state-owned public broadcasting organization) report entitled "Patriotische Gefuehle: Die Medienszene in den USA" or "Patriotic Feelings: The Media Scene in the USA". The report is such a classic, textbook example of how the German media reports and distorts facts about the United States that it is worth a much closer look.

We started by translating the entire report into English exclusively for our readers. That can be viewed here.

Part 1: Christoph Luetgert's Sordid Stadium Story

As proof of the "Bush clan's" enormous, "all-encompassing control" and influence throughout America, we are presented with NDR-Chefreporter (NDR executive reporter) Christoph Luetgert's assertion that, as a German journalist, one is required to call the White House to receive permission to film Texas Rangers stadium. The report states:

"How large the influence of the Bush clan is in the entire country was also experienced by a German TV journalist. The Texas Rangers Stadium in Texas. The club did not want to grant permission to film.
Christoph Luettgert*, NDR executive reporter: “When we made a request there we were told that we had to ask the White House for permission. I mean, that is an outrageous story. That would be something like if I wanted to film in the soccer stadium of FC Bavaria Munich and the club managers of Bavaria Munich would say to me I have to first call and ask at the Chancellor’s office in Berlin. I mean such an all-encompassing control, well such an all-encompassing censorship is unimaginable in Germany.”

When Davids Medienkritik contacted the Texas Rangers we were told that, with few exceptions, camera crews from anywhere in the world are permitted to film at Texas Rangers stadium with the permission of the Texas Rangers media relations office. This simple process involves the camera crew contacting Texas Rangers media relations, making an appointment and sending in copies of their journalistic credentials. That’s it.

The primary exception to the rule would be filming a game in progress, something not allowed without the express written consent of Major League Baseball. This is standard operating procedure not only at Texas Rangers stadium, but at all Major League Baseball stadiums in both the United States and Canada. (Anyone who has ever watched or listened to a baseball game on television or radio knows this because it is repeated during every game.)

As a trained, experienced journalist, Mr. Luetgert must have known that it would have been easily possible to film at Texas Rangers stadium, or virtually any other sports stadium in the United States, without White House permission. So why does he make it seem otherwise? Why does he intentionally misrepresent the facts by omitting important details?
Luetgert tells his audience that his experience is comparable to a journalist wishing to film a major German soccer stadium being told to contact the German Chancellor's office for permission.

In so doing, Mr. Luetgert and NDR have created a patently false and sweeping impression in the minds of the German audience: Namely, that foreign journalists working in the United States wishing to film a sports stadium are forced to request permission directly from the White House.
President Bush is ridiculously portrayed as having an iron grip on filming at all American sports stadiums. This is reinforced by Luetgert's closing assertion that: "such an all-encompassing control, well such an all-encompassing censorship is unimaginable in Germany."

Clearly, this is no innocent mistake or oversight on Mr. Luetgert's part. It appears to be an intentional misrepresentation of the facts in an attempt to deceive the audience to achieve the desired negative image of the United States and President Bush.


Yes, this is a totalitarian society. George Bush has taken over all industry, the media, technology, even the baseball teams. There is not real private ownership allowed in the United States anymore.

Attention German citizens: We Americans need you help. George Bush is a dictator. Please send troops and get us out from under his jackboot. We are terrified, living in a constant state of anxiety, in fear for our very lives.

They've started to round people up and take them away on trains. We don't know where they take them.

Help us, please. You Europeans are our only hope.

Playing Chess With Death


From Fjordman:


Even more news from Sweden's third largest city, Malmö, the evolving tragedy of failed immigration policies and runaway crime rates. Set to become the first major Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority a few years from now, it is the horror story in the ongoing collapse of Swedish society.

The politicians in charge are shot at by neo-Nazis. While the authorities have even started experimenting with all-Arabic preschool classes paid for by the Swedish state, nothing seems to stop the chaos from spreading in Malmö's schools, or indeed in other urban areas in Sweden.
En dansker i Sverige recently wrote about a high school teacher in Malmö, Sweden, who discovered that about a dozen Arab students were laughing and shouting "Allahu Akbar!" while watching a DVD of infidel hostages being beheaded in Iraq. The headmaster didn't think the incident was such a big deal.

At least 139 schools in Sweden suffered arson attacks during 2002 alone. Such as an incident in Malmö, where three schools were put on fire during one night. "Teenage boys" are suspected to behind the arson. Björn Vinberg from the fire department in Kroksbäck in the Malmö area says it's humiliating and degrading to put out fires again and again in the same immigrant areas, with school kids laughing at them and lighting a new one just afterwards. His colleagues have been to the same place no less than twenty times, all totally unnecessary.

The Swedish Radio programme 'Kaliber' reported on Sunday that "almost all" Islamic schools and congregations in Sweden have contacted potential sponsors in Saudi Arabia. Many of these Saudi foundations ask for influence in return. However, an expert thinks the chances are slight that violent organisations will gain a foothold in Sweden's muslim communities.

Meanwhile, concern is raised over how racist Swedes are.

Moloch In London


From This Is London, via Drudge:


Boys from Africa are being murdered as human sacrif ices in London churches.

They are brought into the capital to be offered up in rituals by fundamentalist Christian sects, according to a shocking report by Scotland Yard.

Followers believe that powerful spells require the deaths of "unblemished" male children.
Police believe such boys are trafficked from cities such as Kinshasa where they can be bought for a little as £10.

The report, leaked ahead of its publication next month, also cites examples of
African children being tortured and killed after being identified as "witches" by church pastors.

The 10-month study was commissioned after the death of Victoria Climbié, who was starved and beaten to death after they said she was possessed by the devil.

The aim of the Met study was to create an "open dialogue" with the African and Asian community in Newham and Hackney. In discussions with African community leaders, officers were told of examples of children being murdered because their parents or carers believe them to be possessed by evil spirits. Earlier-this month Sita Kisanga, 35, was convicted at the Old Bailey of torturing an eight-year-old girl from Angola she accused of being a witch.

Kisanga was a member of the Combat Spirituel church in Dalston. Many such churches, supported mainly by people from West Africa, sanction aggressive forms of exorcism on those thought to be possessed.

There are believed to be 300 such churches in the UK, mostly in London.

The report was put together by an expert social worker and lawyer for the Met after talking to hundreds of people in African communities in a series of workshops. It uncovered allegations of witchcraft spells, child trafficking and HIV-positive people who believe that by having sex with a child they will be "cleansed".

An extract reads: "People who are desperate will seek out experts to cast spells for them.

"Members of the workshop stated that for a spell to be powerful it required a sacrifice involving a male child unblemished by circumcision. They allege that boy children are being trafficked into the UK for this purpose."

It adds: "A number of pastors maintain that God speaks through them and lets them know when someone is possessed. "It is therefore their duty to deliver the child or adult from the evil spirit.

Last month Scotland Yard revealed it had traced just two out of 300 black boys aged four to seven reported missing from London schools in a three-month period.

The true figure for missing boys and girls is feared to be several thousand a year.

The scale of the problem emerged through the murder inquiry following the discovery of a child's torso in the Thames in September 2001. The identity of the victim, named Adam by police, is not known but his background was traced to Nigeria. It is believed he died in a ritual sacrifice.

John Azar, who helped the police on that inquiry, told Radio4's Today programme that the known cases could be "the tip of the iceberg".

Police working on the Adam case have found children are being sold to traffickers on the streets of major African cities for less than £10 and then smuggled into the UK. The children arrive in London armed with false documents and accompanied by adults who believe they will bolster their asylum claims.

A Met spokesman said: "We undertook a project aimed at improving our knowledge of issues impacting child abuse within the African and Asian communities of London. The aim of the project was to open a dialogue within these communities and encourage a debate which would help reduce the risks of harm to children."

The report says there is a wide gulf between these communities and social services and protection agencies with many people in ethnic communities scared to speak out.

The report concludes police face a "wall of silence" when dealing with such cases.
Experts differ on the merits of the Scotland Yard report. Dr William Les Henry, a lecturer in sociology at Goldsmiths College, said aspects of the reports were pigeonholing crimes together and were patronising and racist.

He said: "When we think about these cases we can see the same kind of patterns of behaviour in European cultures but they are interpreted in completely different ways.

"This is one of the crises with social sciences anyway, when they are supposedly interpreting the folk ways or cultural habits of alien cultures." He said that the models such reports are based on are that "Africans are less civilised, less rational".

But Dr Hoskins said: "This is very detailed, qualitative report that actually comes out of the communities.

"This is not white people saying this. This has actually comes from the communities authored by people in the community and that really stymies the racist line." He added: "We are dealing with real cases here. When you actually talk to them, these are hard and fast facts.
"So I don't think we are getting wrong, but it is right to treat it sensitively."
He believes vulnerable people are being manipulated by spiritual leaders.
"This is absolutely what is going on. They are often very vulnerable, poor people.
"It is people in positions of power and money that are manipulating poor people."

I guess it's very hard for the experts to look at this. It doesn't fit their paradigm. If they can't call it racism, it must be class warfare. How about just understanding that when people move from one country to another, they bring their culture with them, and the English society is not a magic pill that automatically makes people behave like Westerners.
The one question that always seems to be left out of the immigration debate is, what exactly is the process of assimilation? How do people become assimilated? I believe the answer has to do with a ratio of experiences.
If a person moves to another country, but he lives in a ghetto area, and his experiences are still only with people from his previous culture, then he will not assimilate. But, if he has experiences with the new culture, he will begin to assimilate. I believe that, at some point, the ratio of experiences with the new culture, to experience with the old culture, will bring about a kind of tipping point.

Now, if this is true, and I am convinced that it is, then it means that immigration must be conducted at a certain (as yet undefined) level. Once the ratio of immigrants to total population rises to a certain point, then the immigrant population has enough force to maintain their culture within the new culture.

If England, America, and Europe want to continue on with our policies of unrestrained immigration, then we ought to get used to the idea of the habits of Africa, South America, and the Middle East taking up root in our culture. More child sacrifice, more neglect of education, and more Jihad.


Pre-Futurism:
Scientists Learn To Make Blood From Stem Cells


From Reuters:


MELBOURNE (Reuters) - Australian scientists say they have found a way to make blood cells in volume out of human master cells, which could eventually lead to production of safe blood cells for transfusions and organ transplants. Synthetically produced red blood cells would, in theory, overcome the concerns about dangerous infections that can be transmitted from blood donors to patients worldwide.

But researchers said it would probably take years for scientists to get to the stage where blood cells could be made in large enough quantities for transfusions.

"What would be nice is if it opens the possibility for the future of making large quantities of blood cells in a controlled environment which could be used to treat patients," said Andrew Elefanty, who led the research at Monash University in Melbourne.

Writing in the U.S. journal Blood, the researchers said they were able to turn human embryonic stem cells into red and white blood cells using a system that makes more blood cells more rapidly and more safely, with fewer animal ingredients, than others have done.

"The other thing we think is important is that the way we've made the cells develop into blood is something which could be applied to other types of cells as well," Elefanty told Reuters.

The team's system was able to stimulate the stem cells specifically into becoming red or white cells.


Note that line that says, "the way we've made the cells develop into blood is something which could be applied to other types of cells as well." What that means, and this is the exciting thing about stem cell research, is that scientists are discovering how to turn stem cells into the cells of various components of the body. In other words, they are learning to grow organs. This will mean that they will learn how to replace those parts of your body which break down.

Eventually, they will learn how to make your body do this spontaneously.

The aging process will change into something very different from what it is now. The reason you die is because everytime your body reproduces itself (when cells split), it reproduces an inferior copy of itself. Cells generated from stem cells are original cells. They are as close to new and perfect as the human body gets.

It appears that eventually scientists will learn to achieve something that will look like the indefinate prolongation of human life. Some humans may live hundreds and even thousands of years. That will give an awful lot of time to create mischief, huh?

We are no longer in the Postmodern age. We live in the age of the Prefuture.

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Gitmo Gulag?

Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has been quoted as comparing our treatment of the prisnors at Guantanamo with the Soviet Gulag...Now his comparisons may seem absurd on their face, but let's look a little closer at the evidence.

As Americans we are always questioning whether or not our government is using force in our name appropriately...So the question naturally arises...Are we going too far in our interrogation of terrorists...(a term that is slowly losing its impact)? Let me rephrase...Are we going too far in our interrogations of men who belong to a movement that revels in brutality, men who gleefuly slaughter innocent humans by way of sawing their head off on camera for a world wide audience with knives...multiple times. Men who rejoice when their comrades destroy the lives of thousands and their victims are forced to jump from towering buildings rather than be burned alive? Are we going too far in our interrogations of these men?

As American citizens we should critically examine the evidence.


Read this article from Time for a list of the horrible interrogation techniques used by our military on the 20th hijacker on 9/11 Al-Qahtani. Here is a brief glimpse of some of these clearly innapropriate techniques...

Pouring water on their heads. The HORROR!
It was probably Perrier or Dasani no less...don't laugh, I have seen just the threat of brand name water bring grown men to their knees.

Puppet shows: "According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show 'satirizing the detainee’s involvement with al-Qaeda.'" I just pray they weren't sock puppets, I can't even describe the utter devastation that results when sock puppets are used by well trained interrogators...it is indescribable. Just thank God you haven't had to witness such acts. We can only hope that Iran and North Korea aren't developing sock puppets at this very moment.

God Bless America: "He is taken to a new interrogation booth, which is decorated with pictures of 9/11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem." What is wrong with him having to look at the victims of his insanity? I say he should also have to stand and sing along with Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" on the hour every hour...that song may just bring them around to our side!

Waking them up with loud bursts of Christina Aguilera...I knew her music was good for something I just didn't know what.

The interrogation technique that apparently broke him down was the deplorable "Invasion of space by female." Imagine that? Pouring water, blasting Christina Aguilera and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment did not break him, but trying to defile him by putting a female in close proximity? He just couldn't take that anymore. Hey, I say if their Achilles heel is their deep seeded misogyny then use whatever means possible.



Major Media Endorsed Anti-Semitism
Jews Give Cancer-Juice To Palestinians


From Honest Reporting.com, via Atlas Shrugs:



In the wake of Newsweek's now-retracted Guantanamo Bay Koran toilet abuse story, Palestinian prisoners have floated their own version to the western press.

On June 7, The Scotsman headlined: 'Israeli Soldiers 'Desecrated Koran During Riot''. Reports on this unfounded claim from Israel's Megiddo prison (including these Associated Press and Reuters versions) included a refutation from the Israeli Prisons Authority, but the media-fueled rumors were enough to spark violent protests and public burnings of American and Israeli flags in faraway Muslim communities.

And now, this:



RAMALLAH, June 13 (Xinhuanet) -- Palestinian chief of Environment Authority Yousef Abu Safeya accused Israel Monday of glutting the Palestinian markets with carcinogenic canned juice.

"Such kind of drinks are specifically produced for the Palestinian consumers in the Gaza Strip." Abu Safeya told a weekly session of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).

He pointed out that the Palestinian security services had recently seized a number of shipments, including canned juice containing a carcinogenic substance.

He added that the Egyptian authorities impounded two Israeli trucks carrying child toys polluted with carcinogenic and radioactive substances at the Rafah commercial crossing on the borders with Israel in March.

Abu Safeya also criticized the Palestinian judiciary department for allowing the import of second-hand Israeli commodities, including computer sets and other electric appliance.


Now, let's think about this. You are the Chief of the Palestinian Environmental Authority and you find out that Israeli's are killing your children with cancer juice and radioactive toys. So, you call a press conference and you let the world's media know about it. Oh yes, and you don't forget to complain the glut of Israeli computers and electronic appliances on the Palestinian market.

Does that make any sense? Doesn't that make you wonder what's wrong with our world? We live in an age when Anti-Semitic libels are published in major newspapers around the world. That means editors at newspapers think this is worth printing. They are intelligent enough to know that these things aren't true.

So, what's their motive?

It's bad enough that major government figures in the Palestinian Authority propagate such lies, but then the world's media listens to it, and deems it credible?

How? Really, how? How could anyone deem this to be credible?

If I called a press conference tomorrow and said Kofi Annan was trying to kill me, would that be considered credible enough to print in the newspapers of the world?

Honest Reporting goes on to report:



This rehashing of an ancient anti-Semitic blood libel appeared prominently on GoogleNews.

Throughout the Arafat years, Palestinian spokespersons fed similar items to the western press, such as claims Israel deployed radioactive uranium against Palestinian protestors, and Suha Arafat's accusation in the presence of Hillary Clinton that the IDF made 'extensive use of poisonous gas... which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children.'

A
senior Israeli official said the cancer juice case reminds him of 'the same types of lies Yasser Arafat used to spread.' As documented in a JCPA report, those included accusations that Israel disseminated bubble gum that sterilized Palestinian girls and sent AIDS-infected prostitutes to infect Palestinian men.

We understand that Google uses an automated algorithm to filter news search results, but as HR has repeatedly indicated, this system is deeply flawed and lends itself to promulgating such absurd propaganda.

Comments to GoogleNews: news-feedback@google.com

UPDATE: A comment from Behind-the-Scenes:

I'm glad they reported that the P.A is making such allegations. The P.A makes up this propaganda, it's listened to by Palestinians and the world should know what kind of lies the P.A creates and propagates.

It's not that Palestinian allegations, those unfit for consumption outside the Arab world, shouldn't be reported on. It's that the article shouldn't seem to endorse the propaganda and should (in this instance) point out, for example, that he didn't display any of the "radioactive" toys and that the allegations were laughed off by Israeli spokesmen and condemnded.

Yep, Behind the Scenes is correct. Bad writing and thinking on my part. Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by Hello



See? They've Been Telling Us
And Now They Have Proof


Nope. No childishness on the part of Reuters. Nope. No media bias either. Nope.

Hat tip: LGF

Posted by Hello

Europe? Why Bother?


From the International Herald Tribune:


Has Europe become a sideshow? Sometimes it is clear when things come to an end. At others, the lines of history are blurred, less demarcations than smudges.

So it is in a Europe today that does not know if the dominant and fruitful postwar idea of "ever closer union" is now dead. How they will respond to the French and Dutch rejection of a proposed European constitution is unclear, but it is a safe bet that muddling through will be the favored course. The 25-member Union will not unravel.

Already, Europe is viewed with a cynicism often bordering on contempt in some American circles. The neoconservative view of the Continent - feckless, wimpy, legalistic, aging, tired - is well known.

But even among more mainstream Republicans, and within the Democratic Party, there are those for whom Europe poses one question above all: Why bother? At a recent meeting here of the Council for the United States and Italy, a group that brings together influential folk from both sides of the Atlantic, America's often withering view of Europe was as clear as the light on the lagoon.

That view may be summarized as follows: a Continent reluctant to spend on defense, offering only "postmodernist" armies useful enough as peacekeepers but next to useless as warriors, given to earnest blah-blah about the pre-eminence of international law, inhabited by a declining and evermore aged citizenry living in overregulated economies that have not shown significant growth for at least five years.

Contrast that image with another offered at the meeting: that of an India growing at over 7 percent a year, inhabited by more than 500 million people under the age of 25, busy buying hundreds of advanced aircraft, convinced that armies are still created to fight, churning out English-speaking high-tech graduates by the million each year, and persuaded by Islamic terrorism that its strategic goals and America's are often identical or at least complementary.

So, which of these parts of the world is more worthy of the attention of the United States? Which is a compelling affair: the intensifying and fast-changing relationship with India, or the largely stagnant alliance with Europe that served above all a cold-war strategic challenge now overcome?

Beyond India, of course, lie other issues demanding of U.S. attention.

China, with its own growth story and welter of staggering statistics that suggest its challenge to American supremacy must be taken seriously.

A low-intensity Iraqi war that has already taken a significant toll.

The attempt to ignite and manage a democratic transformation of the Middle East that is portrayed as central to long-term American security.

In this world, Europe slips down the list. It often looks more complicated than compelling. It is sufficiently split, sufficiently stable, and sufficiently stalled for back-burner treatment to seem most appropriate.



I think the writers perspective is interesting, for it's sheer foolishness.

The idea that Europe is a sideshow to the real world at this point looks true when viewed in the light of recent events. But, that's similar to answering a call from a lifelong friend and saying, "I haven't heard from you lately. What relevance do you have to my life?"

I'm not saying Europe and the United States are the best of friends, but, when one takes into consideration the size of the Euro economy, the fact that Europe does still innovate, the reality of the lingering paradigm of European cultural imperialism, we can see that this is not just the world of America and her enemies.

I believe Europe will once again be a force to be reckoned with. Europe will not remain a sideshow for long. The question is, will Europe help or hurt the cause of freedom.?

Tuesday, June 14, 2005

Emergency Broadcast Service
Sign of the Apocalypse?
What the ...?


The weirdest thing just happened. The Emergency Broadcast Service just broke into the local NPR radio station (my wife insists on listening to NPR) and announced a Tsunami Warning for California.

You read it right. A FREAKIN' TSUNAMI.

I seriously doubt we are going to have a tsunami.

But, just in case, I'm getting my surfboard and heading down to the beach.

The Press Is Everybody


From Atlas Shrugs:



FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith has said during an interview with Tech Central


We need to make clear that bloggers are press, these are periodicals and people update them regularly; that the first amendment does not only apply to people who are members of the National Press Club, that it is not limited to people who have a little press card in their hat band like some 1930s movie.

The press is everybody; every citizen has a right to publish his views and to promote his views and if the Internet is blurring a distinction between traditional media and just average citizens, I am not sure that's a bad thing. That's a good thing, a democratizing thing, it is exactly the type of thing that the reformers claimed for years to want. They ought to rejoice in it. That they don't is interesting in itself.


The Founding Fathers would love that.

Former Bush Administration Official Says
9/11 Could Be An Inside Job


From UPI, via Drudge Report:


Washington, DC, Jun. 13 (UPI) -- Insider notes from United Press International for June 8
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11.
Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that
it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said,
"If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling."
Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."



What?

If Amnesty International Believes Guantanamo Is A "Gulag"
They Are Compelled To Call For Was On America


This will probably be the thing I post on the Guantanamo Bay "Gulag." Here, from the Jawa Report, is the best explanation of why Amnesty International was not only wrong in their assessment, but also incredibly offensive:


As I've said many times, the main problem with comparing Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo, Cuba, to the Soviet gulags is not so much that it drastically overstates what is happening to prisoners in the US War on Terror, but that it such comparisons minimize the utter horror of the Soviet gulags.
My post on the subject is here.

The same minimization occurs when you compare [insert unliked political figure here] to Hitler or [insert perceived problem here] to the holocaust. Some crimes and criminals are so far beyond infamy that to compare any one or any thing to them does a grave injustice to their victims. Comparing Camp X-Ray to gulags is immoral and disgusting because it is an insult to the tens of millions of victims who died under the horrible opression that was the gulag system.

UPDATE: Let me also add that using such terminology is also immoral for consequentalist reasons. If you really believe that Bush = Hitler then, as a moral being, aren't you compelled by conscience to do something about that? Isn't it your moral obligation then to attempt to assasinate the President?
If you answer no, then either
a) you don't really believe Bush = Hitler or
b) you are a moral idiot.
But if you answer yes....You see where this is going?

For this reason I have, in the past, called on the government of the U.S. to bomb al Jazeera and have called Noam Chomsky a traitor. If you wish to make the case that the U.S. has some sort of equivelancy to the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany then you are also making the moral case for war against the United States.
The reason the jihadis fight the U.S. is not that they simply hate us, but that they believe the lies told to them by al Jazeera and the Leftist Western press. That is, they believe they are engaged in a moral struggle. They are the freedom fighters, we are the Hitlers!

Again, words have consequences.
The gulags were genocidal. If the U.S. is actually engaged in such a genocidal endeavor, then it would be the duty of all moral beings to resist--with force. Unless AI is willing to call for war against the U.S., I'd suggest they shut their pie holes.

I've known R.J. Rummel's work for some time in my professional capacity. His specialty is documenting state-sponsored genocide. Thanks to Dean Esmay for pointing out that Rummel is also a blogger. Here is an excerpt from his must read post on the subject of the gulags:

Overall, from 1917 to 1987, Gulag, including transit deaths, probably killed about 39,464,000 Soviet citizens and foreigners. Compare this 6,228.5 mile stack of corpses (assuming each corpse has a width of 10 inches), each a loving, self-conscious human being like you and I, to these totals:

Gulag = 39,464,000 murdered (democide/genocide);
All American executions 1864-1982 = 5,753 killed;
All the Americans killed in all its wars up to the Gulf War = 1,177,936 killed;
The killed in battle in World War I = 9,000,000;
Of World War II = 15,000,000;
All 20th Century international and domestic wars = 35,654,000 killed;
And all major wars 1740-1997 = 20,000,000 killed.

Now tell me again, Irene Khan and William Schulz of AI, that Guantánamo is like Gulag


Dr. Shackleford, the blogger at The Jawa Report is absolutely correct. I hope Amnesty International takes him up on his demand. I would enjoy being a soldier in a war against all the VW Van-driving, Bob Marley-listening losers at Amnesty International.