Saturday, July 09, 2005

How About If We "Contest" A Little French Power, Pierre?


A French middle school is studying 9/11 as "Protest":


The following figured among the essay topics in the final exam in history and geography given in French junior high schools [collèges] last week, i.e. to 14-15 year old students:

“How was American power contested on September 11, 2001?”

This amounts to presenting the Islamist attacks against the world’s greatest democracy ... as one form of contestation among others. A good illustration of the training in anti-Americanism provided by the Ministry of Education.


John Rosenthal at Tran-Atlantic Intelligencer comments:


The original French version of the topic reads: “Comment la puissance américaine a-t-elle été contestée le 11 septembre 2001?” In order to provide the grammatically most similar English rendering and avoid charges of tendentiousness, I have used the English cognate "[to] contest".

But in current French usage the verb contester bears a very strong connotation of political protest and, notably, protest against a given political order: it implies not just a “challenge” – a term which is politically comparatively neutral – but a challenge to legitimacy.

The French expression for “protest” as a mass phenomenon is indeed la contestation.


To put the question in perspective let's pose another question:

How was French power contested when, on May 10, 1940, Germany invaded France?

Google it yourself: French Military Victories.

Didn't He Used To Be Pretty?


We hear from the Left, over and over, that the War on Terror creates terrorism, that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, that this is a war for oil, blah, blah, blah ... and we always wish these ill-informed bloviators could, just for once, be slapped down with the truth. Well, watch as Christopher Hitchens Ginsu's Ron Reagan into into a nicely presented plate of hors d'oeuvres:


RR: Christopher, I'm not sure that I buy the idea that these attacks are a sign that we're actually winning the war on terror. I mean, how many more victories like this do we really want to endure?

CH: Well, it depends on how you think it started, sir. I mean, these movements had taken over Afghanistan, had very nearly taken over Algeria, in a extremely bloody war which actually was eventually won by Algerian society. They had sent death squads to try and kill my friend Salman Rushdie, for the offense of writing a novel in England. They had sent death squads to Austria and Germany, the Iranians had, for example, to try and kill Kurdish Muslim leaders there.

If you make the mistake that I thought I heard you making just before we came on the air, of attributing rationality or a motive to this, and to say that it's about anything but itself, you make a great mistake, and you end up where you ended up, saying that the cause of terrorism is fighting against it, the root cause, I mean. Now, you even said, extraordinarily to me, that there was no terrorist problem in Iraq before 2003. Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?

RR: Well, I'm following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which...

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it?

RR: No, actually, I didn't say that, Christopher.

CH: At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?

RR: What I did say, though, was that Iraq was not a center of terrorism before we went in there, but it might be now.

CH: How can you know so little about...

RR: You can make the claim that you just made about any other country in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia.

CH: Absolutely nonsense.

RR: So do you think we ought to invade Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers from 9/11 came from, following your logic, Christopher?

CH: Uh, no. Excuse me. The hijackers may have been Saudi and Yemeni, but they were not envoys of the Saudi Arabian government, even when you said the worst...

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world.


It goes on and on and on, in a beautifully constructed symphony of verbal evisceration.

Go see video of the show here.


Thank You. Posted by Picasa

The Moderate Face
Of The Next Generation Of Muslims In America


Meet Imam Sheikh Ahmed Dewidar, whom Egypt Today calls "the face of the next generation of Muslims in America." He is praised for "moderate views and vigorous efforts to reach out to mainstream America, so necessary in today’s polarized atmosphere." He rubs shoulder with Kofi Annan and George Bush. He's an up and comer in the American Muslim community. Yes, that's for sure.

The other day he sat for an interview with the Muslim Brotherhood website and he offered his opinion on the origins of American foreign policy. From Little Green Footballs:


On June 15, Dr. Dewidar was interviewed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s Web site, www.ikhwanonline.com. When asked about how the attacks of September 11, 2001, impacted the spread of Islam in America, he said that he witnessed hundreds of Americans converting to Islam.

Hinting at an American government conspiracy related to the attacks, he said, “Whether or not these events were planned, or pinned on the Muslims, or something else - [it] provided an opportunity for [the American government] to legislate dubious laws that restrict the growth and presence of Islam in the U.S.”

Regarding American skepticism toward Islam following September 11, 2001, he said, “The media - most of which is under Zionist control - has helped to spread this perception.” Later in the interview he said that “the Jews” control the press.

When asked, “What is the extent of the Muslim community’s influence on American society?” He answered, “The Zionist community numbers only 3 million, but they control the government, the politics, the economy, and the media in the U.S.”

Also while speaking to the Web site of the Muslim Brotherhood, he denounced President Bush’s policy in the Middle East, claiming it was dictated by Natan Sharansky:

“This Jew has despicable goals, and we see their effects today in America’s actions in the region, imposing its opinion and its outlook on democracy, education, and political involvement on our countries.”


Do you get the feeling this guy may present one face to the Western world and another to his fellow Muslims?

KMA


About a week-and-a-half back Kofi Annan realized that the resources available to him to quell the violence in Haiti were not cutting it.

So, what did he do?:


United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan asked the United States this week to consider sending troops to Haiti to support a U.N. peacekeeping mission beset by mounting armed challenges to its authority, according to senior U.N. officials. ...

He expressed hope that the United States would participate in a planned U.N. rapid reaction force, authorized by the Security Council earlier this month, that would have the firepower to intimidate armed gangs threatening the country's fragile political transition. Officials said that similar requests are being considered for other countries, including Canada and France.

"We want scarier troops," one senior U.N. official said.

Annan told Rice that the Haitians "respect the U.S. military," according to a senior U.N. diplomat familiar with the closed-door meeting.


"Scarier troops." Those are vague words. Diplomats are, of course, vague when they want to conceal their motives. So, Wretchard, at Belmont Club, eplains exactly what Annan meant by this statement:


There are no suggestions by the Secretary General that the weapons carried the current Brazilian force are inoperative. So far as anyone can tell, their ordnance works just fine. So logically, what Kofi Annan really wants is someone, like the Americans, to relieve him of the onus of ordering someone to pull the trigger ...


Yes, I see. That is a sticky situation, you are in there, isn't it old chap?

Condoleeza Rice had an answer for Kofi Annan, and offered a little help along the way:


Rice provided Annan with no pledges of military support, officials said, but offered to help persuade France and Canada to contribute to the mission.


In other words, "Kiss my fat American ass."

"To Kill And Be Killed"



Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.
"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

"Pass the brown sauce, brother," says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist, devouring his chicken and chips.


Thus begins the story brought to us last April, 2004, by the This Is London page of the Evening Standard, and thus begins the nightmare which Western Civilization is so violently repressing. Push it down all we want, try to drown it in entertainment, drink, or government regulation, this nightmare keeps coming back up on us, with deadly consequences.

Because it is real. It is not fiction:



"I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine ."

His friend, Abu Musa, the security guard, smiles radiantly. "It will be a day of joy for me," he adds, speaking with a slight lisp.

As they talk, a man with a bushy beard, dressed in a jacket emblazoned with the word "Jihad", stands and watches over them, handing around cups of steaming hot coffee. His real name is Ishtiaq Alamgir, but he goes by his adopted name, Sayful Islam, meaning "Sword of Islam". He is the 24-year-old leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun, an extremist Muslim group with about 800 members countrywide, who regard Osama bin Laden as their hero.

Until recently, nobody took the fanatical beliefs of al-Muhajiroun too seriously, believing that a British-based group so brazenly "out there" could not be involved in something as "underground" as terrorism. The group is led by the exiled Saudi, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, from his base in north London. Yesterday, in a magazine article, Bakri warned that several radical groups are poised to strike in London.

For all its inflammatory rhetoric, al-Muhajiroun has never been linked to actual violence. Yet, with the discovery last month of half-a-tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser - the same explosive ingredient used in the Bali and Turkey terror attacks - and with the arrest of eight young British Muslims in London and the South-East, including six in Luton, extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun are under the spotlight like never before.


These young men are not disaffected youth. They are immigrant bougeoisie:



Detectives fear that the "enemy within", the homegrown extremists leading apparently normal lives in suburbia, now pose the greatest threat to security in Britain. Sayful and his friends fit this "homegrown" profile: three were born here, two came as young children from Pakistan; all were educated in local Luton schools; and they grew up in families of full employment - one of their fathers is a retired local businessman, two are engineers, and two worked in the local Vauxhall car plant.
Sayful Islam, for one, is particularly proud of his contribution to Luton's hardline reputation. His exploits include covering the town with " Magnificent 19" posters glorifying the 11 September suicide bombers. "When I joined al-Muhajiroun four years ago, there were five local members," he says. "Now there are more than 50 and hundreds more support us."

The strange thing is that four years ago, Sayful Islam was a jeans-clad student completing his degree in business economics at Middlesex University in Hendon, north London. The son of a British Rail engineer who came to this country from Pakistan, Sayful grew up in a moderate, middle-class Muslim family in Luton.
At the local Denbigh High School, he is remembered as one of the smartest kids, and was selected to attend a science masterclass at Cambridge University. He would go on to marry, have two children and find work as an accountant for the Inland Revenue in Luton. He was thoroughly uninterested in politics.

THEN he met Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad at a local event. Within two years, he had swapped his decently paid job as an accountant for an unpaid one as a political agitator. What turned him into an extremist? And how far is he prepared to go to achieve his aims?

He no longer works, even though he is able-bodied, he admits, preferring instead to claim housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance. He smiles sheepishly and says the irony is not lost on him that the British state is supporting him financially, even as he plots to "overthrow it".

"I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said," Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe) and bare feet.

... it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy."


Clearly, the enemy understands the rules of war, and yet we in Western society recoil at it's brutality. The fact is, they laugh, while we pay for them to plot to kill us. They know it's us or them. We don't believe it, because we have no desire to kill them. Even in our wars, our strategy is meticulously designed with the goal of killing as few people as possible. The war in Iraq is designed with the aftermath in mind; to leave the Iraqi people a functioning infrastructure and government to build on.

Their goal is the opposite:



According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.

Two members of the group - Abu Yusuf, the financial adviser, and Abu Musa, the security guard - scorn al-Muhajiroun as "too moderate".

"I am freelance," says Abu Yusuf, fixing me with his piercing brown eyes. What does that mean? I ask.

"The difference between us and those two," interjects Abu Malaahim, pointing to Musa and Yusuf, "is that us lot do a verbal thing, [but] those brothers actually want to do a physical thing."

"You want to know how far I will go," says Abu Musa, his high-pitched lisp rising an octave. "When Allah said in the Koran 'kill and be killed', that's what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill my enemy."

Are you saying, I probe, that you are looking to kill people yourself ? "Yes," Abu Musa says, "to kill and to be killed." He emphasises each word.



When we in Western society choose to go to war with an enemy, we go to war with ourselves as well. We split into factions, arguing through the process of making sure we do not become the monsters we hate.

That is a good thing, but when the dialectical argument becomes destructive rather than constructive, when Western society starts calling itself Nazi and Fascist, when we begin chewing ourselves up and vomiting our own better intentions into the streets like so much botulin-laden spew, then we must come to a point of decision:

Do we want to live or not? Will we accept the decisions of our leaders, based upon the track record of fairness they have recorded in our names?

The human rights violations of 20th Century America pale in comparison to those of countries we fought against. And so it is now. On the one side we have an enemy who keeps half it's population in slavery (women, the forgotten and most important rationale for this war), stones gays and adulterers, calls for death to the infidel and Jew, and proclaims it's hate for Democracy, while on the other side we are Western Civilization.

It ought to be easy for us to choose which side we wish to have live on into the future. One side created Europe and America, and the other side has created almost nothing.

If, when we are attacked, we find ourselves unable to make a clear choice, if we decide to try to opt for some middle way of compromise and charity, then we need to understand that we are in a war with an enemy who has no wish or intention to compromise. We need to heed this warning:



Sayful, the only married one in the group, prepares to go home to his wife and children. Before he departs, he says he has a message to deliver.

"Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek."

Islamofascism has got to go.

Friday, July 08, 2005

The Demons Will Fight Each Other


Good will always triumph over evil, eventually, because the demons will always fall to fighting with each other. Here we see that not only is Zarqawi being accused of "negotiating" with the infidels, but he is forming a new military unit to fight against his fellow Muslims; thes Shiites. From Jihad Watch:


The al Qaeda leader in Iraq, Abu Musab Zarqawi denied reports of talks between U.S officials and some of the insurgents. He also announced the formation of a new unit to combat the Shiite Militia.

Sheikh Abu Mohammed Al Maqsidi, 43, considered to be Zarqawi's "spiritual mentor" was reportedly arrested in Jordan while giving an interview to Al Jazeera. In a sound record attributed to Zarqawi, he is heard talking about the formation of Omar Brigade the Shiite Badr Brigade, the military branch of the Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Zarqawi describes the function of the new unit as the elimination of the leaders of the Badr Brigade. One of the leaders of Badr Brigade Hadi Al Ameri said Zarqawi's declaration aimed to incite sectarian conflict in Iraq.

Stressing that they were not intimidated by Saddam Hussein, Ameri said, "Even if he forms a hundred brigades, we will stay here, and he and his men will leave."

Zarqawi calls his brigade "the honorable resistance fighting against the invader" who are defending "dishonorable resistance aiming Iraqis" adding that the Iraqi police and army were legitimate targets. He said, "The Iraqi Army is a collaborator of the crusaders, formed from apostates to eliminate Islam and to fight against the Muslims. We will fight against them."

Zarqawi also touched upon US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's statement that Pentagon officials were conducting talks with the Iraqi insurgents. He maintained that such statements aimed to halt the "jihad" in Iraq. Jordanian ring leader expressed his aim to continue their "jihad" on Palestinian soil.


No, the Jihad will not come to a halt, until we take it to Palestine.

Oh brother.

The Rot Of Political Correctness


From Victor Davis Hanson:


In WWII we didn’t care much whether in fighting Bushido some thought we were in a war against Buddhists. We weren’t, and that was enough. We knew the enemy were Nazis, not simply Germans, and didn’t froth and whine to prove that distinction.

But not now. To criticize Islamic fascism is supposedly to be unfair to Islam, so we allow on our own shores mullahs and madrassas to spread hatred and intolerance, as part of our illiberal acceptance of “not offending Islam.”

It is not that we don’t believe in Western values as much as we don’t even know what they are anymore. The London bombings were only a reification of what goes on daily with impunity blocks away in the mosques and Islamist schools of London.

The enemy knows that and thrives on it. That refuge in religion is why imams shout that “Islam doesn’t condone such things” — even as bin Laden has become a folk hero on the Arab Street. Jihadists sense that even here at home more Americans are more concerned about a flushed Koran at Guantanamo Bay than five Americans fighting for the Iraqi jihadists or Taliban sympathizers in Lodi, California.

As long as there is not any price to be paid for Islamism, either by governments abroad or purveyors of its hatred in the West, the propaganda works and the killing will go on. But when a renegade Saudi Prince, Pakistani general, London imam, or Lodi mosque leader screams out to the jihadist, “Stop that before those crazy Americans really do go to war,” the war, in fact, will be over and won.


Interesting. I think Mr. Hanson gets a bit vague there with that last sentence. What he neglects to say is what would drive the renegade Saudi Prince or London imam to suddenly fear us. Hanson just jumps right to the possibility of them fearing us, as if it's a pipe dream.

So, what is the price to be paid for Islamism? The answer is not being accepted into Western society. Whether this means mass deportations, or creating a whole new military justice system which would imprison Islamists as Unlawful Combatants, in some way we must get tough.

The fact that, once again, we here no serious outcry of anger directed at the Islamofascists by ordinary Muslims is evidence that Muslims in general are willing to cooperate and coexist with them in some form or another. This is a state of affairs we must not tolerate.

Victor Davis Hanson concludes:


The jihadists expect that Westerners will slink out of the Middle East, allowing fascist fundamentalists to gain control of half the world’s oil and thus buy enough weapons to blackmail their way back to the caliphate. Destroying Israel, killing Christians in Africa, running Westerners out of the Middle East, Pakistan, Indonesia, or Bali, all that is mere relish.
In Europe, the goal for the unhinged is the creation of another al Andalus; for the more calculating it is enough intimidation and terror to carve out zones of Muslim sanctuary, where millions can live parasite-like, within the largess of Western society, but without its bothersome liberal agenda of freedom and equality, in hopes of implanting the universal law of sharia.

So here we are. Even though the killers profess revenge equally for Afghanistan (the so-called “right” war), they expect Westerners to scream “Iraq.”

Even though such bombings are predicated on infiltration, careful stealthy reconnaissance, and long sojourns within London, expect cries of anguish and worrying about the stereotyping of Middle Eastern males.
Look for the same scripted crocodile tears and “concern” from the Middle East’s illegitimate leaders, even as much of the Islamic Street takes a secret delight in the daring of the jihadists, and the governments sense relief that the target was Westerners and not themselves.
Anticipate Western leaders condemning the terrorists in the same breadth as they call for “eliminating poverty” and “bringing them to justice” — as if the jihadists and their patrons are mere wayward and impoverished felons.
In the short term, Bush and Blair will appear as islands in the storm amid an angry and anguished public. But as 7/7 fades, as did 9/11, expect them to become even more unpopular, as the voices of appeasement assure us that if they just go away, maybe so will the terrorists.
It is our task, each of us according to our station, to speak the truth to all these falsehoods, and remember that we did not inherit a wonderful civilization just to lose it to the Dark Ages.

.

You Are Either For Us
Or Against Us


Over at the excellent blog, Mystery Achievement, Someguy cites sources which indicate that yesterdays London bombing may have been targeting the Muslim population centers of London, specifically:


News reports are in about the location of the Tube bombs, and the stations picked for the horrific rush-hour assaults are especially chilling. These attacks were not just attacks on our closest ally, but on the very idea of Arab and Muslim integration into the West. Among the targets in the worst attack on London since World War II was the Edgware Road station, located in the heart of wealthy, assimilated Arab London. Edgware Road is Arab London's main street.

Though we have no idea yet whether the stations or train lines that were bombed were specifically targeted, it's hard to imagine that whatever terrorist organization or cell was behind the attacks failed to consider the symbolic power of an attack on Edgware Road. And Al-Qaeda has a history of engaging in symbolically significant attacks against financial centers, banks, military installations, and government buildings. Why not against Arab allies of the West, as well?

In recent months we've seen Islamic jihadists increasingly going after targets in the Arab and Muslim world who have allied themselves with the west. The victims of the bombing attacks and terrorist incidents in Iraq are overwhelmingly Arab Muslims. Al-Qaeda in Iraq has just claimed that it killed the Egyptian envoy to Iraq, after condemning him as "the ambassador of the infidels." When the casualty count is in, I suspect some fraction of the victims of today's henious attacks will be Arab or Muslim, as well.


Christianity Today brings us the same speculation:


A leading British Arab Muslim, Anas Altikriti, told me that he noted that two stations where bombs exploded were Edgeware Road, toward the west of the city, and Aldgate East, in the East End. The former is home to London's Arab community, the latter to the mainly Bangladeshi Muslim community. Al Qaeda often regards Western Muslims as apostates, and Bin Laden stated after 9/11 that Shari'ah forbids permanent residence in the land of the infidel. These bombs seem to have been as much directed at British Arabs and Muslims as the rest of us.

If Al Qaeda thinks this will divide us from our Arab and Muslim fellow Britons, they have grossly misread our national character.


My response to this news over at Mystery Achievement was to comment:


If the Islamofascists have shifted the focus of their attacks to target fellow Muslims, then that would seem to indicate that in some sense they are in retreat mode. But, we definately have to learn more. It doesn't seem like there is much sense attacking fellow-Muslims in Western countires. The only reason I could think of for such an attack would be to motivate Muslims to leave Britain. But, I think there would have been a verbal warning first.


Frequent Front Page Magazine contributor Joseph D'Hippolito saw my comment and raised it a bucks:


If the attacks were focused against Muslims living in Britain, it could suggest that jihadism as a whole is in retreat. Donald Sensing's blog has a link to a story in which Zarqawi is criticising Arab women for not allowing their men to volunteer for jihad.
http://andisworld.typepad.com/ we...women_are_.html
The London attacks could well be the Jihadist equivalent of Hitler's order to destroy all German infrastructure as the Reich collapsed in the face of advancing Allied armies. Hitler's rationale was that the German people had proven itself inferior and didn't deserve to live, especially since "all the good ones had already died (his words, or something close to them)."


I don't agree that, if these attacks were directed at Muslims then they are the equivalent of Hitler's order to ransack his own homeland. I would like to think the Jihadis are that desparate already, but alas I don't believe it's true. Instead, I think there is a deeper layer to this story. I think it's significant to note that Edgeware Road is a kind of symbol of Arab integration into the West. So, instead of the Jihadis pulling the walls down on their people, I believe we are seeing them level a warning; You are either for us, or against us.

In a battle of civilizational ideologies, where the key commanders and fighters do not wear uniforms, it is necessary that those of us on both sides of this battle periodically remind everyone that lines of demarcation need to be drawn. In my last post I noted that Western Muslims either need to start standing with us on the front lines and saying no to Islamofascist hatred, or we will have to decide that we can no longer trust them. It seems they are being given that message from both sides.

Which side will they choose?

Aftermath


The Anchoress, this morning, brings us one of the best columns in the aftermath of the London bombings. She begins by quoting Churchill, circa 1940:


"You ask, what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask: what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory - victory - at all costs, victory, in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.”


From there, the Anchoress goes on to remind us of a bit of the 26-year long reign of Islamofascist terror, spurned by the revolution in Iran:


Perhaps if, in the 1970’s, (when Islamofascists took and held hostages for 444 days) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in mourning.

Perhaps if, in the 1980’s, (when Islamofascists had bombed soldiers barracks in Lebanon and began calling for holy war) Churchill’s policy had become our policy, 3000 Americans would not have been killed on 9/11, Bali would not have exploded, Spain would not have capitulated and England would not today be in mourning.


The history is long and lamentable, and I have a feeling most people remember back through only about ten years of it. The Anchoress sets us straight:


Churchill’s necessary policy of 1940 is the necessary policy of today. Fighting against an enemy so cowardly they refuse to wear a uniform, so bereft of shame that they revel in the shedding of innocent blood, there can be no other policy but war and victory.

Al Qaeda has stated that it attacked the UK because of its involvement in Iraq.

It does not explain what were its reasons for all of those attacks before we invaded Iraq.
Spain pulled out…they got attacked again, anyway.

Terrorism did not begin with the presidency of George W. Bush and the invasion of Iraq, no matter how much Barbara Boxer and Al Franken would like us to believe it.
... our enemies would as soon kill us as look at us and if they could slaughter 38,000 instead of 38, they would do so with relish.

An enemy that looks only to kill the infidel or die trying is an enemy that will only be defeated if they are convinced that they will never win.

And if the cultures that produce these enemies can get a sense of hope that they are not damned to lifetimes under religious or secular tyranny, perhaps they will stop producing them.
If there are other solutions out there, real, credible solutions and not mere carping and politicizing…then it is time to have them heard
.


With that in mind, why don't we look at what the Muslim community is up to this morning:


Arabs fear backlash after London bombings
DUBAI (Reuters) - Arab newspapers urged Britain on Friday not to turn against Arabs and Muslims after bloody bomb attacks in London blamed on al Qaeda Islamist militants.
While all editorials condemned the onslaught, some linked it to Britain's part in the Iraq invasion or its backing for a U.S.-declared "war on terror," which, they said, ignores the injustice of occupation fueling militancy in the Middle East.


When reading this, keep in mind, we eliminated Saddam Hussein, a tyrant of a leader, that they liked no more than we.

And listen to the condemnations:


Saudi Arabia's mufti, or top religious official, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh, said the bombers violated Islam. "The explosions in London...targeted the faithful as a whole, and this has no basis in Islam. It is forbidden by our religion."


So, you see, he condemned the bombing because it killed Muslims, not because it was wrong in and of itself.

And what else are they concerned with:


Beirut's English-language Daily Star predicted that Muslims would suffer more discrimination after the carnage in London.


Now, let's be honest about this. Muslims, as a whole, are not responsible for bombings plotted and planned by a few. On the other hand, Muslims, as a body, sit in Mosques where these hateful ideas are preached by radicalized Imams. And, from what I can tell, they do not shout these down.

In the United States recently, the think-tank Freedom House did a study which showed that Islamofascist hate literature "fills" the mosques of America. I have no reason to believe that things are different in Britain. Yet, we do not have examples of Muslims working tirelessly to end this kind of supremacist thinking.

If we look to the history of hate-ideology in the United States, we find that white people had quite a bit of trouble taking responsibility for the evil done in their names by groups such as the KKK. However, there was ample and very public evidence of whites working alongside blacks to fight against racism.

Until we see such clear examples from the Muslim community, I believe the Muslim community can expect to be looked on with suspicion. What's more, I assert that when the Muslim community reacts to such suspicion with anger and accusations towards the societies in which they live, they are being ungrateful and, frankly, as obnoxious as the white people of 1960's America who used to say things such as "We ain't got no problem with the coloreds, as long as they stay in their communities, and they stay out of ours."

It is long past time the Muslim community stops reacting to the news of terrorism against Western countries by primarily expressing concern for their own people's safety. Western countries have fought to end tyrranies which held Muslims captive in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. If the Muslim community can not be grateful for that, then there may be a problem that we can not fix.

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Take Gaza, Please


Robert E. Hunter was U.S. ambassador to NATO from 1993 to 1998, and is a senior advisor at RAND Corp. In this article from the International Herald Tribune, he gives us the recent history of Middle East politics, and the machiavellian games played by the various Arab states with regards to the Palestinians:


The world is inured to seeing Palestinian refugees packed tightly into camps in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza, which for all practical purposes is one large refugee camp. These camps could have been closed decades ago if Arab nations had absorbed some of their residents and provided economic support to others. But oil-producing Arab states used the Palestinian plight to illustrate what they argued was Israeli heartlessness and Western double standards. Palestinian leaders like the late Yasser Arafat used the camps to cultivate a psychology of victimhood.

Israeli extremists used the camps' existence to back up their claim that Palestinians could not possibly govern themselves. And the ultimate irony came in 1979 when Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan of Israel secretly offered to give Gaza back to Egypt. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt uttered a crisp "no thanks."

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon now plans to vacate Gaza, taking with him the Israeli settlements, as a contribution to the road map sponsored by the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and Russia. But unless Gaza succeeds, the vacuum will be filled by Hamas ...



So, the recent history of the Middle East conflict is of leaders of nations falling all over themselves trying to avoid the Palestinians, huh? Gee, I wonder why?

I must be an extremist, because I have come to the conclusion that the Palestinians aren't capable of governing themselves. Why?

Because for 40 years now they have chosen violence over negotiation. They have elected and supported leaders like Arafat, who walked away from the table, and began a war, when he was offered 97% of what he asked for. They've elected leaders like Abbas, who earned his Doctorate with a paper on how the Jews conspired with the Nazis to create the Holocaust. They've elected leaders like Hamas who call for death to the Jews in their Charter.

They are, in short, a Nazi-like state. And, crazy as it sounds, I think that's an indicator that they are not capable of governing themselves.

What a Load


Somebody's telling themselves pretty stories. From Agence French Presse:


WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States, which suffered a massive terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, would make a tougher target now than Europe due to strict security measures and a better-integrated Muslim community, experts said.

"I think it is probably more accessible for them to make attacks in Europe, primarily because you have open borders and you can cross those borders without a great deal of scrutiny," said security consultant Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA official.

"Certainly, Europe has been a priority target for Al-Qaeda for some time, since (Osama) bin Laden himself announced that Europe was being given a grace period and then it will become a target," he said.

He attributed the fact that the United States has not been attacked since 2001, while Europe has been attacked twice recently -- in Madrid and London -- to "very, very high" security awareness in the United States and said "it is a little more difficult for Al-Qaeda to do major operations here now."

Peter Singer, a security expert at the Brookings Institution think tank, said that security in Europe is just not at the same level as it is in the United States. "The security restrictions are tougher here," he said, but he noted: "I still think there are a lot of gaps here."


I see places they could hit us, which would scare the hell out of us, and seriously mess with our economy, every day of my life. I'm not going to say what those places are, because I don't want to encourage anybody, but c'mon.

The truth is, if anybody, other than Israel, is prepared for terrorism it is Britain. They've had a long history of being under terrorist seige with the IRA. This article is just an example of our government telling us, "Run along. There's nothing to see here. Run along now."

What a load.



7-7 Attack
Blood Stains Splattered Thirty Feet High
On The Side of the British Medical Association Building

Posted by Picasa

Inevitable


Christopher Hitchens offers some observations on the bombing in London, noting in particular that there was a sense of inevitability about this attack:


When the telephone rang in the small hours of this morning, I was pretty sure it was the call I had been waiting for. And as I snapped on the TV I could see, from the drawn expression and halting speech of Tony Blair, that he was reacting not so much with shock as from a sense of inevitability.

Perhaps this partly explains the stoicism and insouciance of those Brits interviewed on the streets, all of whom seemed to know that a certain sang-froid was expected of them.
... there are two considerations here. The first is Britain's role as a leading member of the "Coalition" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The second is its role as a host to a large and growing Muslim minority. The first British citizens to be killed in Afghanistan were fighting for the Taliban, which is proof in itself that the Iraq war is not the original motivating force. Last year, two British Muslims pulled off a suicide attack at an Israeli beach resort.
In many British cities, there are now demands for sexual segregation in schools and for separate sharia courts to try Muslim defendants. The electoral strength of Muslims is great enough to encourage pandering from all three parties: The most egregious pandering of all has come from Blair himself, who has promised legislation that would outlaw any speech that could be construed as offensive to Islam.
Since most British Muslims are of Asian descent, a faint sense exists that criticism of their religion is somehow racist: In practice this weak-mindedness leads to the extension of an antiquated law on blasphemy that ought long ago to have been repealed but is now to cover the wounded feelings of Muslims as well as Christians.

In the main, though, London is a highly successful and thriving melting pot, and I would be very much surprised as well as appalled if there were any vengeance pursued against individual Muslims or mosques.

Older Londoners are of course raised on memories of the Nazi blitzkrieg, and a younger generation remembers living through a long campaign of bombings by the Provisional IRA. This latest challenge is far more insidious, however, because the ambitions of the killers are non-negotiable, and because their methods so exactly match their aims.
It will be easy in the short term for Blair to rally national and international support, as always happens in moments such as this, but over time these gestural moments lose their force and become subject to diminishing returns.
If, as one must suspect, these bombs are only the first, then Britain will start to undergo the same tensions—between a retreat to insularity and clannishness of the sort recently seen in France and Holland, and the self-segregation of the Muslim minority in both those countries—that will start to infect other European countries as well.
It is ludicrous to try and reduce this to Iraq. Europe is steadily becoming a part of the civil war that is roiling the Islamic world, and it will require all our cultural ingenuity to ensure that the criminals who shattered London's peace at rush hour this morning are not the ones who dictate the pace and rhythm of events from now on.


His point that Europe is becoming embroiled in an Islamic civil war is a profound one. The idea there is there are two factions of people in Islam, those who believe in Jihad, and those who don't. The ones who do wage Jihad are much louder because of the fact that violence inevitably draws attention.

However, most Islamic people would never be inclined to strap on a suicide belt.

The problem is, if this is a civil war in the Islamic world, then it appears that only one side is fighting. The other is curling up in a ball, putting their hands over their eyes and saying "Islam is a religion of peace. Islam is a religion of peace."

Is CNN Starting To Get The Idea?


The female news anchor on CNN (don't know her name) was just talking to a man named Sanjay Gupta, who I believe is a Physician, about the types of injuries which have resulted from the Subway bombings in London this morning.

Her comment:

"Wow, Sanjay, these sound more like war injuries."

Gee, do you think?

I'm sorry to have to say the obvious like this but,

Hey CNN, those are war injuries. In case you have forgotten, we've been at war for almost four years now.

More On The Rumor
That Israel Was Warned In Advance


I think I may have found the origin of the rumor that there is an Israel connection in the London bombings.


From Associated Press:


JERUSALEM - British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.
Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.


Ok, so at least that makes some sense. But, as I mentioned earlier, this was a rumor, and it was denied.

Yahoo Headline Turns Meaning
Of Science Article On It's Head


The headline on Yahoo's front page reads "Shuttle Flights May Have Adverse Climate Effect."

Ok, now read the article, from Space.com, via Yahoo News:


Last Shuttle Flight Made Clouds Over Antarctica

High altitude clouds were detected over Antarctica shortly after the fateful launch of the space shuttle Columbia. The fact that some of these clouds are born out of shuttle exhaust may require a rethinking of their role as a diagnostic for global climate change.

Researchers using satellite and ground-based instruments tracked the exhaust plume from Columbia's liftoff from Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Jan. 16, 2003. The plume was roughly 650 miles long and two miles wide.

"Our analysis shows that the Columbia's exhaust plume approached the South Pole three days after launch," said Michael Stevens from the Naval Research Laboratory.

As with all shuttle launches, about 97 percent of this exhaust turns into water - a by-product of the liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel. The resulting 400 tons of extra water in the atmosphere has an observable effect on cloud formation.

Other rocket launches inject water into the atmosphere, but none so much as the shuttle launch vehicles. Because of low temperatures and the high concentrations of water from Columbia's exhaust, Stevens and his colleagues observed a significant increase in polar mesospheric clouds over Antarctica in the days following the launch.

Polar mesospheric clouds - also called noctilucent clouds - form in the summer over the poles at altitudes of about 52 miles (84 kilometers), making them the highest clouds in the Earth's atmosphere. They have been monitored in recent years because they are thought to be sensitive to the temperature and humidity of the atmosphere.

"Because the brightness, occurrence, and range of the clouds have been increasing, some scientists have suggested that they are indicators of global climate change," said Xinzhao Chu from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "That role needs to be reconsidered, however, because of the potential influence of water vapor in shuttle plumes."



In other words, one of the key indicators of global climate change has been shown to be temporary cloud formations caused by the Space Shuttle launches.

So, instead of an indication of climate change, this article brings out facts that indicate that the theory of Global Warming may be based on false information.

Four Explosions In London
Al Qaeda Claims Credit


From Associated Press:


LONDON - Three explosions rocked the London subway and one tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday. The blasts killed at least two people and injured about 190 in what a shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called a series of "barbaric" terrorist attacks.
Blair said it was clear the attacks were designed to coincide with the opening of the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. The prime minister said the meeting of world leaders would continue but that he would return to London.

"Whatever they do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilized nations throughout the world," said Blair.

A group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe" posted a claim of responsibility for the blasts, saying they were in retaliation for Britain's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Web statement, republished on the site of the German magazine Der Spiegel, could not be immediately confirmed.

Officials at hospitals surveyed by The Associated Press reported about 190 people treated for injuries following the explosions. A senior police official said about 150 people were seriously injured.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said the figure was based on reports from the London Ambulance Service. Police have confirmed that there were some fatalities but had not confirmed any numbers by early afternoon.

Bloodied and bandaged witnesses reported panicked crowds fleeing the blast sites. A witness at the bus explosion said the entire top deck of the bus was destroyed.



I'm going to break in here, because I want everyone to really look at this next sentence. It seems that, these days, we can't have a major news story without a little bit of this lunacy being thrown in:


Denying an earlier report, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that Israel was not warned by Scotland Yard in advance of the blasts.

"We have been at a very high state of alert. Of course if there had been any kind of specific warnings we would have dealt with it," Blair said.


C'mon world, what the hell would Israel have to do with this? Why would Scotland Yard have known in advance, and if they did, why would they warn Israel of all countries?

For God's sake, have all these people lost their minds?

And note, that this story comes out of Britain. If you're a reader of this blog, you will be familiar with the anti-Semitism in the British press.

Anyway, back to the story:


Police confirmed an explosion destroyed a double-decker bus at Russell Square in central London.

Paul Woodrow, an official with the ambulance service, told reporters that rescue operations were ongoing and that "there are large numbers of casualties." Officials at the Royal London Hospital told BBC that 95 injured had been brought into that hospital alone.

Jay Kumar, a business owner near the site of the bus blast, said he ran out of his shop when he heard a loud explosion. He said the top deck of the bus had collapsed, sending people tumbling to the floor.

Many appeared badly injured, and bloodied people ran from the scene.

"A big blast, a big bomb," he told The Associated Press. "People were running this way panicked. They knew it was a bomb. Debris flying all over, mostly glass."

"I was on the bus in front and heard an incredible bang, I turned round and half the double decker bus was in the air," Belinda Seabrook told Press Association, the British news agency.

Police said incidents were reported at the Aldgate station near the Liverpool Street railway terminal, Edgware Road and King's Cross in north London, Old Street in the financial district and Russell Square, near the British Museum.

Bradley Anderson, a subway passenger, told Sky News that "there was some kind of explosion or something" as his train reached the Edgware Road station in northeast London.

"Everything went black and we collided into some kind of oncoming train," Anderson said.

Simon Corvett, 26, who was on an eastbound train from Edgware Road station, said: "All of sudden there was this massive huge bang."

"It was absolutely deafening and all the windows shattered," he said. "There were just loads of people screaming and the carriages filled with smoke.

"You could see the carriage opposite was completely gutted," he said. "There were some people in real trouble."

London's cell phone network was working after the explosions but was overloaded and spotty, limiting communication.

The explosions sent stocks plummeting in Europe, with several of the major indexes down 3 percent.

On March 11, 2004, terrorist bombs on four commuter trains in Madrid killed 191 people.

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Give Me All Your Money
Oh Yeah, And His Money Too


Let me be clear right up front here, I admire Bob Geldof and Bono. Both of them have gone far beyond making pleas for charity. Both of them have gotten involved in the nitty gritty details of the distribution of food and medicine. Both of them have sat down with the leaders of African nations, and have taken time to hear the concerns and excuses of those leaders. And both have been brave enough, and clear headed enough, to call those leaders on their excuses.

What's more, I think Bush's policy towards Africa, which Bono endorses, is a wonderful step in the right direction. America is a very wealthy nation, and we can afford to help Africa.

And there is the added bonus that if we do a good job at helping the African people they will get on their feet and start buying stuff from us. In capatalism, it's in everybody's best interest that everybody does well. If corporations sometimes need help, then so can countries.

All that said, I love this article from the Telegraph, where Mark Steyn deconstructs the Live8 concert:



Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".

Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have her estate probated in New York state.

That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?

Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all 100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be sneezed at.

For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985 raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150 million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.

Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since 1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could afford her lawyers.


So why, if I love Bono and Bob so much, would I post an article which criticizes the Live8 folks in this manner? Well, Steyn articulates that as well. Simply put:



... that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.


Yes, that's right. When George Bush tripled aid to Africa, he did so assuming it would be ok with us. It's our money. He didn't reach into his pocket. He reached into our pockets. Why is it that people around the world think they ought to be able to dictate what our leaders do with our money?

I think it's up to us Americans to decide. If you, in the other countries of the world, want to cede your freedom of choice to your government, then I guess that's your right. But, we Americans reserve the right to make those choices for ourselves.

Oh, and by the way, about that canard about Americans being cheap; let's look at the facts about Americans and giving:


Actual dollar contributions reveal that the U.S. is the world’s largest donor. The OECD calculates U.S. development assistance (based on bilateral assistance, humanitarian assistance, and contributions to multilateral institutions like the International Development Association of the World Bank) in 2003 at $16.2 billion—more than double the amount given by France, Germany, or any other European nation.[2] Japan is second at $8.9 billion.

Private aid is ignored. These numbers do not include private assistance. This is not a major factor for most other nations because private charity is not large in most countries. It is a gigantic oversight when calculating America’s aid ratio, however, because the U.S. Agency for International Development estimated that private assistance was $33.6 billion in 2000.[3]

Therefore, the calculations ... severely shortchange the generosity of the United States.

Muslims Convert To Christianity In Morocco
Guess Who Gets The Blame


This morning Dhimmi Watch points to an article, from the Jerusalem Post, which says that Christian missionaries are beginning to have success in some Muslim countries. Estimates of conversion run as high as 58,000 in the country of Morocco.

This has stirred much controversy in Moroccan media, with business magazine La Vie Economique going so far as to call the work of Christian missionaries the "greatest danger."

Working mostly undercover, missionaries operate from cities such as Casablanca, Rabat, Marrakech and Fez out to remote areas in the mountains or the countryside. The Jerusalem Post tells us:


Even though Morocco is a much more tolerant country than say Saudi Arabia regarding freedom of religion, it nonetheless imprisons anyone trying to convert a Muslim for up to three years.

Karen Thomas Smith, one of the four officially registered American pastors in the country explains that because of this missionaries have to pass for businessmen or officials from NGOs.


Evangelists appear to be making some inroads within government circles as well. Recently, King Mohammed VI, who functions as Morocco's Minister of Foreign Affairs invited the well-known writer of books on Christian apologetics, Josh McDowell to visit.

According to the Jerusalem Post, this official visit by a Western Evangelist sparked "lots of conspiracy theories."

Yeah, I would imagine. It seems like anything, which contradicts the Muslim's imaginative world of total Islamic supremacy, will spark conspiracy theories. But, I must admit, although I shouldn't be, I am surprised by who they blame it on:


In fact, Le Journal Hebdomadaire reported on January 8 that this evangelization campaign ... was also the goal of the neocons and the Zionists...

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Islamofascism Is Being Preached In American Mosques
Funded By Saudi Arabia


Nonie Darwish is an Arab-American woman. She was born and raised a Muslim in the Middle East. At some point, her family emigrated to the United States, and she became a Christian. In this article from Front Page Magazine she discusses the problem of Saudi-financed religious fanaticism in the Mosques of America:


There was yet another bust in Lodi, California, of two Muslim religious leaders, father and son Hamid and Umer Hayat. They are alleged to be part of an al-Qaida terrorist cell. Such radical clerics come to the US through ‘religious visas’ that are much easier to obtain than regular visas. This is another story that does not look good for Muslim Americans.

Hundreds of mosques in the US are run by radicals and terrorist sympathizers who came from the most oppressive and radical regimes in the Muslim world. They still harbor affection for terror training camps in the caves of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They bring with them to America the same hate speech and incitement towards non-Muslims, thus creating a subversive sub-culture that is contrary to American values of tolerance and respect of other religions and races.

Not all Muslims or Muslim countries are the same. Most moderate Muslims choose to blend with American society and do not want to be associated with radical clerics or mosques. They regard radical clerics imported from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as a joke imposed on American mosques by a wealthy Saudi government.
When I moved to America in 1978, I thought I would be treated to new kind of mosques befitting America’s democracy and freedoms. But to my surprise, I saw mosques more akin to the dark ages. Many were even more radical than those in moderate Arab countries.
Moderate Muslims who escaped radicalism in the old country had to face the same hate speech and anti-Semitism by angry close-minded and uneducated preachers.
Many moderates solved the problem by stopping going to mosques all together. A prominent, well respected American Islamic studies teacher advised me that he stopped going to mosques in the US because "they are breeding grounds for hate and intolerance."

The likes of Hamid Hayat in America, have intimidated moderate Muslim by their ability to call for fatwas or death threats, to those who are out of line. Fear of revenge has also intimidated the Christian Arab community who has suffered for centuries in the hands of the deputies of radical Islam. No wonder Arabs, both Muslim and Christian, were silent after 9/11.

They have no idea on how different religions should behave towards each other. Moderate Muslims are fearful of showing respect or support to other religious groups lest they be called ‘traitors’; and we all know what happens to traitors in the Muslim world.

Such preachers of hate, gifts of the Saudi government, have given their loyalty to those who pay their salaries while they operate ice cream trucks as camouflage. Saudi Arabia still teaches protocols of the elders of Zion and that Jews use Arab blood to bake their cookies.
Such subversive and primitive education is a shame for Saudi Arabia; but what is worse is that we allow the same preachers to come to America to poison the minds of American Muslim kids. After 9/11 this should not be allowed to happen.

Islam has been in America for several generations and should be able to produce its own American preachers. American Muslims have been thriving in the US for decades and should be able to afford paying the salaries of their religious leaders.
Having radicals in US mosques such as the Hayats was not the wisest decision of Muslim Americans after 9/11. The likes of the father/son just arrested or Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who plotted the first World Trade Center bombing, should not be teachers of American Muslim kids or spiritual leaders of descent Muslims anywhere.

Muslim Americans should take responsibility for their choice of religious leaders. Every effort should be made to ensure better choices of leadership in Muslim places of worship since bad choices by foreign governments are hurting the reputation of the Muslim community in America.
There is gross recklessness and negligence by Muslims who still bring in such fanatic, below standard and suspicious characters to run their mosques and represent them. There should be no more excuses for terrorist affiliations in American mosques. Muslims should apply only the highest standards of integrity and education in hiring Muslim leaders.
American Muslims should discourage the politicization of Islam and turning mosques into silly calls for changing America; if anything needs change it is where we came from. As Muslims, we need to understand where the role of religion begins and where it ends.

Since Muslim Americans have unknowingly or knowingly donated large sums of money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the past, they must be financially able to afford the salaries of their preachers and the building of their mosques. They should end their dependence on Saudi cash with all the suspicious links attached. They should say stop the importation of fanatic, radical and below standard Saudi and Pakistani preacher who are hurting their image.
They also need preachers who are more sensitive and in tune to the value system of American society they chose to call home, values such as respect of freedom of speech, compassion and tolerance.

For this to happen, two things must be accomplished. First, the US government should stop giving ‘religious visas’ to foreign Muslim preachers from Radical Muslim countries especially those with shady backgrounds and affiliations. Second, Muslim leadership in America should immediately form a committee to investigate the Lodi incident and find who is responsible for bringing such people to represent them. They should also investigate all mosques in the US and weed out the bad apples.
No more excuses; the buck stops with the Muslim American community.

United Church of Christ Votes to Divest From Israel


The United Church of Christ passed it's resolution for divestment from Israel. From the UCC Truths website, via Little Green Footballs:


With this action, the United Church of Christ has effectively placed a wedge between itself and the Jewish community. The process of developing the divestment proposal essentially hijacked the discernment process and was done with the noted objection from committee members. The simple fact that National Office staff manufactured the resolution reflects a lack of leadership of John Thomas who refused to speak directly to the issue of divestment before General Synod and ignoring the concerns raised by our Jewish brothers and sisters.

On a personal level, I want to apologize to our Jewish brothers and sisters who will be most affected by this resolution. It is my hope that the UCC will understand the pain that it has caused and change direction.

Is An American Fascist Theorcracy In The Works?


Fellow CUANAS contributor, Publius 2000, recent wrote a thought-provoking article which he posted over at his fine blog. The subject is the lefts fear that the "Religious Right" are attempting to establish a Theocracy in the United States of America:


For instance, recently Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, said that he is troubled by this new "religious fascism" and the "drive toward theocratic oligopoly."

I've got to say, I agree with Mr. Kaplan. If there is anyone with an established power base in this country who is trying to institute such a government, then I am terrified right along with him.

Let's see what my good buddy Publius 2000 has to say about it:


Unfortunately this not an isolated instance where the term “theocracy” or “theocratic” has been ominously bandied about by the left. That charge seems to carry weight when simply thrown out to the public in the form of a generalization. Given the context of the 2004 Presidential election where the religious conservatives played a significant role; in addition to the confessed religious views of many key Republican leaders, even the President himself, this charge seems to ring true for many on the left, especially if the charge is unexamined in any depth.
Demagoguery of this nature has two targets. First, religious conservatives are targeted as having interests that are a threat to the public good and public liberty. Their reputation is maligned and such comments are meant to chill any future political participation on their part. Second, those who are told to fear the religious conservatives are the target as well, for they will carry the weight of concern over their harm at the hands of the "thoecracy."
The demagogues intend for such rhetoric to strike fear in those who are not particularly religious; fear that their liberties hang precipitously in the balance. Furthermore, such fear is meant to motivate the fearful to action and to isolate religious conservatives. Such rhetoric seeks to play on existing anti-religious prejudice and to sow the seeds of future prejudice in the minds of those who do not know any better.
I have good news to those who truly fear a “theocracy.” There is nothing to fear and you don’t even have to trust me, just trust yourself.
Just sit back, take a deap breath, open your mind just a bit and pretend that perhaps... just perhaps, the likes of Kaplan might not have a corner on the logic market. Just perhaps, they haven't the evidence to back up their claims. Just perhaps, he is using innuendo to sway your opinion and strike fear in your heart.
In the end, it takes just a little analysis to reject claims of impending "theocracy" as utter nonsense. Claims of theocracy usually find fertile soil in the educational gaps of pseudo-intellectuals who know just enough to be dangerous.
First, those charging theocracy do so by pointing to efforts of religious conservatives to address issues such as abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, embryonic stem cell research, etc. The obvious problem with this assertion is that mere decades ago all of these policies were exactly what the religious conservatives desired (save embryonic stem cells which weren't even an issue); abortion was illegal, school prayer was legal, homosexuality was illegal in most states let alone gay marriage, and yet no one has ever claimed that the United States at any time in its past has been a theocracy.
How can this be?
Either the United States was a theocracy (by the left’s twisted definition) and we are emerging from some past "theocratic era" or we have never been a theocracy and conservatives just want to preserve a certain status quo.
There is no room to argue that conservatives are seeking to institute a theocracy when they merely seek to “conserve” existing policies or reinstate policies that had previously existed. Even at that religious conservatives seem willing to accept significant compromise on most of these issues (e.g. no one is arguing to make homosexuality illegal, but merely to preserve marriage as solely being between a man and a woman).
Apparently, to secular demagogues resisting any change to the moral status quo in the dominant culture, or even seeking to slow it a bit, is the functional equivalent of instituting a theocracy. To hold this position is to essentially define the word theocracy in a manner that strips it of any real meaning.
Second, the one single silver bullet that will, and has, prevented any type of sectarian government from rising to power since the nation's founding is simply the unprecedented religious pluralism that has always characterized the United States.
Those charging theocracy are clearly out of touch with the dizzying diversity that is readily apparant in American religious life; and they are utterly uninformed of American religious history. The so called “religious right” as the left refers to it, is far from a monolith of theological uniformity. At a minimum, it is made up of religious Jews from varying traditions (Conservative, Reform, and Orthodox), Catholics, Mormons, mainline Protestants such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists etc. (each with their own unique theological doctrines), and of course Evangelicals (who are anything but monolithic). All of these groups have significant religious differences among them.


Go to Publius' site to read the rest.

American Cities Move To Take Property From Citizens


As most of us know, several weeks ago the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case of Kelo vs. New London. The nine judges of our highest court decided (in violation of the Fifth Admendment) that from here on cities are allowed to force residents to sell their property so that business can put it to use for private enterprise, as long as the result is increased tax revenue.

Dave Budge has a partial rundown, from the Institute for Justice, of all the cities around the country who have been inspired by the Kelo Decision to start procedures to take land away from residents:


Freeport, Texas
Hours after the Kelo decision, officials in Freeport began legal filings to seize some waterfront businesses (two seafood companies) to make way for others (an $8 million private boat marina), according to the Houston Chronicle.

Lake Zurich, Ill.
Five property owners facing condemnation for private development had asked Lake Zurich officials to hold off until the Kelo decision. The Chicago Tribune reports that City officials are now moving to condemn.

Boston, Mass.
Two days after the Kelo decision, Boston City Council President Michael Flaherty called on the mayor of Boston to seize South Boston waterfront property from unwilling sellers for a private development project. “Eminent domain is one tool that the city can use,” Flaherty told the Boston Globe.


The list goes on.

The Kelo vs. City of New London case also concerned waterfront property. It looks like we all have need to worry if our home sits on land which is considered desirable.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker, writing in the Weekly Standard, makes a case for why the Kelo decision is not a violation of the Fifth Admendment:


Fort Trumble (the property at issue) is such a typical mixed-use municipal development project that it is a little hard to understand the significance that commentators have given to the Court's decision. The issue before the Court was phrased very broadly by the majority: "We granted certiorari to determine whether a city's decision to take property for the purpose of economic development satisfies the 'public use' requirement of the Fifth Amendment."

Thus, if the minority had prevailed, no municipality in America could condemn any property in order to carry out an "economic development" project. This would have the practical effect of making such projects virtually impossible.

It is noteworthy, however, that the Supreme Court held long ago that a governmental unit can use its eminent domain power to relieve "urban blight" (see Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 1954). That principle was not challenged by any party in the Kelo case or by the Kelo dissenters (with the possible exception of Justice Thomas).

So, had the dissenters been in the majority, a city would be powerless to carry out a redevelopment project in a neighborhood that is only depressed--like Fort Trumbull--but if it waited until the neighborhood is actually blighted, a redevelopment project would be permissible. Permissible, but probably too late. It is not obvious how this result would represent an advance for either individual rights or public policy.


One thing that comes to mind here, is that while it does seem clear that this decision extended the rights of government, at the expense of the rights of individuals, obviously, the extension was on a right the government already enjoyed; if only in predominantly minority communities.

So, is this just wealthy white people getting upset that they are now being treated like poor minorities living in a community which is "blighted?"