Saturday, July 16, 2005

Leading Iranian Religious Leader Says
Britain Is Behind London Bombings

From Jihad Watch, via Agence French Presse:

TEHRAN — A leading Iranian religious leader and politician charged in a nationally broadcast sermon yesterday that there was a British hand in last week’s deadly London bombings. Ahmad Jannati, who chairs the powerful Guardians Council, which vets all legislation and candidates for public office, said the British government benefited from the bombings and was the key suspect, whether directly or through its “child” Al-Qaeda.

“One hypothesis is that Al-Qaeda is behind these events, but Al-Qaeda is (US President George W.) Bush and (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair,” Jannati charged. “Who created Al-Qaeda? It’s you who ought to be put on trial. Al-Qaeda is your illegitimate child,” he said, addressing the two leaders.

“The other possibility is that the British government itself created this situation, just like on Sept. 11, 2001, when we discussed the responsibility of the Americans.

“To understand who is behind these events, you need to look at who profits from them. It’s the Americans who profited from Sept. 11 and today it’s the British who are profiting from these attacks. They say that it’s to fight terrorism that they have to go to Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, and that’s how they justify their presence in those countries."...

Yes, that's right. And since we are profiting so much from ending the Hussein regime, I guess we'll have to end your Islamofascist Mullocracy next.

Cheney Passes Colonoscopy With Flying Colors

Vice President Dick Cheney has exactly the sheepish look you'd expect any guy to have, when coming out of the Doctors office after a colonscopy:

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney has a mild case of esophagitis and some small dilation of the arteries behind both knees, his office said Saturday after he completed a two-part annual physical.

Cheney, 64, was at George Washington University Hospital for a colonoscopy, an upper endoscopy and vascular screening. The procedures completed his yearly medical checkup.

We, at CUANAS, wish the Veep a speedy recovery of his sense of personal dignity.

We've been through it before as well, VP Cheney. We understand.

Posted by Picasa

The History of Islam and Nazism

Periodically, I post a photo here of this or that group of Islamofascists giving the Nazi "Heil Hitler" salute. I'm sure many people who see this wonder to themselves, "Why? What's the connection between them and the Nazis?"

Today, Someguy, at Mystery Achievement, quotes from this Caroline Glick article on the history of the relationship between Nazism and Islam:

Reacting to Neville Chamberlain's Munich Pact with Adolf Hitler in the British Parliament in October 1938, Winston Churchill warned, "You have to consider the character of the Nazi movement and the rule which it implies There can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which vaunts the spirit of aggression and conquest, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen, with pitiless brutality the threat of murderous force. That power can never be a trusted friend of British democracy."

With the outbreak of World War II one year later, Churchill's warning that Munich was "the beginning of the reckoning" with an implacable foe was of course proved correct.

In the week since last Thursday's attacks in London we have repeatedly heard the analogy between those bombings and the Nazi bombing war against Britain. Indeed, in most cases, the analogies drawn between the two circumstances have to do with the British response to the attacks and not to the parallel nature of the perpetrators.

In truth though, just as the British stoicism recalls the same from 65 years ago, so too, there is a deep and instructive similarity between the Nazis and the Islamic-fascist forces that attacked then and attack today. The fact of the matter is that to fight this current war to victory requires understanding and accepting the similarities between the Nazis and the Arab-Islamic terrorist armies.

On Tuesday The Wall Street Journal published an investigative report into the establishment and growth of the Islamic Center in Munich. As Stefan Meining, a German historian who studies the mosque, told the paper, "If you want to understand the structure of political Islam, you have to look at what happened in Munich."

According to the report, the Munich mosque was founded by Muslim Nazis who had settled in West Germany after the war. These men, who were among more than one million citizens of the Soviet republics who joined the Nazis while they were under German occupation, were transferred by their Nazi commander to the Western front in the closing stages of the war to protect them from the advancing Red Army.

The Journal report explains that the first leader of the mosque was a native of Uzbekistan named Nurredin Nakibhidscha Namangani. Namangani served as an imam in the SS and participated in the liquidation of the Warsaw ghetto and the putting down of the Jewish uprising in 1943.

According to the article, the exiled head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, Said Ramadan, participated in a 1958 conference organized by Namangani and his fellow Muslim Nazis to raise money to build the mosque.

The article then outlines the subsequent takeover of the mosque by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1960s and its transformation, with Saudi and Syrian funding, into a nexus for the spread of Islamic-fascist ideology and its call for jihad and world domination.

Ignored by the report is that there was no particular reason, other than perhaps turf warfare, for the Nazis to have had a problem with the Muslim Brotherhood. As German political scientist Matthias Kuntzel chronicled in his work "Islamic anti-Semitism and its Nazi Roots," the Muslim Brotherhood, which spawned the PLO's Fatah as well as al-Qaida, Hamas and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, owes much of its ideological success and pseudo-philosophical roots to Nazism.

In the 1930s, the mufti of Jerusalem, Amin el-Husseini, rigorously courted the Nazis. When, in 1936, he launched his terror war against the Jewish Yishuv in the British controlled Palestine Mandate, he repeatedly asked the Nazis for financial backing, which began arriving in 1937.

From 1936-39 Husseini's terror army murdered 415 Jews. In later years, Husseini noted that were it not for Nazi money, his onslaught would have been defeated in 1937. His movement was imbued with Nazism. His men saluted one another with Nazi salutes and members of his youth movement sported Hitler Youth uniforms.

Husseini was allied with the new Muslim Brotherhood movement that was founded by Ramadan's father-in-law, Hassan al-Banna, in the 1920s. The impact of his terror war on the movement was profound. From a 1936 membership roster of 800, by 1938 the ranks of the Brotherhood had risen to 200,000 official members backed by perhaps an equal number of active sympathizers.

As Kuntzel argues, the notion of a violent holy war or jihad against non-Muslims was not a part of any active Islamic doctrine until the 1930s and, as he notes, "its concurrence with the arrival of a newly virulent anti-Semitism is verified in no uncertain terms." Husseini's gangs in the Palestine Mandate were joyously praised by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which held mass demonstrations with slogans like "Jews get out of Egypt and Palestine," and "Down with the Jews!"

For the Nazis, the Jews were seen as the principal force preventing them from achieving their goal of world domination. As Hitler put it, "You will see how little time we shall need in order to upset the ideas and the criteria for the whole world, simply and purely by attacking Judaism."

In his view, once he destroyed the Jews, the rest of the world would lay before him for the taking. "The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between Germans and Jews. All else is facade and illusion," he said.

Husseini, who became an active Nazi agent – fomenting a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad in 1942 and then fleeing to Germany where he spent the rest of the war training a jihad army of Bosnian Muslims; exhorting the Arab world to rise up against the Allies; participating in the Holocaust and planning an Auschwitz-like death camp to be built in Nablus after the German victory – escaped with French assistance to Cairo after the war. There he was embraced as a war hero.
Hitler's obsession with the Jews as the source of all the evils in the world became so ingrained in both the Arab nationalist and Islamic psyche that it has become second nature.

At the 2002 trial in Germany of Mounir el-Moutassadeq, who was accused of collaborating with the September 11 hijackers, witnesses described the world view of Muhammad Atta who led the attackers. One witness claimed, "Atta's [world view] was based on a National Socialist way of thinking. He was convinced that 'the Jews' are determined to achieve world domination. He considered New York City to be the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy Number One."

In light of the wealth of historical documentation of the Nazi roots of Islamic fascism, it is absolutely apparent that the collaboration between Nazis and the Muslim Brotherhood in the building and developing of the Islamic Center in Munich was anything but coincidental or unique.

It is also hardly surprising that PA chieftain Mahmoud Abbas, whose predecessor, Yasser Arafat, was Husseini's follower, devoted his doctoral dissertation to a denial of the Holocaust and a justification of Nazism.

The thing of it is, just as with the Nazis, it is impossible to separate the Islamist ideological and military quest for world domination from its genocidal anti-Semitism. As with the Nazis, they are two sides of the same coin. And, just as was the case from the Nazi ascent to power in 1933 through the end of World War II, the British and, to a lesser though increasing degree, the Americans refuse to acknowledge that the war against the Jews and Israel is the same as the war against them.


Posted by Picasa

The White Boys Come Out In Support of The Jihad

The Aryan Nations have announced which side they are taking in the War on Terror. From Jihad Watch:

There has been a little misunderstanding as to what our perspective is as far as an alliance with Islamic Jihadeen, and our own Phinehas Priests. There are some out there who would like to imply that we are now an Islamic Fundamentalist Organization, and this is erroneous, our Organization is not for the support of any religion,

however based on the history of the Aryan Nations, the rules and conduct are based on Biblical Law, and the general views of the bulk of this organization is the acceptance of Aryan Messianic Identity, or other forms of what is called “Christian Identity” in most circles....

Further, seeing the errors of the past, we have taken this approach with alliances to Islamic adherents, because we find their standards of morality to be nearly analogous to our own, and their resolve to uproot and destroy the fallen tree of the Garden, the satanic “jew”, to also be analogous to our own desires and devotion.

In this sense, Islam is our ally, and the 1500 cults all claiming to be “Christian” are our opposition, as they have chosen to worship the image [jews] of the beast [satan] as prophesied within the Holy Scriptures for the non-elect, the condemned of Yahweh, the rejects of Israel.

Islam has not been dishonored as much by “jew”ish incursion, therefore Islamic Jihadeen have safeguarded the purity of the very instinct for self preservation for which we hold the most vociferous esteem.

Reobert Spencer comments: Note the disassociation from the name "Christian" and denial that they are a "Christian" group. Yet in a week, or a month, someone will mention this group to me again as an example of "Christian extremism," as if the existence of such a thing somehow justifies the Islamic jihad. This shows how increasingly divorced from reality is such moral equivalence.

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Belgravia Dispatch has a very interesting post this morning which quotes Robert Pape, author of Dying To Win: The Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Mr. Pape has assembled a complete database of all 462 suicide attacks around the world, from 1980 through 2004.

His conclusion is suicide terrorism emanates from one source; the desire "to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland."

Pape notes that the suicide belt was invented by a terror group called the Tamil Tigers, based in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Hindu group which is completely secular. From this he implies that suicide terrorism is not a fundamentalist phenomenon.

Here are some excerpts:

Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.
I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

I have collected demographic data from around the world on the 462 suicide terrorists since 1980 who completed the mission, actually killed themselves. This information tells us that most are walk-in volunteers. Very few are criminals. Few are actually longtime members of a terrorist group. For most suicide terrorists, their first experience with violence is their very own suicide-terrorist attack.

There is no evidence there were any suicide-terrorist organizations lying in wait in Iraq before our invasion. What is happening is that the suicide terrorists have been produced by the invasion.

Well, ok. There were 140 suicide attacks against Israel during the last four years alone. This would mean that almost 1/3 of all suicide attacks are aimed at Israel. When one takes into account Israel's staggering ability to halt such suicide attackers (they halted 367 such attacks in 2004 alone), then one can see that the percentage of total attacks which are directed at Israel is much, much higher than 33%.

In other words, the preponderance of sucide terrorism is done in the name of Islamic fundamentalism, which inseminates potential suicide terrorists with two necessary ideas,

1) that it is their land by the will of Allah, and that no human being of another religion should be on their land, ever, for any reason, unless they are living in submission to Islam,


2) that they will attain paradise for their actions.

While it may be true that the secular Tamil Tigers invented the bomb vest, the numbers would seem to prove that the ideology of communism has been less successful in motivating humans to commit suicide in the name of their cause.

In other words, the Tamil Tigers may have invented the suicide vest, but the Islamists have provided an almost perfect germinating ideology.

I must say, I agree with Pape that there are an almost unlimited supply of suicide terrorists available in the Islamic world. I agree that in the short-term, terrorism will increase as a result of our "occupation" of foreign land.

However, one of the notable things about making war upon a people is that it usually angers them, and causes them to fight back.

So, no surprise there.

The notion that such anger and determination on the part of our enemy is a reason to quit is a wholly new idea in the annals of military strategy; and it's probably not an idea with legs.

It seems to me wars are won by breaking the will of the people fighting them. Unfortunately, this is done by cornering the enemy and pouring the force on, until he believes he has no other choice than to admit defeat.

It's The Caliphate, Stupid

I love the way Charles at Little Green Footballs put this, so I'm just going to give you his whole post:

After several inevitable paragraphs about “Muslim anger” over Iraq, the New York Times comes clean about Islam’s goal for the United Kingdom: Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain’s Muslims.

A recent poll commissioned by The Guardian found that 84 percent of Muslims surveyed were against the use of violence for political means, but only 33 percent of Muslims said they wanted more integration into mainstream British culture. Almost half of those surveyed said their Muslim leadership did not represent their views.

The grievances of the boys of Cross Flats Parks have not propelled them toward political action. But Dr. Waheed, a practicing psychiatrist, and Mr. Khan, a documentary filmmaker, are acting on their alienation.

Both men, eloquent, better educated and better off than most in their community, are also among the more politically motivated. They have embraced one of the more conservative, if not militant, Islamic movements in Britain today - Hizb ut-Tahrir, or Party of Liberation.

The party’s stated goal is to rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state dissolved with the fall of the Ottoman Empire - to displace corrupt dictators in the Muslim world, and to instill Islamic mores and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.

The group has drawn about 10,000 members to its recent annual meetings, its members say, and includes chapters abroad in places like Uzbekistan. It is a controversial movement, even among British Muslims, and its members have become emblematic of the shift of Muslims born in Britain to more conservative and outspoken expressions of their faith.

In interviews earlier this week in Birmingham, where they were born and bred, Dr. Waheed and Mr. Khan described the group’s struggle as one for the very identity of Muslims in Britain.

This shouldn't surprise anyone, this is the stated goal of Bin Laden and his followers. And, as I mentioned a couple days ago, Bin Laden enjoys enormous support in the Islamic world.

While his support may not be as strong among Muslims in the Western world, I believe we can assume it is still significant. Especially considering the statistic that only 34% of British Muslims said they desire to integrate more into their host society.

The Sacraments of Postmodern Thinking
And The Global War on Terror

In his latest piece,Victor Davis Hanson explains what he calls the "false narrative of the left," which weakens our resolve to fight and win the Global War on Terror:

Why does this false narrative, then, persist — other than that it had a certain political utility in the 2002 and 2004 elections?

In a word, this version of events brings spiritual calm for millions of troubled though affluent and blessed Westerners. There are three sacraments to their postmodern thinking, besides the primordial fear that so often leads to appeasement.

Our first hindrance is moral equivalence. For the hard Left there is no absolute right and wrong since amorality is defined arbitrarily and only by those in power. Taking back Fallujah from beheaders and terrorists is no different from bombing the London subway since civilians may die in either case. The deliberate rather than accidental targeting of noncombatants makes little difference, especially since the underdog in Fallujah is not to be judged by the same standard as the overdogs in London and New York. A half-dozen roughed up prisoners in Guantanamo are the same as the Nazi death camps or the Gulag.

Our second shackle is utopian pacifism — ‘war never solved anything’ and ‘violence only begets violence.’ Thus it makes no sense to resort to violence, since reason and conflict resolution can convince even a bin Laden to come to the table. That most evil has ended tragically and most good has resumed through armed struggle — whether in Germany, Japan, and Italy or Panama, Belgrade, and Kabul — is irrelevant. Apparently on some past day, sophisticated Westerners, in their infinite wisdom and morality, transcended age-old human nature, and as a reward were given a pass from the smelly, dirty old world of the past six millennia.

The third restraint is multiculturalism, or the idea that all social practices are of equal merit. Who are we to generalize that the regimes and fundamentalist sects of the Middle East result in economic backwardness, intolerance of religious and ethnic minorities, gender apartheid, racism, homophobia, and patriarchy? Being different from the West is never being worse.

These tenets in various forms are not merely found in the womb of the universities, but filter down into our popular culture, grade schools, and national political discourse — and make it hard to fight a war against stealthy enemies who proclaim constant and shifting grievances.

If at times these doctrines are proven bankrupt by the evidence it matters little, because such beliefs are near religious in nature — a secular creed that will brook no empirical challenge. These articles of faith apparently fill a deep psychological need for millions of Westerners, guilty over their privilege, free to do anything without constraints or repercussions, and convinced that their own culture has made them spectacularly rich and leisured only at the expense of others.

According to Mr. Hanson, a fissure has been created in Western Civilization, between the postmodernists on the one hand, and those of us who still believe in absolute truth:

So it is not true to say that Western civilization is at war against Dark Age Islamism. Properly speaking, only about half of the West is involved, the shrinking segment that still sees human nature as unchanging and history as therefore replete with a rich heritage of tragic lessons.

This is nothing new. The spectacular inroads of the Ottomans in the16th century to the gates of Vienna and the shores of the Adriatic were not explainable according to Istanbul’s vibrant economy, impressive universities, or widespread scientific dynamism and literacy, or even a technologically superior and richly equipped military.

Instead, a beleaguered Europe was trisected by squabbling Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians — as a wealthy northwest, with Atlantic seaports, ignored the besieged Mediterranean and Balkans and turned its attention to getting rich in the New World.

So too we are divided over two antithetical views of the evolving West — Europe at odds with America, red and blue states in intellectual and spiritual divergence, the tragic view resisting the creeping therapeutic mindset. These interior splits largely explain why creepy killers from the Dark Ages, parasitic on the West from their weapons to communications, are still plaguing us four years after their initial surprise attack.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars/But in ourselves, that we are underlings."

So, in other words, we are fighting a two-front war. One, in the Islamic world, and one here in America. The one in the Islamic world I have no doubt we can win. However, we will not win if we do not believe in the cause for which we fight. And that is where the second front comes in. We also need to put an end to the moral relativism of our postmodern rot.

There is no doubt that Islamism, the ideology that seeks to establish a worldwide caliphate governed by Sharia law, is evil. There is no doubt that Western-style Democracy is a better form of society than that envisioned by the Islamists. There should be no doubt that it is morally preferable that people should be free. However, we seem to believe we are wrong to spread freedom. We seem to believe that we would be "imposing."

This is an oxymoron. One can not "impose" freedom. And, I do not mean that in the way those on the left mean it, when they try to imply that we are attempting to force freedom on people who would not want it; as if we were the fascists. We can only offer the opportunity for freedom, by removing existing constraints upon liberty, such as the evil of Islamist tyrranies.

All human beings long to be free. If we don't believe that, then we must conclude that only Westerners long to be free, and really at that, only white Europeans want to be free, because white Europeans are the ones who invented Western Democracy. In other words, we must also believe that Arabs do not want to be free.

This is racist. And, it is nonesense.

Those who do not want freedom are those who stand to gain something by forcing their will on others; in other words, the leaders of Islamist states. That they are able to terrorize their people into agreement, or to manufacture agreement by inculcating hatred of the West, does not mean the people of Arab countries do not crave freedom. It means they are the victims of a hateful ideology.

The difference between the hateful ideology of Islamism, and the ideology of Western Democracy should be clear to us at every corner. But, maybe it will be clearest on this point. Freedom allows many worlds. One may be Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or other. Our leaders do not attempt to create hate in us for Muslims in general. Our hatred is saved for the ideology of terror.

For the Islamists, on the other hand, there are only two worlds; the world of Islam, and the world of the Infidel; also called Dar al-Harb; the House of War. Islamists say Muslims are to hate the Infidels, and make war upon them, until they convert.

But, while our world of freedom allows room for many worlds, we can not allow fascism, which is the opposite of freedom. We are diametrically opposed to this Islamist ideology. It is either them or us. There is not room for both. It's either our freedom, or their fascism. Sooner or later, we will have to choose which we believe in more.

Friday, July 15, 2005

One-Stop Shop

Apparently, the EU is starting to lose hope that they can dissuade the Islamofascist government of Iran from building nuclear weapons. In fact, this Reuters article describes EU leaders as being downright gloomy:

BERLIN (Reuters) - European Union foreign ministers will agree on Monday to press on with a diplomatic initiative to try to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions despite gloom since the election of an Islamic hard-liner as president.

Considering the fact that high government officials of Iran have threatened to use nukes, preemptively, on both the United States and Israel, I can understand the gloom.

Well, what to do? What to do, when you're so gloomy? Hey, I've got an idea. Let's do some cocaine:

Cocaine traces have been found at the European Parliament in an inquiry by one of Germany’s main broadcasters. The Sat-1 channel sent reporters to take 46 swabs from toilets and other public areas of the Brussels buildings. Nearly all tested positive for cocaine.

A European Parliament spokeswoman said cocaine abuse was not a problem among staff working at the buildings.

A professor who analysed the samples said the amounts found were too great to have been carried in on clothing. “It simply reflects the fact that cocaine was brought in there,” Professor Fritz Sorgel of the Institute for Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Research in Nuremberg (IBMP) told the BBC News website.

“The amount was too high and found in too many spots. It shows it was brought in deliberately.”

I hope the Euros use the word "toilet" to mean bathroom. I'd hate to think they're snorting the coke right off the toilet seat. But, it would make sense that their faces would be near the toilet seat, given how much time they spend kissing the Iranians butts.

Boasting of Botswana

Jack, at Jack of Clubs, had an interesting post the other day about Botswana. Apparently, Botswana, unlike most African countries, is doing pretty well:

I have long been an admirer of the nation of Botswana. Almost alone among African countries it stands as an example of liberty, prosperity and stability. I thought I had said something about this several months ago on this blog, but I could not find it in the archives. It had also occured to mention Botswana in connection with the hoopla over the Live-8 concert, but I didn't get around to it. Fortunately, Will Franklin has picked up the slack in his entry for the Carnival of the Revolutions:

Botswana is the model for reforming Africa. It has a generally free and open market economy; it is freer, politically (.pdf -- Freedom House), than Brazil, India, and even Jamaica. Corruption is low, the free enterprise system is allowed to work, and, what do you know, the country is one of the more successful countries in Africa.

Botswana's per capita GDP ($9,200) is above that of China, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Turkey, Brazil, and Thailand;

Botswana's per capita GDP even bests the world average.Contrast Botswana with Zambia (or any number of sub-Saharan nations), and you can really see how much institutions matter.

In short, Africa could learn a lot, from one of its own.

One thing Will does not point out is that Botswana is largely a Christian nation. According to the CIA World Factbook, 71.6% of Batswana are Christians. (I have seen other estimates that place the number closer to 50%, but these numbers are only good for comaparison anyway.)

Additionally about 80% of the country is literate, which is low by Western standards but remarkably high for African nations. Curiously, the female literacy rate is higher at 82.4% than the male rate at 76.9%. I would suggest that the prosperity Will cites is largely due to these two facts, both of which can be traced to the legacy of the British Empire.

Well, what do you know? The African country which shares a religious and political heritage with the United States is doing better than the most of the rest of the African countries. Makes you wonder if maybe we should be working to help Africans install Democratic Republics in Africa, instead of just giving them money. From the New York Times, via Atlas Shrugs:

Don't insult Africa, this continent so rich yet so badly led. Instead, insult its leaders, who have ruined everything. Our anger is all the greater because despite all the presidents for life, despite all the evidence of genocide, we didn't hear anyone at Live 8 raise a cry for democracy in Africa.

Don't the organizers of the concerts realize that Africa lives under the oppression of rulers like Yoweri Museveni (who just eliminated term limits in Uganda so he can be president indefinitely) and Omar Bongo (who has become immensely rich in his three decades of running Gabon)? Don't they know what is happening in Cameroon, Chad, Togo and the Central African Republic? Don't they understand that fighting poverty is fruitless if dictatorships remain in place?

Even more puzzling is why Youssou N'Dour and other Africans participated in this charade. Like us, they can't help but know that Africa's real problem is the lack of freedom of expression, the usurpation of power, the brutal oppression.

Neither debt relief nor huge amounts of food aid nor an invasion of experts will change anything. Those will merely prop up the continent's dictators. It's up to each nation to liberate itself and to help itself. When there is a problem in the United States, in Britain, in France, the citizens vote to change their leaders. And those times when it wasn't possible to freely vote to change those leaders, the people revolted.

Associated Press - The Propaganda Wing
Of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade ("Loosely" Affiliated)

Supernatural Blog points to a recent Associated Press article which claims the links between Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, maintains only "loose" links to it's sister organization, the terrorist group Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade:

Also yesterday, a Palestinian suicide bomber blew herself up near a crowded bus stop in Jerusalem, killing two people and wounding at least 14 others, Israeli authorities said.
The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent group loosely linked to Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the attack. - Sapa-AFP and Sapa-AP

The link is hardly "loose," however. From Honest Reporting:

The evidence, however, clearly indicates that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is not some "loose offshoot," but rather has a direct and ongoing bond to the Fatah party, which holds a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. The Palestinian government, therefore, bears direct responsibility for the group's heinous terrorist acts:

The Jerusalem Post reports that a disagreement between the two groups has led Fatah to publically recognize its obligations to the AAMB. For their part, the AAMB is feeling abandoned by their sponsor:

"Thanks to us, Fatah restored its dignity and power during the intifada," [an AAMB leader] added. "But now the members of the Fatah Central Council are putting pressure on us to disband. We don't trust them any more and we tell them that they are the ones who must go."

The leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Tulkarm told USA Today on March 14, 2002: "The truth is, we are Fatah, but we didn't operate under the name of Fatah...We are the armed wing of the organization. We receive our instructions from Fatah. Our commander is Yasser Arafat himself."

In November, 2003 a BBC investigation found that up to $50,000 a month was funneled by Fatah directly to the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades.

Why does AP lie about this? Why is it that AP has a horse in this race?

For some reason, AP wants to maintain the illusion that these terrorist attacks are not official acts of the Palestinian state. For some reason, AP wants the people of the world to believe that the terrorists, or "militants" as AP calls them, are just a bunch of justifiably angry people running around blowing things up with almost no plan or method to their madness.

Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, and now Hamas (who won 33% of the Palestinian vote in the most recent Palestinian election) are both official arms of the Palestinian Authority. They are the Palestinian military. Israel should do what any other country would do when attacked by the military of another nation; fight back with their full force.

But, Israel is held back by world opinion which is stoked by organizations like AP, who lie about the situation.

How long, oh Lord? How long?

Thursday, July 14, 2005

CUANAS - Believe It Or Not

Last night, believe it or not, PBS Frontline ran a segment on the rise of Islamofascism in Europe. And they almost got it right. Here's the intro from their website:

Since 9/11, European law enforcement and intelligence agencies have foiled dozens of Islamist terrorist plots. In "Al Qaeda's New Front," FRONTLINE, The New York Times and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's documentary program the fifth estate join forces to investigate the realities of "Eurabia," and the peculiar problems faced by Western governments in confronting this gathering threat.

The key reality faced on the other side of the Atlantic is the 18 million Muslims whose ranks are expected to swell to 20 percent of Europe's population in the next 15 years. This community of immigrants who share religious and ethnic bonds has largely failed to integrate into European societies. Many are poor and subject to bigotry; they have lived in Europe for years and many were born there, yet often feel that they are not full members of society.

This sense of alienation is deepened by the ubiquity of television with its non-stop images of their suffering brethren in Palestine, Iraq, and Chechnya. Inspired by local radical imams and jihadist Web sites, disenfranchised European Muslims are taking up the cause of jihad.

With full-scale war between the U.S. military and Islamic insurgents in Iraq -- which is just a two-and-a-half day drive from Berlin -- the reality of a war between Islam and the West is a domestic problem for Europe. The dream of the European Union, the end of all borders, has had unintended consequences. It means that a terrorist can travel freely once he has gained entry, leaving law enforcement with the nearly impossible task of tracking clandestine warriors as they slip in and out of countries with literally no restrictions.

That ease of movement presents America with an ongoing threat: a visa waiver program that makes travel by any citizen or permanent resident of Europe into the United States virtually unrestricted.

Since 9/11, intelligence sharing between the United States and most of Europe's governments has reached unimagined levels. But within the European Union itself difficulties persist as each country continues to have its unique laws and civil rights protections.

While Europe girds itself for more attacks, all of the top counter-terrorism officials interviewed for this report warn that the threat is only growing -- in part, they lament, because America's strategy of going to war in Iraq has created a new intense threat from combat-hardened veterans of that insurgency and a large immigrant population with growing sympathy for their cause.

From Bali in the Pacific to Beslan in remote Russia, the images deliver a stark message: nobody is safe in a war without borders -- a war now threatening to boil over in the heart of Europe.

Well, like I said, they almost got it right. They blamed America, but you know, that's like breathing to a Euro, isn't it?


Anyway, there's video. Click here to see it.

100% of Lebanese Say They Have
A Very Unfavorable View of Jews

Here's a poll from Pew Research which shows that support for Bin Laden is dropping. That's great, in a way, but the really extraordinary information to come from this poll is how people from various Muslim countries feel about Jews. From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Support for Osama bin Laden and suicide bombings have fallen sharply in much of the Muslim world, according to a multicountry poll released on Thursday.

The survey by the Pew Research Center examined public opinion in six predominantly Muslim nations: Morocco, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia, Jordan and Lebanon. It also examined views in nine North American and European countries as well as in India and China. In all, more than 17,000 people were questioned either by telephone of face-to-face.

"There's declining support for terrorism in the Muslim countries and support for Osama bin Laden is declining. There's also less support for suicide bombings," said Pew Center director Andrew Kohut.

"This is good news, but still there are substantial numbers who support bin Laden in some of these countries," he told a news conference.

In Turkey, bin Laden's support has fallen to 7 percent from 15 percent in the past two years. In Indonesia, it has dropped to 35 percent from 58 percent.

However, in Jordan, confidence in bin Laden, who took responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and many other attacks, rose to 60 percent from 55 percent. In Pakistan, it went to 51 percent from 45 percent.

A similar picture emerged when respondents were asked whether suicide bombings were justifiable. In Morocco, 13 percent said they often or sometimes could be justified, down from 40 percent in 2004.

In Indonesia, 15 percent expressed that view, down from 27 percent in the summer of 2002. Support for suicide bombings also fell in Pakistan and dropped dramatically in Lebanon. However, support rose in Jordan, to 57 percent from 43 percent in 2002.

Kohut noted there had been devastating attacks on civilians in Indonesia, Morocco and Turkey in recent years and a rash of assassinations and bombings recently in Lebanon.

Both in western countries and the Muslim world, respondents expressed fears about Islamic extremism.

Seventy-three percent in Morocco and 52 percent in Pakistan saw Islamic extremism as a threat to their country.

The figure was 84 percent in Russia, 78 percent in Germany, and an identical 70 percent in Britain and the United States. The poll was taken well before last week's bombings in London.

When asked what caused Islamic extremism, 40 percent in Lebanon and 38 percent in Jordan blamed U.S. policies and influence; in Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, respondents were more likely to blame poverty, unemployment or poor education.

Despite terrorism fears, majorities in Britain, the United States, France, Canada and Russia and pluralities in Spain and Poland expressed favorable views about Muslims.

But in Germany and the Netherlands, opinion swung to an unfavorable view. Fifty-one percent of those surveyed in the Netherlands expressed an unfavorable view of Muslims. In Germany, 47 percent were unfavorable, compared with 40 percent who expressed favorable views.

I suspect that the only reason support for Bin Laden and terrorism is dropping is because Bin Laden and his minions have begun to kill their fellow Muslims. In other words, while such triangulation serves us well in the War on Terror, this drop in support is not necessarily a sign that these Muslim societies are becoming any less sick.

In fact, here's evidence that they are just as sick as ever; an extraordinary statistic, which Reuters saved for the end of the article.

Anti-Jewish sentiment was overwhelming in the Muslim countries. In Lebanon, 100 percent of Muslims and 99 percent of Christians said they had a very unfavorable view of Jews, while 99 percent of Jordanians also viewed Jews very unfavorably.

Who has ever heard of a population being unanimous on anything. Jeez, if you asked people if they like it when people give them free money, some people would say, "No." But, hatred of Jews is universal.

Don't you wonder what motivates such hatred? Do you think it could have anything with the authority of the Koran in that part of the world, and the fact that it calls for death to the Jews?

U.N. Official Compares Israelis to Nazis

From the ADL, via Atlas Shrugs:

New York, NY, July 11, 2005 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has urged the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights to condemn the "outrageous comments" and to request the resignation of Jean Ziegler, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food who recently called the Gaza Strip "an immense concentration camp" and compared Israelis to Nazi guards.

"Once again, Jean Ziegler has brought the name of the United Nations and the Commission for Human Rights into disrepute with his scandalous remarks comparing the situation of the Palestinians with the fate of the Jews under the Nazi regime," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.

"Sadly, Mr. Ziegler's remarks follow a consistent pattern of abusing his mandate to advance an agenda dedicated to the delegitimization of the State of Israel. His calls in the past for trade sanctions against Israel, as well as the vastly disproportionate attention he devotes to the Palestinian issue, have dismayed those of us who wish to improve relations between the U.N. and the Jewish community."

In a letter to U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Louise Arbour, ADL called on her to immediately condemn Ziegler's remarks, noting U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's "significant decision" to personally condemn him. The League added that such action should be "urgently followed by a concerted attempt to secure Mr. Ziegler's resignation."

A Nazi Concentration camp. We can presume Mr. Ziegler knows history well enough to know that there were gas chambers in the Nazi death camps. That the Nazis devised an elaborate industrial system dedicated to killing and disposing of as many human beings as possible, as quickly as possible.

Since we can presume that Mr. Ziegler knows these facts, yet chooses to wildly exaggerate the nature of the Israeli occupation, then we can infer that Mr. Ziegler is prejudiced against Israel in proportion to the factor by which he has exaggerated reality.

British Reject French Proposal for
Surveillance of Mosques

French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy suprised the EU yesterday by calling for across-the-board surveillance of all European mosques:

British Home Secretary Charles Clarke has poured cold water over a French proposal to control all mosques in EU in the aftermath of last week's terror attacks in London.

Clarke told a press conference after the extraordinary session of the EU Justice and Home Affairs ministerial Council in Brussels Wednesday evening that French interior minister Nicholas Sarkozy had made the proposal in the meeting.

"He (Sarkozy) has to think what is best for the security in France.

From my part, in the UK, we are considering the position of some of the preachers in certain circumstances because it is necessary to do so," said Clarke.

"But I think that to move to an overall position that says surveillance is the right way is a big step that we will need to consider very carefully."

"It is important that in everything we do we work with the legitimate mainstream Muslim community," stressed the British Home Secretary.

Clarke said the Muslim community in Britain are committed to working very strongly to protect the democratic system.

Can you imagine the caterwaul if an American of high political office made a similar proposal?


Posted by Picasa

American Hiroshima

Make of this what you will:

WASHINGTON – Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a staunch critic of the federal government's lax immigration and border enforcement policies, said yesterday he would request a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaida terrorists.

Tancredo said he was greatly alarmed by the report and would seek whatever information he could get from the nation's law enforcement authorities – either in classified or unclassified reports.

Tancredo also plans to meet with the author of a book that provides new evidence al-Qaida has used the insecure Mexican border to bring nuclear devices into the country along with thousands of sleeper agents.

Al-Qaida's plans, known as "America's Hiroshima" according to captured terrorists and terrorist documents, calls for the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons, already in the possession of Osama bin Laden's operatives currently inside the U.S. The agents and arms having been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups, according to the report originating in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

The attack is designed to kill at least 4 million Americans.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads, according to the report. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian Spetznaz, or special forces operatives, to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high-level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The Al Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

Tancredo has contacted Williams and WND about the revelations.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S. President Bush reportedly went "through the roof" upon hearing the news, prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

It is worth noting Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.

Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.

Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.

According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.

Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.

There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70.

The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country – including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said an immediate military presence on the borders is now imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified, potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an alarming rate."

"Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything they want across our national line at this time," he said. "As ordinary citizens have warned this government for years, the only surprising part about the new information reported here is that nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are not immune in this country.

"At this point, the next attempt to attack America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat – yet our government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's margin of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress had better wake up before they have to answer for another devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."

It might seem strange that it is specified that the goal would be four million deaths. But, I've been hearing that number for several years now. There is, apparently, a mad method to their madness:

... radical Islamic scholars rely in their rulings on the principle of retaliation while justifying indiscriminate mass murder of Christians. Suliman Abu Ghaith, a prominent al-Qaeda leader, in his famous series of public letters entitled Under the Shade of the Lances and directed at Muslim youth, listed the crimes of the U.S. against the Arab and Muslim world.

He argued that the U.S. is responsible directly and indirectly, in its long-lasting war on Islam, for the death of four million Muslims, including 1.2 million Iraqis, 260,000 Palestinians (as a result of its support for Israel), 12,000 Afghans and Arab fighters, 13,000 Somalis, and millions more throughout the world.

From his perspective, al-Qaeda's attacks in Washington and New York in September 2001 are not enough to balance the equation of killing. Basing his claims on the Islamic principle of retaliation, Abu Ghaith argues that Muslims have the right to kill four million Americans, including one million children, to displace eight million Americans, and to cripple hundreds of thousands more.

It seems to me there is some illogic to this speculation. For instance, if this plan has been in the works for over a decade and, if nukes had already reached the United States back in 2001, why did Al Qaeda bother going through with the low-tech World Trade Center attack?

It doesn't make sense.

But, as I have shown repeatedly on this blog, it is not a wise course of action to ignore the words of the Islamofascists. They always tell us what they are going to do, before they do it. And really, they've pretty much done everything they've said they were going to do so far, with the exception of killing four million Americans.

What is Sharia Law?

The goal of the Islamofascists is to re-establish the Caliphate and institute the Sharia Law Code worldwide. Currently, Sharia is the law of the land in nations such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Nigeria, and the Sudan.

But, what exactly is Sharia? From Indymedia:

Islam is often in the news these days. News articles that relate to Islam sometimes refer to the Shariah. What is the Shariah? The Shariah is the Islamic Sacred Law which was developed hundreds of years ago by Islamic jurists using the Koran and hadith (remembrances about what the Prophet Muhammad said and did during the time he was alive) as guideposts.

The Shariah outlines a complete way of life in a legal framework which tells you how to do everything from how to pray to how to go to the bathroom. What does the Shariah law actually state?

Here are some examples of Shariah law:

1. Offensive, military jihad against non-Muslims is a communal, religious obligation;

2. A person who is ignorant about Islamic legal opinion must follow the legal opinion of a scholar;

3. The penalty for a Muslim apostate (someone who no longer believes in or no longer follows the tenets of Islam) is death;

4. When slaughtering animals for food, a knife must be used to cut the windpipe and gullet;

5. A woman is only eligible to receive half the inheritance of a man;

6. Marriage may be forced on virgins by their father or father’s father;

7. A non-Arab man may not marry an Arab woman;

8. A woman must seek permission from her husband to leave the house;

9. A Muslim man cannot marry a woman who is a Zoroastrian, an idol worshipper, an apostate from Islam or a woman with one parent who is Jewish or Christian, with the other being Zoroastrian; a Muslim woman cannot marry anyone but a Muslim;

10. A free Muslim man may marry up to four women;

11. Retaliation is obligatory in most cases when someone is deliberately murdered except when a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, a Jew or a Christian kills a Muslim apostate or a father or mother kill their offspring;

12. Non-Muslim subjects (Ahl al-Dhimma) of a Muslim state are subject to a series of discriminatory laws – “dhimmitude”;

13. The penalty for fornication or sodomy is being stoned to death;

14. The penalty for an initial theft is amputation of the right hand. Subsequent thefts are penalized by further amputations of feet and hand;

15. A non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim in court; a person who is “without respectability” cannot give legal testimony; a woman’s legal testimony is only given half the legal weight of a man’s (and is only acceptable in cases involving property); to legally prove fornication or sodomy requires 4 male witnesses who actually saw the act;

16. The establishment and continuation of the Islamic Caliphate (by force, if necessary) is a communal obligation;

17. Sodomites and Lesbians must be killed;

18. Laughing too much is forbidden;

19. Musical instruments are unlawful;

20. Creating pictures of animate life is forbidden;

21. Female circumcision, which includes the excision of the clitoris, is obligatory;

22. Slavery is permitted;

23. People may be bribed to convert to Islam;

24. Beating a rebellious wife is permissible; and,

25. Lying is permissible in a time of war (or jihad).

In order to demonstrate to you that the above examples of Shariah law are real and valid, I will excerpt below the relevant legal clauses relating to each of the above numbered headings.

First, I will repeat the heading. Then, I will excerpt the relevant legal clauses. However, to start with, I must explain from which authority I will be excerpting these legal clauses. I will be excerpting them from a book entitled in English as the “Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”. In Arabic it is referred to as the Umdat al-Salik and was authored by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (d. 1368 A.D.). The English translation was edited and translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller. The book is published by Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, U.S.A.. I will be excerpting from the revised 1994 edition. The book is available for sale at It is also available at

Women are slaves under this system of law. Non Muslims are second-class citizens. Gays and Lesbians are to be killed. Slavery is permitted.

This is a wholly unacceptable form of law. This is not a matter of a culture of people who simply want to live differently from us. Sharia law violates basic human rights at almost every turn.

Click here to read the rest.

Look, Mom and Dad
I Grew A Penis

A Myanmar woman miraculously grew a penis:

Hlaing Thar Yar, Myanmar - Chicken-seller Thin Sandarin had always dreamt of being a man.

When she inexplicably grew a penis last month, the 21-year-old treated it as an awe-inspiring omen - as have the thousands of stunned villagers who have travelled to a pagoda to see him."

On the morning of the full moon day of June 21, I noticed my thing (sex organ) was not the same as before," Thin Sandar, who now goes by the male name Than Sein, said on Wednesday.

So, what do you think a woman does when she suddenly sprouts a penis? Well, Thin/Than tells us:

"So I called out and showed it all to my mom and dad. It was very strange."

Yeah, that is strange.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Europe Humming an Nostalgic Tune To Herself
As She Frolicks in the Fountain
Posted by Picasa

Europe, Disrobing
And Humming A Nostalgic Melody To Herself

A few examples today of how desparately ill Europe really is. First, from the Guardian, via Little Green Footballs/The Daily Ablution, comes an opinion piece about the "Sassy" suicide bombers who attacked London the other day:

Today's Guardian gives space to Dilpazier Aslam, a "Guardian trainee journalist" who suggests that one shouldn't be shocked by Thursday's suicide bombings - such a reaction would be inappropriate because, among other reasons:

"Shocked would be to suggest that the bombings happened through no responsibility of our own."

Yes, ladies and gentlemen - we bear responsibility for the murderous actions of maniacal members of a religious cult. An apology is certainly called for - the queue forms to the right.

Needless to say, there are other reasons why shock is inappropriate. Mr. Aslam explains:

"Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this."

Fortunately for those who still don't quite follow, Mr. Aslam provides an explanation immediately, in the very next paragraph - which reads, in its entirety:

"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not."

Suicide bombing .... sassy!

Mr. Aslam makes much of pointing out that he, like the terrorists, is "a Yorkshire lad, born and bred," and is careful to preempt accusations of support for terror by saying that indiscriminate killing is "sad," and "not the way to express your political anger."

Although the Guardian article unaccountably omits the fact (presumably for reasons of space), Mr. Aslam is on record as supporting a world-dominant Islamic state, notably in his writings for London based site ("Khilafa" translates as "Caliphate". The site's tagline expresses its aim: "then there will be khilafah rashida [a righteous Caliphate] on the method of Prophethood [i.e., sharia]"). As he puts it, in an article he co-authored there:

"... we will have to run an Islamic state which must lead the world, economically, militarily and politically"

As the establishment of the state that he hopes to help run seems unlikely without the implementation of violent measures such as those we've seen, and also considering the fact that the Caliphate that Mr. Aslam so keenly anticipates is the stated goal of many such terrorists, readers can't help but question the sincerity of his thinly-voiced disapproval of inappropriate "sass."

In fact, his stated fear of "being labelled a terrorist-lover" seems particularly justified, in light of another of his articles - in which he specifically calls for violence:

"The establishment of Khilafah is our only solution, to fight fire with fire, the state of Israel versus the Khilafah State"

Incidentally, it should be pointed out that there's no question whatever about this "Yorkshire lad's" loyalty to Britain. He has made it quite clear that:

"Muslims grant their loyalty and allegiance to their deen and the Ummah, not to a football team or nation state."

Neither should there be any questions concerning the Guardian's use of columnists who advocate "fighting fire with fire" to bring about the establishment of a sharia-based Caliphate.
After all, it's not the first time they've done so.

Meanwhile in Belgium, government officials have decided that the fact that Palestinian textbooks teach the The Protocols Of the Learned Elders of Zion is not evidence of anti-Semitism:

Although a new report states that some Palestinian Authority textbooks feature descriptions of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" as being an "integral part" of Zionist history that was approved in "a confidential resolution of the First Zionist Congress," the Belgian government says it is continuing to fund production of the textbooks and does not consider them offensive.

"We do not find [the textbooks] anti-Semitic in any way," said a spokesman from the Belgian government press office, speaking to The Jerusalem Post by telephone. "We have a screening process that goes through and reads the books. There has been some controversy about it in the past, but we have had people look into it."

However, other countries may be having second thoughts. While Finland, Italy and the Netherlands have also provided aid for PA textbooks in the past, this year's books only credit Belgium and "Arab nations" as providing aid.

Widely regarded as a cornerstone of anti-Semitic theory, the fabricated Protocols purport to disclose the secret plans of a Jewish conspiracy for world domination.

The description of the Protocols is one of many anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic statements made in PA textbooks, according to a report issued by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (CMIP) on Monday, a watchdog group.

The 122-page report notes that Israel is omitted from all maps of the Middle East, and that Palestinian martyrs are portrayed as "heroic" strugglers against the "occupying force."

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that Belgians should approve of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, after all in a survey just a few years back 55% of Belgians admitted that they are racist:

According to the latest edition of Eurobarometer - an EU survey of opinions around the 15 nations of the Union - the most racist people, by their own admission, are the Belgians. Fifty-five per cent of Belgians describe themselves as very or quite racist in attitude - for the record the figure in Austria was 42%.

You gotta love it when they tell the truth.

Uh, I Just Forgot, That's All

The other day Tony Blair gave a speech to the House of Commons where he enumerated the countries who have been hit by terrorism in the past few years. He left two off the list; Iraq and Israel. Here Michael Ledeen tells us why that might be:

In the growing recent literature about Great Britain's appeasement of Islamic terrorists over the past decade and more, we've come to understand that London was, in many ways, the epicenter of the terror network. Terrorists wanted in other countries were given safe haven in the United Kingdom, and the most amazingly hateful language was spewed out, openly and proudly, by various sheikhs and imams, all left to incite the faithful to terrible acts against innocent people the world over.

For all this, her majesty's government had its reasons. There was a reluctance to offend "the Arabs," the richest of whom had long used London as a home away from the sand, and as their financial and banking center of choice. Moreover, there was a traditional disdain of the Arabs, born out of long experience and expressed in open doubt that "those people" would ever constitute a serious threat, or indeed anything serious. Further, there was a long tradition of open and boisterous political speech, which reflexively protected even terrorist preachers from official rebuke or punishment.

Those of us who have had the frustrating experience of speaking with British diplomats (or journalists, especially those elegantly speaking fellows from the BBC) about the Middle East have invariably encountered a dismissive, slightly bemused, and firm conviction that anyone who worries greatly about "the Arabs" is at least ignorant and at worst malignant. And those of us who had the gall to argue — publicly, even — that the terror war is indeed serious and that appeasement of Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians would only lead to more and more terrible actions against us all, were relegated to the category of misguided souls, at best.

The Neocons!

The final component of British blindness on the subject of the Middle East is one we are not supposed to talk about in good company: the Jews. Yet I don't know any country this side of the Levant in which there has been so much anti-Semitism, so many complaints that "Zionists," "Likudniks," "Jewish hawks," and — the single epithet that sums up all of the above — "neocons" had manipulated America and its poodle Blair into the ghastly blunder of Iraq.

The BBC has devoted hours of radio and television to slanderous misrepresentations of places like the American Enterprise Institute, where I sit, and of such Jewish luminaries as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, William Kristol, and Paul Wolfowitz. Sometimes it seemed one was reading translations from the Saudi or Egyptian or Iranian press, so total was the hatred of the Jews.

This fit nicely with the desire of the British establishment to carry on their special relationship with some Arab leaders, and many British elites often seemed a micro-step away from saying that the world would be a better place if only Israel weren't there. The Middle East would be so much easier, you know. And when London was bombed, you can be sure — indeed you can read it — many of these people blamed Israel and the Jews, both those in the Middle East and those in New York and Washington.

Indeed, within minutes of the attack, a story appeared according to which the Israelis had advance notice, and had instructed Finance Minister Netanyahu to stay put, instead of going to give a speech. The story was as false as the one according to which Israelis had stayed away from the World Trade Center on 9/11, but they both reflected a state of mind. An anti-Semitic mind.

All too many Brits (as some Americans, albeit far fewer) would prefer to devote their national energies to the elimination or "taming" of Israel, and, as they see it, the silencing of their own Jews, rather than fighting Islamic terrorism. Combined with the desire to keep Arab money in London and special access for British businessmen and diplomats and scholars in the Arab world, it explains why HMG gave sanctuary and indeed benevolent assistance to the jihadis in their HMG midst.

Iraqis — the New Jews?

And so Israel was not on the prime minister's list. What about Iraq?

The Iraqis are viewed much the same way, and are at some risk of becoming the new Jews of the Middle East. In the enormous hate literature directed against the neocons, Ahmed Chalabi is part and parcel of the anti-Semites' hateful vision. No matter that he is a Shiite, and no matter that he was rudely dismissed by the Israeli government before Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was in cahoots with the Jewish cabal, and was therefore "one of them." And as Chalabi, so the rest of the lot.

Anyone looking honestly at Iraq today would have to be filled with admiration for the enormous dignity and courage with which the Iraqis have reacted to the barbaric savagery to which they have been subjected. Ministers are killed, leaders of civil society are kidnapped and beheaded, independent thinkers are intimidated, yet others come forward to fight for their national independence and integrity.

When is the last time you read anything, anywhere (with all too few exceptions — like Arthur Chrenkoff's "good news" beat), celebrating these rare qualities of spirit? And this question goes hand in hand with its twin: When is the last time you read anything about the incredible performance of the State of Israel, similarly under siege and similarly stressed by the crisis that surrounds it?

It is therefore not surprising that Iraq and Israel were omitted from Blair's list; it is a symptom of the corrupt and self-destructive patterns of emotion (I will not call it "thought") that led Great Britain to house a vast terrorist infrastructure.

The War Within Islamic Civilization

In the article below, from the Weekly Australian, we were told that this was against the Jihadists is a crisis within Islamic civilization. In this next article, from National Review, Ismaili Muslim Alykhan Velshi tells us what that crisis looks like to a Western Muslim living in London:

The London terror attacks — indeed, al Qaeda’s war against civilization — is against ... moderate Muslims, too. It is a war against an Islam that is tolerant, adaptable to Western society, and that preaches respect and peace. Even if a significant number of moderate Muslims wanted to condemn terrorism and repudiate Islamist fanaticism, it might be very difficult to do so: The menace of fanaticism does not simply infect Islamist states, it also poisons its civil society, even in the West.

Sadly — dangerously — it is not uncommon for U.S. and British Muslim groups to be evasive when discussing the war on terror. Of course they’ll condemn individual terrorist attacks, though more out of sympathy for the victims and their families than out of a sense of solidarity with the West. When so much of Islamic civil society is corroded by the ideology of extremism, moderate Muslim dissenters have few outlets to voice their frustration and stop the tragic hijacking of their faith.

I experienced this firsthand while studying at the London School of Economics. Less than two weeks into my freshman year, after I expressed some interest in becoming involved in the student Islamic Society, I was invited to a screening of an incendiary video on the conflict in Chechnya, and another on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These videos were clearly intended to recruit potential terrorists: Indeed, the London School of Economics has a grim history on this front, having educated the terrorist who murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, and having unwittingly hosted the jihadist group al-Muhajiroun.

What is more, another extremist group recently set up shop on campus, and invited a speaker who expressed his support for a nuclear Iran and a “global Islamic caliphate.” All this occurs because school authorities look the other way, refusing to monitor campus Islamic groups which are increasingly being taken over by extremists. When even Islamic civil society is controlled by fanatics and terror partisans, there is very little, if anything, that moderate Muslims can do. It is a sobering, sad, and thoroughly dispiriting truth.

The war on terror is not simply against terror-sponsoring states, but against the institutions of civil society that give terrorists quiet support, that inflame local Muslim populations, and that prevent the emergence of a moderate, peaceful form of Islam. The war on terror can never be won unless Muslims who have the privilege of living in the West stand up for civilization against the forces of barbarism and nihilism. I wish I could say otherwise, but I won’t be holding my breath.