Saturday, July 30, 2005

Postmodernism vs. Pre-Futurism
The Seismic Rift In Our Culture



Neo-neocon brings us a quote from Milan Kundera's book Immortality, which touches on our postmodern lack of perspective on reality. In this passage, Kundera uses the word Imagology to mean media-transferred images, or in some cases soundbites, or choice morsels of partial information, all of which are the stock-in-trade of the media:


For example, communists used to believe that in the course of capitalist development the proletariat would gradually grow poorer and poorer, but when it finally became clear that all over Europe workers were driving to work in their own cars, [the communists] felt like shouting that reality was deceiving them.

Reality was stronger than ideology. And it is in this sense that imagology surpassed it: imagology is stranger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience: how bread is baked, how a house is built, how a pig is slaughtered and the meat smoked, what quilts are made of, what the priest and the schoolteacher think about the world; she met the whole village every day and knew how many murders were committed in the country over the last ten years; she had, so to speak, personal control over reality, and nobody could fool her by maintaining that Moravian agriculture was thriving when people at home had nothing to eat.

My Paris neighbor spends his time an an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague, then he sits in his car and drives home, turns on the TV, and when the announcer informs him that in the latest public opinion poll the majority of Frenchmen voted their country the safest in Europe (I recently read such a report), he is overjoyed and opens a bottle of champagne without ever learning that three thefts and two murders were committed on his street that very day.


Public opinion polls are the critical instrument of imagology's power, because they enable imagology to live in absolute harmony with the people. The imagologue bombards people with questions: how is the French economy prospering? is there racism in France? is racism good or bad? who is the greatest writer of all time? is Hungary in Europe or in Polynesia? which world politician is the sexiest?

And since for contemporary man reality is a continent visited less and less often and, besides, justifiably disliked, the findings of polls have become a kind of higher reality, or to put it differently: they have become the truth.

Public opinion polls are a parliament in permanent session, whose function it is to create truth, the most democratic truth that has ever existed. Because it will never be at variance with the parliament of truth, the power of imagologues will always live in truth, and although I know that everything human is mortal, I cannot imagine anything that would break its power.


Go read Neo-neocon's thoughts here.

For my part, I will only say, as I have said here before, that we are no longer in the Postmodern age. Instead, we have moved into the age of the Pre-Future. Kundera's description of our cultural entrancement with images is accurate. However, that does not explain the seismic rift which has opened up in our culture.

What we are seeing is the beginning of the Pre-Future age, which is defined as an age wherein human beings, confronted with the works of their hands, will have to make three fundamental decisions which heretofore only God has had to make;

1) Decisions of Omnipotence. Because of our WMD's, we will have to decide whether to wipe out the human race.

2) Decisions about the creation of life, and the length of a lifespan. Because of biotechnology we will have to decide whether to indefinately prolong human life, and whether to create new life forms.

3) Decisions of Omniscience. The decision of whether to monitor all knowable things on the face of the Earth, at all possible times.

Go here to read of my thoughts on the kinds of anxieties these decisions will bring.

The seismic rift which has opened up in our society is the split between people who are still functioning by the rules of the Postmodern age vs. the people who have already begun dealing with the realities of the Pre-Future age. Just as Kundera's grandmother from the aforementioned passage, was living in some pre-modern age, so a large portion of our population has not begun to sense the seachange that has begun in human culture.

We are living in an age defined by the inevitability of our future capacities. The reality of these future technologies is so inevitable as to be present already, in the sense that we must begin to make decisions about how to handles it's effects right now, in our present time.

In this way, our future is palpable, and with us, almost like another being staring us in the face. And who is this being staring us in the face? The easy answer would be to say that it is ourselves, our capacity for good or evil. But, I think the answer can be expanded from there.

We could answer the question from a Jungian perspective and say that we are entering an age wherein we will become the gods of our myths. That we are entering an age when we will make exoteric all the violence and destruction of the collective unconcious.

Or, we could answer this question from a religious perspective, which I choose to do. We could say that the age of Pre-Futurism is the age when we will become fully aware of the enormous power that God gave us when He created us in His Image. That we, as a human race are finally growing into adulthood, that we will have to take ultimate repsonsibility for ourselves.

And we could go even further, as I do, and know that ultimately, these decisions will force us to confront God, in His Person, in a more direct way than we ever have before. No longer will we be the childlike farmers petitioning God for rain and a bountiful harvest. No longer will we be the nervous adolscents biting our nails, while doing our homework in front of a computer screen.

Instead, we as a human race, like adults coming to grips with parenthood and responsibility, will have to calm ourselves when things look bleak and hopeless, and we will have to say to ourselves, "We must do this. We must get it right for future generations."

And like adults faced with the stress of responsibility we will think to themselves, "Ahh, now I understand why my parents did that," and we will turn inside, to our Father, for guidance and wisdom.

The spectre of a humanity with 1) omnipotence, 2) omniscience, and 3) a life-creating and sustaining ability, on the level of the individual human being is frightening. But it is not necessarily apocalyptic.

We humans were made by our Creator with just such possibilities in mind. The Bible says that we were created in the image of God. More and more we are coming to find out exactly what that means.

Humans seem to have an infinite capacity, limited only by time, and the law that one can not get something for nothing. People from the 19th century would have said there was no way humans could create the things we created in the 20th century. History seems to demonstrate that, over time, humans can achieve whatever they can conceive.

Fear for man, but do not doubt him. Not even his ability to solve the problems presented by the works of his hands.

A Call For A Islamic Reformation
And A Tangential Discussion Of Some Key Ways
In Which Christianity Also Needs To Be Reformed


Last night on Little Green Footballs, reader NogenDavid (Comment #49) touched upon a subject I have been meaning to address for a long time here on CUANAS. That is, the fact that The Bible contains some very vicious law which can be compared to the frightening strictures of the Koran:


There is some ferocious stuff in part of the Jewish bible as well. (Death penalty for violating the Sabbath? Stoning rebellious sons?) Part of the glory of Jewish religious development is that this material was tamed through interpretation and supplementation (the Talmud).

Different versions of Christianity have taken different paths to adapting scriptures to evolving scientific knowledge and moral insight. One branch viewed some of the strictures of the Jewish tradition as having been supplanted by the arrival of Jesus.

The orthodox Jewish approach was in one sense more intellectually demanding, because it required that the older traditions be incorporated, without deletion, into the new. Not an easy challenge, but one that has been addressed with great imagination and rigour now for at least two millenia.

There is no reason, other than the perverse "you're better than we are" prejudice of some left-wing ideologues, to expect that Islamic scriptures are, taken literally, free of ideas that should now be considered ill informed or morally repugnant.

Literalism does not have to be the "real" Islam, any more than "real" Judaism is only the five books, read literally, or only the bible, real literally, and not the Talmud, midrash, bible commentaries or halachic rulings for the rabbis.

The challenge Islamic thinkers face is to find a way to reinterpret and adapt scriptures. This reform has to come from within that faith community.

It is not helpful for those outside, however, to pretend (or insist out of pure ignorance or bias) that Islam does not need to go through a reformation. It is even worse, of course, for those on the inside to harry, censor or even kill those within the Islamic tradition who are trying to creatively adapt it to the new world.


When my friend TVD, of Philosodude got booted off Someguy's very excellent blog, Mystery Achievement, this, as I recall, was the point he was trying to make.(The guys at Mystery Achievement didn't understand his point, and believed he was bashing the Jews.)

I have my own doubts and concerns about the religion of Islam as a basic structure. For instance, the way in which Islam seeks to negate the two main stories of the Jewish Bible (Abraham was going to sacrifice Ishmael, not Isaac) and the Christian "New Testament" (Christ didn't die on the cross. Instead Judas did.), while at the same time, almost psychotically, asserting the power of all things Islamic; that Allah is the greatest, Arabs are superior, Muslims are predominant over the infidel, who ought to be "humiliated" into submission.

From my Christian perspective this insistence upon power and submission, combined with the negation of the perfect sacrifice stories of the Bible, runs absolutely contrary to everything I believe in.

But, whatever. I can live with their twisting of the truth of the Bible. I can live with the negations, the belief in submission, the belief that Allah is the greatest. I can even live with Muslims thinking they are better than us in Allahs eyes. Really, who cares.

What we can't live with is Jihad, the abuse of a woman's right to be a free human being, the idea that infidels must be humiliated.

I agree with NogenDavid that Islam can reform itself, and I agree that we need to insist that Muslims do, indeed, reform their religion. As it is, wherever Islam reigns supreme it holds people in slavery, and promotes Jihad. This is a state of affairs the human race can not live with.

Just to be clear, I believe also that Christianity needs to reform itself in various ways. The truth is, the ways in which Christianity is currently working against human rights are minor compared to the outright obliteration of humanity that Sharia is committing in countries like Iran, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia.

But, just for the record, I think Christianity needs to get over it's issues with homosexuals. Homosexuality may be not be the preferred way to live, but it is clear that some men and women are just not born with the same inclinations as most of us. Who cares? Are they hurting anyone? Are they not capable of loving their neighbor as themselves, and loving the Lord God with all their heart, mind and soul?

Yes, clearly they are.

Another area in which I believe Christianity needs to reform itself is in the area of it's relationship with it's older brothers and sisters in the faith; the Jews. The book of Romans clearly lays out the Jews role in history, and warns us gentiles against "arrogance." In fact, not only does Paul warn us against arrogance, indeed, he lays out the penalty - which is to be cut off from the root of the tree entirely.

That's a frightening prospect, and one we ought to fear.

In the book of Romans, Paul says that the Jews experience a hardening of their hearts which causes them to be unable to recognize that Jesus (Yeshua) was their messiah. Does this mean that the Jews will not be saved? No, in fact, Paul says that "all Israel will be saved."

The reason for this hardening of the heart is spelled out very clearly as well. Judaism is not by it's very nature a evangelical religion. Instead the focus of Judaism has always been on maintaining the Jewish traditions, in order to be set apart. Paul explains that the Jews were set apart to carry the Word of God, the Law, through the ages. If they had not been set apart, if they had assimilated, the Law could not have been carried forward as perfectly as it has.

So, the book of Romans tells us that the Jews will continue to carry God's Law forward until the "fullness of the Gentiles" has entered in, and it is at that time that "all Israel will be saved."

In other words, the Jews have a specific part to play in the progression of God's plan. It is obviously both a blessing and a burden beyond all imagination. The Jews seem to be like Frodo in The Lord Of The Rings, except instead of a ring, they carry the Torah, and as a result the eye of evil is always upon them, and devising ways to destroy them.

Christians need to learn to understand this piece of God's puzzle. Christians need to learn to have profound respect for the burden and the suffering of the Jews.

But, I digress.

The main point of this post is that Islam needs to reform itself in the worst way. We infidels can not reform Islam. Those Muslims who look out on humanity and see that we are all children of Allah, need to speak up within their mosques and say no more will we look down upon the infidel. No more will we accept the preaching of violent Jihad, and martyrdom. No more will we accept anything less than full and free humanity for our women.

As Ledeen says, "Faster please."


UPDATE: This Imam from the Dar al-Hijrah Mosque, "one of the largest mosques on the East coast," doesn't agree with me. He says "The call to reform Islam is an alien call." And he supports Hamas.

He sounds like a maniac and a dangerous person to me, but I guess he's just another "moderate" Muslim.

Good Muslims have got to put these guys out of their community.

Oh, and yes, Imam, the call to reform Islam is an alien call, because people like you have everyone in your community too intimidated to tell you to shut up and get out.

So, it's left to us non-Muslims to remind your people that it isn't acceptable to call for violent Jihad.

Everything You Ever Wanted to Know
About Sharia States
But Were Afraid To Ask



From Associated Press:


CAIRO, Egypt - The framers of Iraq's constitution appear likely to enshrine Islam as the main basis of law in the country — a stronger role than the United States had hoped for and one some Iraqis fear will mean a more fundamentalist regime.

Arab constitutions vary widely over the role of Islamic law, ranging from Lebanon, where the word "Islam" never appears, to Saudi Arabia, which says the Quran itself is its constitution.

Culture weighs far more heavily than the constitution and law, particularly when it comes to women. In Gulf nations — where the constitutions spell out a slightly lesser role for Islamic law, or Sharia, than in Egypt — women are more segregated and wear more conservative veils covering the entire face.

Kuwait, for example, bans alcohol and only gave women the right to vote this year, in contrast to Egypt, where beer, wine and liquor are sold openly and women have been voting since the early 20th century.

Yet most Gulf nations' constitutions state that Sharia is "a main source" of legislation, while Egypt takes the more definitive phrasing of "the source" — a fine distinction taking on major importance in Iraq.

Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat amended the constitution during the 1970s, changing the language from "a source" to "the source" to beef up his Islamic credentials rather than to start implementing Sharia.

But in Iraq, some fear the Shiite Muslim leaders who want similar wording in Iraq's constitution hope to lay the groundwork for a more fundamentalist rule, at least in Shiite-dominated areas.

Already, Shiite leaders in some southern cities have tried imposing Islamic-based rules, pressuring women to wear headscarves and forcing liquor stores and music shops to close.

A draft of the constitution published last week in the government Al-Sabah newspaper put Islam as "the main basis" of law. But the constitutional committee — made up of Shiites, Kurds and some Sunnis — is still haggling over the language.

Fouad Massoum, the Kurdish deputy head of the committee, said it will discuss the role of Islam in meetings Sunday.

"We, in the Kurdish coalition, want Islam to be one of the sources of legislation," he said.

Iraq's most prominent Shiite Muslim cleric, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, has said he wants to preserve a strong role for Islam in the document, but also shuns the direct rule by clerics seen in his country of birth, mainly Shiite Iran.

Mouafak al-Rubaie, a national security adviser and a Shiite, met al-Sistani on Saturday and said the main concern of the Shiite religious leadership is to "preserve the Islamic identity of Iraq and its people, which means preserving a united Iraq and people as a state."

When U.S. administrators ran Iraq, they insisted on language setting Islam as "a source" of legislation when an interim constitution was approved in March 2004. But the same Shiites who backed "the main source" last year now dominate, and American officials have less influence over a sovereign Iraqi government.

Six Arab nations do not mention Sharia at all in their constitutions: Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Lebanon and Jordan.

Lebanon, where the Christian population is large and the president is a Christian, is the sole Arab state not to set Islam as the national religion — in fact, the constitution does not use the words "Islam" or "Christianity" at all, a reflection of its 1975-1990 civil war between sectarian militias.

Tunisia has taken one of the most liberal tracks in the Arab world, abolishing polygamy in 1956 and banning the headscarf in schools and other public establishments. Authorities regularly urge women to avoid the hijab, though more women have been donning scarves in past years.

The one area where Islamic law is nearly universal is in personal status law — rules concerning marriage, divorce and inheritance. Sharia allows men to divorce their wives by proclamation and grants daughters half the inheritance that sons receive.

In Syria and Libya, the constitutions are more concerned with laying out their nationalist ideologies — Libya's socialism and Syria's pan-Arabism — than with Islam.

At the opposite extreme lie Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iran's constitution lays out its Islamic Republic headed by a supreme leader, supposed to be the country's most knowledgeable Muslim cleric.

Saudi Arabia, home of Islam's most sacred shrines, states in the first article of its Basic Law that the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad's traditions are the nation's constitution, later saying, "Saudi society will be based on the principle of adherence to God's command."

Sometimes You Just Gotta Cry Over Your Enemy


British police, in a valiant stab at multicultural bridge-building, invited a highly respected "moderate" Imam to join them in a press conference promoting cooperation between the police and the Muslim community.

So, what did the Imam do? He launched into a diatribe against his host country, denied the existence of Al Qaeda, and said the police are targeting the wrong people in their investigation of the 7/7 and 7/21 bombings. From the London Telegraph, via Little Green Footballs:


The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London “could have been innocent passengers”.

Mohammad Naseem, the chairman of the city’s central mosque, called Tony Blair a “liar” and “unreliable witness” and questioned whether CCTV footage issued of the suspected bombers was of the perpetrators. He said that Muslims “all over the world have never heard of an organisation called al-Qa’eda”.

Mr Naseem, who was speaking after police seized Yasin Hassan Omar in Birmingham, delivered his unprompted outburst when he was invited to a press conference with West Midlands police and Birmingham city council to help calm fears of racial or religious tension after the arrest. His comments shocked senior police officers. ...

To the obvious embarrassment of council officials and police standing next to him, Mr Naseem said the Government and security services “were not to be relied upon”.

He said: “Tony Blair has told lies on going to Iraq and in a court of law if a witness has proved to be a liar he ceases to be a reliable witness. So we cannot give our blind trust to the Government. To have that trust it is important that the process of law should be independent, open and transparent. I am also sad that unfortunately the impression has been given that Muslims are to be targeted in this war against terror. There seems to be a directive to target Muslims. Why do we not have an open mind about this?

“Muslim bashing seems to be more earnest than the need for national unity and harmony. Terrorists can be anybody - we will have to see [whether the bombers are Muslims]. The process is not open; the process is not transparent; the process is not independent. I do not have faith in the system as it stands.”

Mr Naseem is one of the most respected Muslims in the city and is considered a moderate. He has regular meetings with the chief constable to discuss religious harmony.

Mr Naseem said that while it was vital that terrorism was stamped out and that there was never any justification for it, the Government had not helped by going to war in Iraq.

Dismissing the Prime Minister’s insistence that the war had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, he said: “Tony Blair … is not going to be perceived as a reliable witness. His comments could motivate someone to take the law into his own hands. Some people have been caught but I have not seen any evidence. The process of law is not open.”

Asked about the suspects’ DNA being found at the scene of the first attacks, he said: “DNA can match you, but that does not mean you are going to commit a crime. Thousands of youths are passing by and caught on CCTV, so how do you know it is them?”


I'll be honest, I am growing more and more depressed with each passing day, as I realize the depth of the truth that even the most "moderate" of our Muslim "friends" live under such willful delusions.

Yes, willful.

This Imam is a sophisticated man. He understands police procedure, and the uses of DNA. He knows Al Qaeda exists, because he was familiar with it's existence, and the ideology of Osama Bin Laden, before 9/11. He knows that Tony Blair didn't "lie" in the lead up to the Iraq War.

But, at the same time, as is true of our Western leftists (Dick Durbin, Michael Moore, Amnesty International), he is willing to grasp on to any scrap of truth to keep up the illusion by which he justifies his house of cards worldview.

And, on top of it all, he is willing to manipulate the less sophisticated of his constituents into believing his conspiracy theories.

If this is the face of "moderate Islam," then what hope do we have? How are we to build bridges with the Muslim community when ideological terrorists like this Imam blow them up as soon as they are built?

This Imam hates us. That's the truth. He does not desire to build bridges. He does not desire to cooperate with the police. He wants to win us over to his conspiracy theory worldview, or he does not want to befriend us at all.

You have to love it when your enemy tells you the truth, but sometimes you just have to cry over the bitterness of the truth he tells you.

Friday, July 29, 2005

Yeah, Those Moderate Muslims
Hate The Terrorists, Alright


A group of Muslims got together in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt to protest against terrorism. This seemed to be a truly unequivocal protest. I was impressed with what I read about it, and I featured a photo in a post below.

Well, it turns out I spoke too soon. Guess who the terrorists are whom these Muslims are protesting against. From the New York Sun:


SHARM EL-SHEIK, Egypt - The poor people dressed in Islamic garb or in dirty blue trousers and T-shirts sitting in 118-degree heat in the hall of the Sharm el-Sheik Hospital were either the brothers, the cousins, or the friends of the people wounded in the terrorist attack of the day before. Just plenty of desperate young people.

No women were there, no mothers, or sisters, or wives. Egyptian women almost don't live in Sharm. The family and children of the workers are in the villages near Cairo, and their beloved men come to visit for one week once a month. Sharm is inhabited by a couple of thousand military people and public officials that President Mubarak, just like President Sadat, keeps as a defense vanguard near his own villa; or by poor workers, waiters, drivers, plumbers, and cooks - lots of day laborers that serve the enormous tourism business. Only a large group of very poor workers, the other face of the holiday town of Sharm el-Sheik, have been the killed and the wounded here.

You understand many things about terrorism when you speak to them; and you understand also, unfortunately, why we will never be able to count on what we call "the moderate Muslims" for the war against terrorism.

What you learn about terrorism from the poor of Sharm, if you still didn't know it, is that its cruelty has no limits, no excuses, and no historical explanation, but only a cold ideological background.

The terrorists know that the men they kill, wound, and destroy economically have nothing to do with imperialism, occupation, Palestine, Iraq, colonialism, and all the other explanations that the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, finds to explain their crimes. They know who the hundreds they are going to kill are: people who sleep 10 (exactly!) to a room, with no bathroom, one toilet, and one little kitchen; people who define themselves as "good Muslims," go the mosques once a week, pray three times a day, and when they forget, says Khaled, it is because they work too much or it is too hot; people who after the terrorist attack tremble because they will have no work anymore, now that the tourist season is destroyed and this will make them lose their $100 a month wage in the best cases for a family of five, six, 10 children.

These guys are the typical "moderate Muslim" that the holy rage of the jihadists destroys with fury, the one infected by the contact with the West and also the one that in our Western dreams and in many European and American experts' analyses should suddenly rise against the extreme Islam, their enemy.

So, let's test this thesis and ask: "Do they hate terrorists?" The answer is "Yes, very much so," and they really do, - they close their fists and watch in rage and repeat to me that they deeply hope that Mr. Mubarak will catch them all, will put them in prison, will kill them. Are they ready to fight them? Yes, at every level, with their hands, if requested, and with demonstrations that actually, while I'm in Sharm, suddenly appear in the hot streets and just in front of the cameras of the international press: "Down with terrorism," "We are against terrorism"...

But then, if it's so, why can the great moderate Muslim world not really fight their own enemy? They themselves give me the answers: "Bin Laden? The Muslim Brotherhood? Certainly the terrorist attacks are not their work, no! This is a lie. A Muslim could never do this. And if they say they do it in the name of Islam, they are not Islamic; or, most likely, this shows, like the television says, that someone uses the name of Islam just to hide the real perpetrators."

Anyhow, Islam is out of the question, And then, we ask again, who is behind the attacks?

Well, you know the answer, they smile with a smart expression. Mahmoud, who comes from a periphery of Cairo, where he now cannot go back because he doesn't have the money for a bus ticket, knows the answer, and so do all his other friends, about 10, all from the same town ...

They know the answer, yes: the television said that only the Israelis and the Americans have a real interest in seeing Egypt on its knees;

General Fuad Allam said that the perpetrators of the Taba attack of October 2004 were apparently linked to the Israeli security forces, and so, supposedly, it is today. Also Al-Jazeera and even Al-Arabia interviewed "experts" to confirm this point of view. A big, beautiful guy with a red T-shirt just puts it down bluntly: "We know only what the television tells us."

So, we cannot count on "moderate" Arabs, not even on the group of youngsters that I meet later, the girls dressed just like ours: They repeat to me, still with a smart little face, "It cannot be a Muslim, it's certainly the Israelis and the Americans."


Oh, for God's sake. And I started to have some hope. Ughh.

France Expels Preachers of Hate


From the London Telegraph:


The gulf between British and French treatment of preachers of hatred and violence was thrown sharply into focus yesterday when France announced the summary expulsion of a dozen Islamists between now and the end of August.

A tough new anti-terrorism package was unveiled by Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister and a popular centre-Right politician.

His proposals reflect French determination to act swiftly against extremists in defiance of the human rights lobby, which is noticeably less vocal in France than in Britain.

Imams and their followers who fuel anti-western feeling among impressionable young French Muslims will be rounded up and returned to their countries of origin, most commonly in France's case to its former north African colonies.

Mr Sarkozy also revealed that as many as 12 French mosques associated with provocative anti-western preaching were under surveillance. Imams indulging in inflammatory rhetoric will be expelled even if their religious status is recognised by mainstream Muslim bodies.

Those who have assumed French citizenship will not be protected from deportation. Mr Sarkozy said he will reactivate measures, "already available in our penal code but simply not used", to strip undesirables of their adopted nationality.

"We have to act against radical preachers capable of influencing the youngest and most weak-minded," Mr Sarkozy told the French daily Le Parisien.

The first to be caught in the new round of expulsions is an Algerian, Rena Ameuroud, whose brother Abderraham was jailed in France earlier this year for his part in a jihadist training exercise in the Fontainebleau forest south of Paris. He faces immediate deportation for allegedly urging fellow-worshippers at a Parisian mosque to engage in "holy war".

At least seven French nationals are now known to have been killed while fighting with anti-coalition insurgents in Iraq, in some cases as suicide bombers, the minister said. A further 10 are believed still to be there.

France, which has Europe's largest Muslim population with estimates varying from five to nine million out of a population of 60 million, has long prided itself on its stern approach to terrorism.

Mr Sarkozy's crackdown on those "promoting radical Islamist polemic" was disclosed at the end of a week that began with French anger at Britain's failure to extradite the alleged financier of Islamist bombings in Paris in the mid-1990s. Rachid Ramda, 35, an Algerian, has been held for 10 years while fighting attempts to return him to stand trial.

Survivors and victims' relatives who gathered this week at the St Michel station in the heart of Paris to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the worst attack, which killed eight, called on Britain to "stop protecting" Ramda.

They are unimpressed by his supporters' claims that he is a "gentle and peaceful" man who devotes his time in the Belmarsh top-security jail in south-east London to learning the Koran by heart, studying English literature and comforting other Muslim prisoners.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has approved Ramda's extradition - as did his predecessor David Blunkett - but his removal depends on High Court proceedings.

French ministers and commentators have long expressed exasperation at British handling of individuals who support terrorism, arguing that greater emphasis is being placed on their human rights rather than on security interests.

Palestinian Government Uses Public Radio Station
To Direct Missile-Launch Crews


Palestinian political party Hamas has been using their official public radio station to broadcast instructions to terrorists on missile launches. From Jihad Watch:


GANEI TAL, Gaza – Hamas has been using its official radio station in Gaza to broadcast instructions to terrorists in the field firing mortars and rockets at Gaza's Jewish communities, security sources told WND.

Hamas regularly fires mortars and Qassam rockets at Gush Katif, the slate of Gaza's Jewish communities scheduled for evacuation Aug. 17. The terror group launched more than 120 rockets and mortars the past two weeks, killing one woman and injuring more than eight. Yesterday, a Qassam rocket hit Neve Dekalim, a large southern Katif town.

Analysts expect the rocket attacks to increase as the evacuation date gets closer so that Hamas, popular in the Gaza Strip, can claim to its Palestinian supporters it drove Israel from the area.

According to security sources, Hamas the past few months has been using its official radio station, Voice of Al Aqsa, to relay instructions to terrorists firing rockets and mortars at Gush Katif from Gaza City. The station, which broadcasts in Arabic, is available to the general Gaza public at 106.7 FM.


Sources say Hamas operations coordinators in Gaza use the station to provide terrorists with directions such as the exact coordinates in and near Gaza City from which to launch the rockets and mortars and the trajectory to be used in firing the Qassam missiles.

Qassams, about four feet in length, lack a guidance system and are launched by terrorists using the rocket's trajectory and known travel distance to aim at a particular Jewish community.
"The radio station is not only broadcasting incitement, but, incredibly, broadcasting military instructions to carry out attacks against Israel," said a security source.



Yes, Hamas got 33% of the votes in a recent Palestinian election. They are the second largest party in the Palestinian territories, behind the other major terrorist organization; Fatah.

It is becoming more and more clear everyday that the "terrorists" are, in reality, the official Palestinian Army



Arab Muslims Protesting Against Terrorism In Egypt


From Instapundit, via No Pasaran:



Glenn Reynolds points out that there ARE arabs who bravely and vocally oppose terrorism and the feudalistic preactitioners of that dark art, but that the western press doesn't really want to know, or doesn't know how to get past their own precambrian ideological filter:

«What's depressing is how little attention these demonstrations got from the media (you'll notice that most of the links above are to blog reports, not news stories). If any of these groups had blown something up -- or even just burned President Bush in effigy -- they probably would have made the evening news. But when Arabs and Muslims defy news-media typecasting, they seem to be ignored.»

Organized by Cairo blogger Karim Elsahy, attended also by the widely read Big Pharaoh were there. More photos were carried by GatewayPundit who noted that even tourists (the usual intended target in Masr) joined in. Of course like all closed and untrusting regime des bananes the cops (who are usually in tactical uniforms) busted it up like all good paranoiacs do.

«People started looking and reading what was written. A number slowed down just to read what we were displaying. Others sounded their car horns. I felt we were getting a very positive response from the people until Egypt's "do-not-disturb-the-peace-whatsoever" police destroyed our utopia and our ecstasy the same way Samson destroyed the temple.»

So the question is: where IS the damned media? Do they really want these particular Arabs to be on their own on this one? Historically, radicals with the passivity adn sheepishness of the rump of the population would treat these folks the way Arab Jews and Christians have been treated: driven off and marginalized while killing a few by example or to indulge baser emotions.


It seems like things are turning among the moderate Muslims. It seems like they are fed up with the Islamofascists destroying their religion. Good for them, and good for all of us.

But, don't believe it, everytime you hear a Muslim Imam, or organization, condemn terrorism:


The American Islamic Leaders' "Fatwa" is Bogus - from Steve Emerson, Author of American Jihad

This morning a group of American Islamic leaders held a press conference to announce a fatwa, or Islamic religious ruling, against “terrorism and extremism.” An organization called the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) issued the fatwa, and the Council on American - Islamic Relations (CAIR) organized the press conference, stating that several major U.S. Muslim groups endorsed the fatwa.

In fact, the fatwa is bogus. Nowhere does it condemn the Islamic extremism ideology that has spawned Islamic terrorism. It does not renounce nor even acknowledge the existence of an Islamic jihadist culture that has permeated mosques and young Muslims around the world. It does not renounce Jihad let alone admit that it has been used to justify Islamic terrorist acts. It does not condemn by name any Islamic group or leader. In short, it is a fake fatwa designed merely to deceive the American public into believing that these groups are moderate. In fact, officials of both organizations have been directly linked to and associated with Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic extremist organizations. One of them is an unindicted co-conspirator in a current terrorist case; another previous member was a financier to Al-Qaeda.

I spoke with Judea Pearl, father of murdered journalist Daniel Pearl who told me that the fatwa was “vacuous because it does not name the perpetrators of Islamic terrorist theologies and leaders of Islamic movements like Yousef Al Qaradawi, Osama Bin Laden, Ayman Al Zawahari, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.” Pearl told me that these groups are “trying to perpetrate a deception on the American public.”

Officials of both groups have been linked to various terrorist organizations:

The Chairman of the Fiqh Council, Taha Jaber Al-Alwani, is an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Sami al-Arian, the alleged North American leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, whose trial began in June 2005 in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Alwani has been named in court documents as an official of several entities in northern Virginia suspected of being connected to terrorist financing. Documents released in the Al Arian trial show that Alwani funded the Islamic Jihad front groups in Tampa.

Another past trustee of the Fiqh Council, Abdurrahman Alamoudi, is serving a 23-year prison sentence for illegal financial dealings with Libya and immigration fraud, has admitted to his part in a plot to assassinate the Saudi Crown Prince, and has vocally announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Additionally Alamoudi was just named by Treasury as having been a financier for Al Qaeda.

In 1998, Fiqh Council member Sheikh Muhammad al-Hanooti, gave a speech calling for jihad against the United States and the United Kingdom, saying that “Allah will curse the Americans and British” and “Allah, the curse of Allah will become true on the infidel Jews and on the tyrannical Americans.” Additionally, Hanooti is strongly linked to Hamas, having served on the board of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). A 2002 INS memo extensively documented IAP’s support for HAMAS and noted that the “facts strongly suggest” that IAP is “part of HAMAS’ propaganda apparatus.”

On October 28, 2000, Muzammil Siddiqui, the President of FCNA, at a rally in Lafayette Park in Washington D.C., said, “America has to learn -- if you remain on the side of injustice, the wrath of God will come!"

In the past 4 years, several CAIR officials have been convicted of or charged with various terrorism-related offenses.

CAIR has championed and defended officials of Islamic terrorist groups including Hamas leader Musa Abu Marzook, Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian, Palestinian Islamic Jihad fundraiser Fawaz Damra, and the radical Egyptian cleric Wagdy Ghoneim.

CAIR has repeatedly attacked the prosecutions of Islamic terrorists arrested and/or convicted since 9-11 and has attacked the government’s freezing of Islamic terrorist fronts as part of a “war against Islam” by the United States.

CAIR has led protests against the deportation of radical Islamic clerics who have called for Jihad or who have been fundraisers for Hamas.

CAIR has asserted that the indictment of Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Sami al-Arian on conspiracy to murder more than 100 people was “politically motivated” and instigated by “the attack dogs of the pro-Israeli lobby."

CAIR has been named as a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed by the family of former FBI official John O’Neill, who was killed on 9-11.

One of the signatories to today’s fatwa is Fawaz Damra who was convicted of immigration fraud related to his ties to Palestinian Islamic Jihad and denaturalized. He is currently awaiting a deportation hearing.

Another signatory, the Muslim American Society, is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States and whose publications have repeatedly supported suicide bombings.

For a comprehensive background paper on the links to Islamic terrorist and extremist groups, please click here.

Posted by Picasa

Thursday, July 28, 2005

Germany During Hitler's Rise To Power


When I say that I am concerned about what Europe will do if we allow the Islamofascist threat to get too far out of control, it must seem strange. After all the Europeans are the pacifistic countries, the nations who do not field large armies, the places where people march in the street for peace, and abhor America's violence and "imperialism."

Here William Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, writes of the mood of Germany circa 1925-29 (the years leading up to Hitler's rise to power):


My own acquaintence with Germany began in those days. I was stationed in Paris and occasionally in London at that time., and fascinating though those capitals were to a young American happy to have escaped from the incredible smugness and emptiness of the Calvin Coolidge era, they pales a little when one came to Berlin and Munich.

A wonderful ferment was working in Germany. Life seemed more free, more modern, more exciting than in any place I had ever seen. Nowhere else did the arts or the intellectual life seem so lively. In contemporary writing, painting, architecture, in music and drama, there were new currents and find talents. And everywhere there was an accent on youth.

One sat up with the young people all night in the sidewalk cafes, the plush bars, the summer camps, on a Rhineland steamer or in a smoke-filled artists studio and talked endlessly about life. They were a healthy, carefree, sun-worshipping lot, and they were filled with an enormous zeal for living to the full and in complete freedom.

The old oppressive Prussian spirit seemed to be dead and buried. Most Germans one met - politicians, writers, editors, artists, professors, students, businessmen, labor leaders - struck you as being democratic, liberal, even pacifist.


Among the most foolish things we can do is to believe that we have unshackled ourselves from the chains of history. Man has not morally improved himself. We have merely set up structures which help us to function more rationally on an everyday basis. However, when these structures are threatened, then all hell can break loose.

I do not believe that another Hitler will rise to round up people and put them in gas chambers. Instead, I believe that all the nationalism, racism, and violence could visit itself upon us in different form.

In the previous post, Youseff Ibrahim wrote of the terrifying force of the West when it is angered. I think William Shirer's description of the pacifistic nature of Germans just a few years before the rise of the Third Reich should act as a kind of tsunami warning to the Islamofascists. Do not look at the ocean, see no waves and conclude that you are safe. If you hit the West with a big enough jolt, expect a tsunami to swell up out of nowhere and destroy all in it's path.

The Muslim Mind Is On Fire


Here's an amazing article from the Middle East Times, written by Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for The New York Times and energy editor of the Wall Street Journal (via Little Green Footballs):


DUBAI -- The world of Islam is on fire. Indeed, the Muslim mind is on fire. Above all, the West is now ready to take both of them on.

The latest reliable report confirms that on average 33 Iraqis die every day, executed by Iraqis and foreign jihadis and suicide bombers, not by US or British soldiers. In fact, fewer than ever US or British soldiers are dying since the invasion more than two years ago.

Instead, we now watch on television hundreds of innocent Iraqis lying without limbs, bleeding in the streets dead or wounded for life. If this is jihad someone got his religious education completely upside down.

Palestine is on fire, too, with Palestinian armed groups fighting one another - Hamas against Fatah and all against the Palestinian Authority. All have rendered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas impotent and have diminished the world's respect and sympathy for Palestinian sufferings.

A couple of weeks ago London was on fire as Pakistani and other Muslims with British citizenship blew up tube stations in the name of Islam. Al Qaeda in Europe or one of its franchises proclaimed proudly the killing of 54 and wounding 700 innocent citizens was done to "avenge Islam" and Muslims.

Madrid was on fire, too, last year, when Muslim jihadis blew up train stations killing 160 people and wounding a few thousands.

The excuse in all the above cases was the war in Iraq, but let us not forget that in September 2001, long before Iraq, Osama Bin Laden proudly announced that he ordered the killing of some 3,000 in the United States, in the name of avenging Islam. Let us not forget that the killing began a long time before the invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, jihadis have been killing for a decade in the name of Islam. They killed innocent tourists and natives in Morocco and Egypt, in Africa, in Indonesia and in Yemen, all done in the name of Islam by Muslims who say that they are better than all other Muslims. They killed in India, in Thailand and are now talking of killing in Germany and Denmark and so on.

There were attacks with bombs that killed scores inside Shia and Sunni mosques, inside churches and inside synagogues in Turkey and Tunisia, with Muslim preachers saying that it is okay to kill Jews and Christians - the so called infidels.

Above all, it is the Muslim mind that is on fire.

The Muslim fundamentalist who attacked the Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands, stabbed him more than 23 times then cut his throat. He recently proudly proclaimed at his trial: "I did it because my religion - Islam - dictated it and I would do it again if were free."

Which preacher told this guy this is Islam? That preacher should be in jail with him.

Do the cowardly jihadis who recruit suicide bombers really think that they will force the US Army and British troops out of Iraq by killing hundreds of innocent Iraqis? US troops now have bases and operate in Iraq but also from Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Oman. The only accomplishment of jihadis is that now they have aroused the great "Western Tiger".

There was a time when the United States and Europe welcomed Arab and Muslim immigrants, visitors and students, with open arms. London even allowed all dissidents escaping their countries to preach against those countries under the guise of political refugees. Well, that is all over now.

Time has become for the big Western vengeance. Visas for Arab and Muslim young men will be impossible to get for the United States and Western Europe. Those working there will be expelled if they are illegal, and harassed even if their papers are in order. Airlines will have to right to refuse boarding to passengers if their names even resemble names on a prohibited list on all flights heading to Europe and the United States.

What is more important to remember is this: When the West did unite after World War II to beat communism, the long Cold War began without pity. They took no prisoners. They all stood together, from the United States to Norway, from Britain to Spain, from Belgium to Switzerland. And they did bring down the biggest empire. Communism collapsed.

I fear those naïve Muslims who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their worst crime of all. The West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, sadly, Islam as a religion.

In this new cold and hot war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and there will be no match for the arsenal that those Westerners are putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces and indeed, allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadis or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite the fire, those who know little about Islam and nothing about humanity.


I don't agree that we in the West are at war with Islam as a religion. We are at war with Islamofascism, which I define as that brand of Islam which wants to establish Sharia law as the governing code of nations, and which wants to divide the world into Dar al-Islam, and Dar al-Harb.

However, I do think it is a very good thing that Youssef Ibrahim is warning his fellow Muslims that there are negative consequences for their actions. The West is very dangerous when roused. One of the main things I have feared is what will happen if we wait too long to start solving these problems.

I believe World War II, for good and ill, is rather instructive of what can happen when the West is angry. Imagine the positive forces of the U.S. and England allied with the negative forces of Nazi Germany, and I think you will understand what I am worried about.

I do not want to see the West go full force against the Muslim world. Such a war would be a tragic mess, and possibly the end of civilization. This is why we need to put an end to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. We must bomb their nuclear facilities and push to topple the Islamosfascist regime of Iran. To quote Ledeen, "Faster please."

Pope Benedict Just Kind of Throws It Out There


From AP:


VATICAN CITY - The Vatican on Thursday denounced some Israeli retaliations against past terrorism as a violation of international law in an ongoing spat over Pope Benedict XVI's failure to specifically condemn terror against Israel in recent remarks.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican envoy to Israel on Monday and complained that Benedict "deliberately" didn't mention a July 12 suicide bombing in Netanya while referring to recent terror strikes in Egypt, Britain, Turkey and Iraq.

"It's not always possible to immediately follow every attack against Israel with a public statement of condemnation," a statement from the Vatican press office said Thursday night, "and (that is) for various reasons, among them the fact that the attacks against Israel sometimes were followed by immediate Israeli reactions not always compatible with the rules of international law."

"It would thus be impossible to condemn the first (the terror strikes) and let the second (Israeli retaliation) pass in silence," said the statement, which had an unusually blistering tone for the Holy See.


It would be interesting to know precisely what Israel has done that Pope Benedict believes violates international law. It seems to me that, unless AP is not correctly reporting the contents of this Vatican statement (which is a distinct possibility), that Pope Benedict is being irresponsible in making such a non-specific allegation against Israel.

Let me be clear that I do not think that Israel has never done anything wrong. But, they certainly are wrongly accused of heinous crimes quite often. Just read about the Jenin situation, for instance. The fact that they are wrongly accused so often means that a responsible person ought to be doubly sure, and highly specific when criticizing Israel. Otherwise, one might light a fire one could never put out.

Israel's Friend France
An Interview With Jacques Chirac


Recent polls have shown that Jacques Chirac has very little support among his own people in France. The French economy is not doing well. The EU Constitution was voted down. His friend's Arafat, Hafez Assad, and Rafik al-Hariri have all died. To top it all off, the Middle Eastern leaders of today tend to look more to Washington, then to France for guidance and support in getting their initiatives through on the world stage.

All this bespeaks a leader whose influence is on a precipitous decline. But, Chirac is not a man to give up easily. Forty years in politics have taught him that there is always a way to reassert one's leadership. Thus, in one of the stranger confluences of circumstance in modern political history we find that Ariel Sharon and Jacques Chirac believe that, at this juncture, they need each other. The Israeli liberal daily, Haaretz, analyzes:


Chirac is in desperate need of some sort of achievement in the international arena. He wants to show a new peak in bilateral relations with Israel, which have been warming during the past two years. At the same time he wants to express firm support for the disengagement and the road map's comprehensive peace plan.

For his part, Sharon wants to show that he is not a prisoner in the hands of the Jewish settlers in the territories and that the disengagement is not interfering with his agenda. On the contrary. It burnishes his reputation in the world, and there is nothing like a seal of approval from a traditionally critical country like France to prove this. Sharon will also get points from the Jewish community, which is desperate for a warming of relations between the two countries.

Finally, the prime minister will also try to take advantage of the rare moment in order to formulate understandings on the burning Middle East issues - Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah and the question of Iranian nuclear capacity.


Chirac is so keen to improve relations with Israel, that he sat for a lengthy interview with Haaretz, for which his handlers said he "worked very to prepare." Here is an excerpt:


Haaretz: Following the terror attacks in London, will Europe as a whole and France in particular have a better understanding of Israel's struggle with Palestinian terror? Will you, for example, evince more understanding of the policy of targeted assassinations in the territories?

Chirac: "The Europeans did not wait for the attacks in London in order to enlist firmly and uncompromisingly against terror. Everyday we expand, together and coherently, and in coordination with the other large countries of the world, our abilities to fight terror. We understand [your situation] well, and we have always condemned the acts of terror of which Israelis are the victims. Every act of terror is despicable and it must be deplored."

Haaretz: Is France's position on terror closer today to that of Israel, the United States or Britain?

"Nothing can justify terror. It uses the pretext of great causes as an excuse for the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people. It is one of the faces of modern barbarism. No country is safe from it. France itself has been the victim of terror and has never underestimated the threat. On the contrary, it is spearheading the struggle against this plague. It identifies with Britain and with the other countries that have been hit, among them, alas, Israel.

"It is incumbent upon us to expand international coordination of the intelligence services, the police and the judicial systems. We are also insisting that the fight against terror be conducted while preserving the principles of the rule of law, democracy and human dignity. Therefore we have insisted that the international conventions define terror and determine a framework for international action against it.


That all sounds very resolute. But, Chirac wouldn't be Chirac if he didn't leave some room for equivocation:


"At the same time, we must deal with all the factors that nourish the hatred and the frustrations: the unresolved conflicts, religious intolerance, the rejection of the other and economic instability. We must prevent the terrorists from exploiting this fertile ground that serves them as a pretext and enables them to prosper."


The question is, how is Israel supposed to deal with the unresolved conflict that the two governing political parties of the Palestinian territories do not want Israel to exist at all?

Chirac notes that Abu Mazen has "promised to put an end to the violence," but he doesn't note that the "promise" has been followed up with no concrete effort.

Haaretz asks Chirac about the role of Hamas:


Haaretz: Could Hamas, in certain circumstances, become an interlocutor?

Chirac: "Hamas is a terrorist organization that cannot be an interlocutor of the international community as long as it does not renounce violence and does not recognize Israel's right to exist. This is the unambiguous position of the EU and it will not change."


Chirac then goes on to make a powerful argument for French/Israeli friendship; an argument the whole world needs to take heed of, whenever the concept of a "One-State Solution" to the Middle East Conflict is floated:


Haaretz: The assessment in Israel is that your invitation to Sharon symbolizes a substantial improvement in the relations between the two countries after years of tension. However, you are no doubt also aware of the despised image of France and the French in Israel. What, in your opinion, should be done to change this image, and what do you intend to do in order to improve France's image in the world, which has been evincing hostility toward it of late?

Chirac: "France is Israel's friend. It is so for historical reasons, its long and ancient friendship for the Jewish people, its admiration for this people's contribution to world civilization and also the very strong feeling that Israel's existence and legitimacy are indispensable in a world that has known the horror of the Holocaust.


I honestly don't know what to make of this new turn of events, nor of this interview. Political winds do sometimes seem to blow leaders, typically at odds with each other, into cooperative circumstances. Certainly, the Soviet Union and the United States cooperated in the destruction of Nazi Germany. However, in my opinion, while Chirac does seem to understand why Israel must continue to exist, he doesn't seem to understand the threat to it's existence.

For one thing, there is the purposeful ignoring of the fact that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is neglecting to live up to his side of the Road Map. And, later in the interview, Chirac is asked about Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons:


Haaretz: If Iran decides to ignore the international demands, will you support the imposition of sanctions - and should these not prove effective - military action?

Chirac: "I cannot tell you what the results of our activity will be. I hope that it will succeed and eliminate the danger of proliferation. If this does not prove to be the case, it will of course be necessary to transfer the handling [of the Iranian problem] to the UN Security Council."

Haaretz: And then, is it possible that you would also support military action?

Chirac: "Please [he sighs] - we are not in any way at that stage. Military attacks are not a solution, whatever the problem. There are civilized means of solving problems and we hope that these will give rise to a positive solution. Otherwise, I stress, it will be necessary to turn to the Security Council."


You see, this is just more of the same thing we saw in the lead up to the Iraq War. Chirac's statement that "military attacks are not a solution, whatever the problem," flies in the face of reality, and of France's own foreign policy. When France is unhappy with the goings-on in the Ivory Coast, they do not hesitate to send in troops and shoot up the place. What Chirac is really saying here is that to attack Iran would be very dangerous. But, of course, to not attack Iran, and take out their nuclear capabilities, would be even more dangerous.

It is frightening that world leaders hold to such platitudes, and even seem convinced of their truth as they utter them. This world is not perfect. Sometimes military attacks are the answer. The Nazis could never have been vanquished without military attacks. And now, we are up against a similar fascist menace. Do we want Iran to have nuclear weapons, or not? If they show no signs of making real concessions in negotiation, then the answer is necessarily military attacks.

I think this interview is important because it shows that Chirac is wedged into a situation where he finds himself having to cooperate with Israel and the United States in the War on Terror. This could mean that he will be of help. But, at the same time, it is as clear as ever, that if Chirac is to be of help, he will have to be brought along kicking and screaming.

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

The Demons Turn on Each Other


As happens with the demons in the beginning of Paradise Lost, the various factions of our Islamofascist enemy are increasingly turning on each other. From Arab News:


Most of those killed yesterday were Egyptians. It is impossible to fathom the terrorists' warped thinking, but they clearly think that ordinary Egyptians, like ordinary Londoners, are disposable.

Theirs is not just a war against the Egyptian economy and government, it is a war against the entire Egyptian people, as it is against all the people of Britain, of Spain, of Lebanon, of Iraq, of Indonesia, of the US - of everywhere. The terrorist is at war with the entire world.


Take note; that is a Muslim criticizing the Islamofascist terrorists. And he's doing so in a newspaper which is known to defend terrorist tactics on many occasions. This is very good news.

This is what war does: It splits people into stark groups. The evil people will find other evil people to side with. Then, eventually the evil people will fall to fighting against each other. And then, it is easy to defeat them.

In World War II, Hitler and Stalin made a pact, but eventually they broke ranks and attacked each other. By the end of the war, Hitler ordered his troops to destroy Germany itself, because he believed the German people had proven themselves weak, and not deserving of an intact nation.

We are seeing the same thing in the Middle East. The Shiites, and Sunnis, and Wahabbists are fighting against each other. And they are fighting against the common people. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas and Fatah are fighting against each other.

I guess the wise thing would be for us to figure out how to give them even more reason to hate each other, so that we can sit back and let them finish the war for us.

Condemning Terrorism Is a "Defamation" Of Islam


What happens when the United Nations sits down to hammer out a definition of terrorism. Well naturally, the Islamists get angry and accuse the UN of an attack on Islam:


Commenting on this censorship, Roy Brown, President of IHEU (International Humanist and Ethical Union) said:"This is part and parcel of the refusal by the Islamic representatives at the UN to condemn the suicide bombers, or to accept any criticism of those who kill innocent people in the name of God.

These actions follow the refusal of the Islamic states at the meeting of the Commission in April to condemn those who kill in the name of religion, and to categorise their attempts to criticise Islamic terrorists as "defamation of religion".

"It is high time", Mr Brown insisted "that the Islamic States at the UN recognised that the suicide bombers are acting in the name of their religion, and to unequivocally condemn their actions."

Nigeria Embraces Fascist Sharia Code


Nigeria has decided that men and women are not allowed to travel together anymore. Why? Because that's what Sharia, the Islamic code of law derived from the Koran, dictates:


The authorities in the northern Nigerian state of Kano have imposed a ban on Muslim men and women travelling together on public transport. They say the ban is in accordance with Sharia law.

Men and women-only buses and motorcycle taxis were paraded in a mass rally at a stadium in the city of Kano. Kano is one of several Muslim majority states that adopted Sharia law in 2000, a move which led to inter-religious riots that left thousands dead.

The governor of Kano state said a new force of 9,000 uniformed police would enforce the law.

Kano is one of 12 northern states which have implemented Sharia law since 2000. The move initially heightened tensions between Muslims and Christians and led to clashes which left thousands dead.

Human rights groups have condemned abuses sanctioned under the law including amputations and flogging, and say it discriminates against women. Sharia law appears to have retained popular support in the north. But there is significant opposition to the law, especially among the Christian minority.


The goal of the Islamofascist terrorists, who keep setting off bombs around the world, is to establish a worldwide caliphate (Islamic government) with Sharia as the law. This is the enemy we are up against.

We need to understand that their grievance is against what they think of as our immorality. How do they determine that we are immoral? Well, because we aren't Muslims and we don't follow Sharia.

When understood from this vantage point, then it is plain to see that the War on Terrorism is a war between those who are free, and those who wish to spread a fascist ideology.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Thoughts On The Disengagement


There are two types of Zionists. Those like myself, for whom Zionism means the Jews should have a homeland (not a lot to ask), and those who believe that Israel belongs to the Jews because God gave it to them.

Those who believe that the Jews claim on Israel comes directly from God, often seem willing to go to any length to secure the territory they believe belongs to them. Many are willing to secure land through theft and murder.

I do not support such action.

Here in this post, Melanie Phillips discusses the new political fashion statement (wearing orange) of those who believe they have the right to land by divine decree:


Gershon Baskin says it all:

'Zionism is not about occupying the West Bank and Gaza. The continuation of the settlement enterprise is an act of suicide for the Zionist dream. It is not only about demographics. It is perhaps even more so about values, morality and lessons that we, as Jews, should understand better than anyone else.

'The disengagement from Gaza is a Zionist act. Ending our occupation and domination over Gaza and its people is an action aimed at saving Zionism from those who have tainted the noble aspects of its cause since 1967. The Zionist dream is still in danger and the Zionist enterprise is at risk as long as we continue our occupation and domination over the West Bank and its people. The march out of the occupied territories must continue. We must return to ourselves and build Israel from within.

'The future appears ominous. Over the past months I have watched the streets of Israel and, in particular Jerusalem, turn orange. As the streets, the trees and the fashion has adopted this new symbol I have found myself confronted with the very strong visual image of a people I do not recognize.

'How could these people – with their messianic vision and value system that justifies treating the "other" as less equal than Jews – and I be part of the same nation? We have the same roots, we share a common heritage, we come from the same places, yet there has been a split; for some time they and their kind have been very different from me and my kind.'

The disengagement appears to have brought the moral crisis that has engulfed Israel out into the open. The terrible danger, of course, is that this weakens Israel still further at a time when the Arab enemies who wish to annihilate it are seizing their moment and redoubling their attacks.

The orangistas are thus handing Hamas victory on a plate. This hysteria is suicidal. The country should pull itself together to back the disengagement, and put an end to the disgusting, Holocaust-denying equation being made between the resettlement of Jews from places where settlement was always a moral and strategic error -- a disengagement fraught with extreme danger which is being undertaken in order to safeguard the Jewish state -- and the pogroms and ethnic cleansing of Jews by those who wished them dead.

A country can survive a threat from without -- but not if it is simultaneously tearing itself apart.


Just to clarify: I think it is possible to believe that God gave the land of Israel to the Jews, and still not believe in seizing it by violence. The reality is, I do believe God gave Israel to the Jews. However, I also believe that God can, and will, work out His purposes in due time. I don't think men should take up the sword in God's name.

Violence, such as that we commit in war, is a necessary evil which is byproduct of the fallen state of our world. Violence committed in self-defense is justified. Therefore, if a people are threatened, they should fight back. And that's why I do support Israel in their ongoing battles against terrorism.

All that being said, the problems with the Palestinian terrorists will probably become worse with disengagement. I say this because the charters of the two main terrorist organizations, the PLO and Hamas, both call for the utter destruction of the state of Israel. As Hamas and the PLO are the two elected political parties which rule the Palestinian territories, it is reasonable to assume disengagement will not stop their violence.

The unacknowledged truth about the disengagement plan is that it is a way for Israel to give the Palestinians the state they were supposed to earn through negotiation. Once the Palestinians have a state, then any attack upon Israel is an act of War, in which case Israel will be justified in vanquishing their enemy.

The Palestinians can avoid such destruction by opting for peace, and concentrating instead on building Palestine into a viable and productive state.

Monday, July 25, 2005


Will we mock our own principles, and let the women of the Islamic world down? Posted by Picasa

Will Sharia Be the Law in Iraq?
Will We Mock Our Own Principles?


The Iraqi Constitution may not turn out to be something that is worth our investment:


Baghdad, 25 July (AKI) - Iraqi women are alarmed that the National Assembly committee mandated to draft the country's new constitution is curtailing the rights of women granted them in the earlier, interim version and using Islamic Sharia law as the main source for legislation, the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) has said.

Two weeks ago, a draft of the text, released to journalists by a member of a sub-committee of the main constitutional committee, contained a chapter on duties and rights, changing the status of Koranic Sharia law from being an important source of legislation in the interim constitution to being the main source, UNIFEM said.

In the draft, a clause putting 25 per cent of women on all decision-making bodies would only be followed for the next two election phases and could then be removed altogether, it said.

Factors in ensuring women's equality with men and issues addressed by international laws and treaties would all be subordinate to Sharia and the progressive personal status law governing marriage, divorce and inheritance would be replaced by the law as practised according to a family's own religion or sect, UNIFEM said.

The Iraqi women's movement recently prepared a memorandum making such demands as the recognition of women's human rights as mother, worker and citizen, the prevention of all kinds of violence and discrimination against women and the recognition of international conventions and documents that Iraq has signed and ratified as a source for Iraqi legislation and regulation, it said.

Some 200 men and women staged a protest against the draft in Baghdad's Firdaws Square last week, but the sit-in ended when news reached them that two Sunni members of the drafting committee had been assassinated, UNIFEM said.


If this is the Constitution the Iraqis end up with, we will have wasted our time, money, not to mention the precious lives of our soldiers. This is not acceptable. George Bush can not allow this.

The decision must be made. Is this war about freedom, or is it about realpolitik? Words don't matter. Only the final result of our sacrifices matters. If this is a war about realpolitik, then I am not a supporter.

If this war is not about Freedom, then we have made fools of ourselves. We have mocked our own Declaration of Independence, and our own Constitution.

I don't know about all of you, but I have not come all this way to be mocked.

And everyone else needs to make that decision as well. I said back in February of 2005 that I would never again vote for a Democrat. If George Bush allows this to happen to the people of Iraq, then I will never again vote for a Republican either.

I Hold This Truth To Be Self-Evident - All People Are Created Equal

If our government will not live up to this principle, then we need to throw out all those who are leading us. It will be time for another Constitutional Convention. And one of the Amendments will have to be that we never be led into a war which does not promote our own principles.

Is Oriana Fallaci A Racist?


The Economist says Oriana Fallaci is a kind of racist:


THERE is nothing al-Qaeda would like more than for Europeans to turn on Muslims in their midst, uniting fundamentalist militants with those who are neither fundamentalist nor militant. In that sense, Osama bin Laden won yet another victory this week with the publication of another hate-filled, anti-Islamic diatribe by an Italian writer who has become noted for such diatribes: Oriana Fallaci.

Over the past three years, the 76-year-old Ms Fallaci has carved out a role as the voice of what might be a new European racism—were race, not religion, her primary cause.…


I say she is not. However, I will admit that Ms. Fallaci, whom I admire, makes two crucial "errors" which Leftist appeasers use to corner her intellectually. The "errors" she makes are:

1) conflating Islamofascism with the Islam practiced by peaceful Muslims who believe in giving and receiving love from both Muslim and Infidel alike. I know there are Muslims like this, because I have met them personally.

2) conflating the historical threat that Islam has posed to the Western world with the Islam of every single Muslim. Once again, there are peaceful Muslims.

I believe Oriana Fallaci knows that there are peaceful Muslims. However, it is not her point.

Her point is that, historically, Islam has been on a 1,300 year long Jihad. When the Jihadists get beat back, they retreat and take time to regroup, but they always return to try, once again, to spread their religion by conversion or by the sword. Whichever need be.

All one has to do is read history, and read the Koran itself, to see this is true.

As it is true, it is fair to say that Islam itself, is a threat to the Western world.

Ms. Fallaci uses this conflation for the powerful effect it allows her to make with words. When one reads Ms. Fallaci's work, one is struck by the directness of the language. There is no equivocating. There are no disclaimers (as you find on this site) to impede the impact of her warnings.

In short, I think Ms. Fallaci is a necessary voice, because it doesn't much matter that the majority of Muslims are peaceful, if those peaceful Muslims won't stand up against the Jihadis in their midst. If they won't turn those in who would kill their neighbors.

I will continue on with the disclaimers here on CUANAS, even though they do break up the rhythm of my paragraphs. Even though they impede the directness of my language.

The reality is, I hold out hope that, one of these days, the Islamofascists will kill the wrong Muslim, or just too many Muslims, and that finally, the good, peaceful Muslims around us will be shocked into the reality we Westerners were already shocked into; which is that these Islamofascists don't care about life. They have no good in their hearts. They want us dead.

Canadian Imam Threatens Canada With Attacks


From Globe and Mail:


A controversial Toronto imam warned Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan at a closed-door meeting to stop "terrorizing" Canadian Muslims.

"If you try to cross the line I can't guarantee what is going to happen. Our young people, we can't control," Aly Hindy, the head of Scarborough's Salaheddin Islamic Centre, recalls telling the minister at the May meeting she held in Toronto with dozens of Muslim leaders.

The meeting was part of an effort by Ms. McLellan to reach out to Canadian Muslims amid complaints that the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service are engaging in racial profiling.

The minister and her officials have been meeting community leaders to explain they are not targeting Muslims generally, only individuals with possible terrorist links.

"The police came to me and said, 'This is a kind of threat,' and I said yes," he said. "But it's for the good of this country.

"And they said, 'Do you know some of the names of those people you expect to cause some problems?' And I said, 'You just open the telephone directory.' "


What the heck has Canada done to the Muslims, other than act like perfect little Steppin' Fetchits?

This seems like proof that giving in to the demands of Islamists does nothing but embolden them to make more demands.