Saturday, August 13, 2005

Judah by Anatoly Baratynsky

Posted by Picasa

Dream Like New York

Posted by Picasa

Disneyland - The Happiest Place On Earth

My Mom and Dad Went to Auschwitz
And All I Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt

I live near Disneyland, and occasionally spend time there with my family. I have had three Disneyland-related experiences recently, which I realized I should probably relate on CUANAS.

The first, I think, is merely humorous. Well actually, there is a tragic aspect as well, but ...

On a recent Friday night excursion to take in the sights at Downtown Disney (an outdoor mall-type area which leads to the Disneyland entrance and features entertainment, shops, and restaurants) I heard a Disney street performer do a beautiful version of the Theme From Schindler's List on solo violin, supported by prerecorded music.

Obviously, this was incongruous with the shallow, consumerist atmosphere. But, it kind of just goes to prove that, in a media-dominated society, we will amuse ourselves to death. Not only will the revolution be televised, but the Holocaust will be schmaltzified.

Here Come The Warm Jets

On several occasions over the past year, I have been at Disneyland enjoying the smiles on my kids faces, when all of the sudden the atmosphere is overcome by the rushing sound of military jets, apparently scrambled to scare off some intruder into Disney airspace.

This is a jarring reminder that we are at war. The good thing is Disney is kind enough to provide each guest with the opportunity to buy a photo of the look on his face at the exact moment the jet passed overhead.

That's a joke, by the way.

But, the fact is, military jets are scrambled above Disneyland on a semi-regular basis. You know the Jihadis have a point about us, when you consider that there are two places in the United States which require the protection of the United States Air Force; our capitol, Washington D.C., and Disneyland.

How could that not be an example of Infidel Idolatry?

Disneyland - A Burqa's Eye View

On another recent jaunt to Disneyland with the family my oldest daughter was shocked to see the sad specter of a woman clad from head to foot in black, with only her sad eyes pointing outward to the world. That's right, a woman enjoying Disneyland in a burqa.

I looked at her. Well, her eyes anyway. They were sad and paranoid. Then I looked at the face of her husband, triumphant in the little fiefdom of his family, yet also paranoid. The children were oblivious, because, of course, children can get used to anything - even the sight of their mother in chains.

Chechen Islamic Clerics Declare
War on Islamofascism

This may be a major break in the War on Terror.

Yesterday, I was lamenting the fact that we call this a War on Terror, rather than a War on Islamofascism. I said that it was our inability to accurately define our enemy which was leading to crucial mistakes in the development of Iraqi Democracy.

Well, today comes news that Chechen Islamic Clerics have declared a Jihad against Wahabbism, which is the Islamic sect that provides the ideology of Islamofascism:

The Council of Muftis of the Chechen Republic on August 4 officially declared a jihad against "Wahhabism." Interfax quoted Chechen Mufti Sultan Mirzaev as telling journalists that the decision had been announced during a meeting between representatives of the clergy and law-enforcement agencies in the village of Tsentoroi, which is the home village of the Kadyrov clan. Mirzaev said it was the largest such meeting since the death of Akhmad Kadyrov in May 2004.

"Wahhabism is the plague of the 20th and the 21st centuries," he said. "All Arabic scholars have come to be unanimous that those fighting against Wahhabism are on the path of jihad, following the way of Allah."

"Wahhabis and terrorists, he said, "are bringing evil into the world and the entire world must oppose them. We adopted an official fatwa (a religious ruling in Islam – Interfax), so that those fighting terrorism and Wahhabism have no doubt that their cause is just. We have declared war on these phenomena.

Those killing innocent people must be either stopped or put behind bars or exterminated. This has to be done by whatever method. Our fatwa is that those who have shed blood, those who do not want to stop must be killed by any method."

Mirzaev said rebels had killed sixteen district imams in Chechnya and that he himself had been "seriously wounded" in a rebel attack. "Should I remain silent about this?" he said. "If it becomes necessary, I will take up arms and I am ready to fight against them."

Various Chechen officials and politicians voiced support for the anti-Wahhabi fatwa. State Duma Deputy Ruslan Yamadaev said that Chechens welcomed the initiative, Moskovsky komsomolets reported on August 8.

"The militants have blown up and shot policemen, imams, public servants, declaring that they are carrying out jihad, but now a clear and unequivocal answer has been given to the question of who really stands on the path of jihad," he said, adding that it was the police and other law-enforcement personnel who were carrying out jihad and "embarking on the righteous path."

Chechneya is not the Middle East, but the Jihadists wreak the same destructive path in Iraq, Iran, and Saudi Arabia that they do in Chechneya. The people of the Middle East have got to be fed up, but they are like those who serve the witch in the Wizard of Oz; tireless in their support, but the minute she dies, it's "Ding-dong the witch is dead."

If the people of the Middle East are made aware of this Fatwa, the dam could start to crack, and the entire Middle East terrorocracy could come crashing down.

Bush needs to find a way to get this message out.

New Iraqi Constitution Will Beat Deadline

From Associated Press:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi leaders rushing to finish a constitution Saturday reported tentative agreements on distribution of oil wealth and other issues, but there was no deal on the main obstacle: federalism.

President Jalal Talabani predicted the constitution would be submitted to the National Assembly on Sunday — one day before the deadline for parliamentary approval.

But some committee members said serious divisions remained among the Shiite Muslim, Sunni Arab and Kurdish leaders, particularly on the question of whether Iraq should be transformed into a federated system of government. Sunnis fear such a move could lead to the breakup of the country.

Talabani acknowledged negotiations continued.

"The meetings are still going on and we have gone forward," he told reporters Saturday. "There is a meeting today and another meeting tomorrow and, God willing, we will finish the job tomorrow."

Talabani said negotiators were concentrating on the question of a federated state comprising Shiite Muslim areas of central and southern Iraq, as well as the role of Islam in laws.

Earlier, committee members said the remaining stumbling blocks were federalism, the role of Shiite clergy, dual nationality and a description of Saddam Hussein's Baath party. Even the formal name of the country kept going through last minute modifications.

U.S. officials hope adoption of a constitution and expansion of democracy will deflate support for the insurgency gripping Iraq.

Sunni, Kurdish and Shiite political leaders have been negotiating for days in an attempt to deliver a draft constitution to the parliament before the deadline.

Although Sunnis agreed to continuing self-rule for the Kurdish region in the north, they have opposed full federalism for Iraq, fearing that could lead to the breakup of the country, which was established after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I.

Talabani, speaking to reporters after meeting with Sunni religious leader Adnan al-Dulaimi, said none of the points of disagreement would be postponed. "There is an agreement to draft a constitution unanimously among all groups," he said.

He said a few points were still being debated. "We have reached agreements on many points but I am not authorized to announce them because we want to make the declaration all together," the president said.

Before Talabani spoke, a Sunni Arab member of the constitution committee, Saleh al-Mutlaq, said negotiators reached a preliminary agreement three days ago that distribution of oil revenues would be shared by the central and regional governments.

Al-Mutlaq did not elaborate. But a Shiite member, Nadim al-Jaberi, said leaders agreed regional governments in oil-producing areas would keep 5 percent of the revenue and the rest would go to the central government for distribution to other areas based on their population.

Negotiations were thrown into a tailspin Thursday when the leader of the biggest Shiite party, Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, called for a Shiite autonomous government in central and southern Iraq, including the southern oil fields. That enraged Sunni Arab delegates.

Following al-Hakim's call, Sunni clerics on Friday urged their followers to register and vote in the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum — but to vote against the charter if it contains federalism.

"We, in this country, don't want federalism because we are a unified nation in this country and we feel that Iraq with all it's elements is for all," Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaie, of the influential Association of Muslim Scholars, told worshippers at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque.

Sunnis appear to be sending a warning that they can bring down the constitution in the referendum. According to the country's interim charter, the constitution will be void if it is rejected by two-thirds of voters in three provinces. Sunnis are a majority in four.

With the Shiites and Kurds both supporting federalism, the two groups reached a number of other deals, which needed to be sold to the Sunnis if unanimity is to be achieved.

Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish legislator, said late Friday that Shiites and Kurds agreed Islam be the state religion.

He also said they agreed on the country's name as the Iraqi Federal Republic. But a Shiite negotiator, Saad Jawad Kandil, said it would be The Iraqi Republic — a compromise between Kurds who opposed "Islamic" in the name and Shiites who opposed "Federal."

Hey, don't we Americans get a percentage of that oil revenue?* I mean, that's what the anti-War people have been telling me all this time.

*Note to world: This is good ole' American sarcasm.

Done Messing Around
Bush Threatens Iran

I've been waiting for this. I've waited so long, I started to think I had been wrong, and that Bush had lost his resolve. But, here we are. From the BBC, via The Astute Blogger:

US President George W Bush says he still has not ruled out the option of using force against Iran, after it resumed work on its nuclear programme.

He said he was working on a diplomatic solution, but was sceptical that one could be found.
The UN's atomic watchdog has called on Iran to halt nuclear fuel development.

Iran, which denies it is secretly trying to develop nuclear arms, restarted work at its uranium conversion plant at Isfahan on Monday.

"All options are on the table," said Mr Bush, when asked about the possible use of force during an interview for Israeli TV.

"The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country," he said.

In recent days, Iran's Chief Negotiator to the UN has threatened Western nations with "grave" consequences, if they so much as refer the issue of Iranian nuclear weapons program to the U.N. Security Council.

Yesterday, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, said that Western opposition to Iranian nuclear weapons program would "cost them dearly."

Bush's threat here goes well beyond anything the toothless U.N. would ever approve.

The battle lines are drawn. Who will blink?

Honestly, my hands are shaking as I type this.

You know what is amazing? That this would come down the pike such as it has. All of America is focused on trivial political minutiae, like Cindy Sheehan, and meanwhile we are about to move into possibly the most frightening time in history since the Cuban Missile Crisis. And no one is even acknowledging it.


Friday, August 12, 2005

Grazing on Son Kul Plateau : A horse grazes as a rainbow appears in the sky on the Son-Kul plateau, 3013 metres above sea level located on the ancient Great Silk Road from Kashgar to Bishkek. (AFP/Vyacheslav Oseledko)
Posted by Picasa

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemy

What? Didn't I already have a post with that title earlier today, and another one just a couple days ago. Well yes, but I just can't help myself. Our enemies have been saying so many revealing things lately, and, you know, you gotta love it when your enemies tell the truth.

Victor Davis Hanson says we really ought to "Keep Quiet and Listen":

“You will find that the Jews were behind all the civil strife in this world. The Jews are behind the suffering of the nations.”

When and where did that venom come from?

This last May — and out of the hateful mouth of a prominent Palestinian cleric, Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris. He was broadcast on a Palestinian Authority station.

The televised Sheik finished with an even more frightening thought: “The day will come when everything will be relieved of the Jews — even the stones and trees which were harmed by them…The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew.”

Nothing could be clearer than that promise of another holocaust — and promised explicitly on state-run Palestinian television, a public megaphone of the Palestinian Authority, itself the beneficiary of past and apparently promised future American financial aid.

Still, don’t hold your breath that the passive/aggressive sheik is about to lead a pan-Islamic army a few miles across the border to “finish off every Jew,” since he might then end up like Sheik Ahmed Yassin, whose threats of death earned him instead an early paradise.

Throughout this war we have an understandable, if ethnocentric, habit of ignoring what our enemies actually say. Instead we chatter on, don’t listen, and in self-absorbed fashion impart our own motives for their hatred.

We live on the principles of the Enlightenment and so worship our god Reason, thus assuming that even our adversaries accept such rational protocols as their own.

So they talk on and on of beheading, suicide bombing, another holocaust, and blowing thousands of us up, while we snooze, now and again waking in the midst of a war to regurgitate Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, flushed Korans, the abusive Patriot Act, and the latest quip of Donald Rumsfeld.

But again keep quiet, and listen to radical Islam.

Take the August 4 declaration of al Qaeda’s second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. He promises even “more destruction” for London, and tells us precisely why.

Many in the West assume that those mass murders were payback for the United Kingdom’s presence in Iraq, even though its troops are mostly confined to non-Wahhabi areas in the south.

But no, the Dr. instead lists a number of grievances beyond Iraq that justify his terrorist cadres murdering innocents. One complaint, for example, is “Stopping the robbing of our oil and resources.”

Examine that gripe carefully.

Oil is now at record highs. I just filled up with regular gas at $2.89 on a California interstate. It costs the Middle East about $3-4 a barrel to pump petroleum that was discovered, developed, and marketed for the Gulf autocracies through hated Western expertise — and is now selling at over $60. Despite Zawahiri’s rants, billions of poor the world over are being price gouged to enrich a Muslim world flush with petrodollars.

And some of those obscene profits have ended up in coffers of Zawahiri himself. Indeed, his al Qaeda blackmailers depend on recycled petrodollars from Gulf State sheikdoms. Nothing either he or bin Laden has ever done themselves warrants the type of cash that flowed into al Qaeda’s banks — a con operation that extorted oil dollars from autocratic price gougers who in turn got their revenues largely from inventive and productive Indians, Chinese, and Westerners.

Zawahiri next went on to cite, “Stopping your support for the corrupt and corrupting leaders.”

Did the terrorist Dr. read the text of Condoleezza Rice’s June 20 address in Cairo? There she rightly repudiated past American realpolitik that blinked at Arab dictatorships, and then prodded Arab governments to democratize?

Or maybe it was precisely that fresh support for democracy that grieves Zawahiri?

For clarification of al Qaeda’s ideas about democracy, we can turn to Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the spiritual leader of the terrorists in Iraq. He recently warned that, “We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology.”

That pathological hatred of democracy was also amplified in the latest al Qaeda video of August 10: “Democracy, human rights, and freedom are all but hollow illusions, with which they tranquilize inhabitants.”

Western critics of America’s attempt to introduce democratic reconstruction in Iraq should ask why al Qaeda is so furious at the effort. The answer is clear: Radical Islam can no longer blame the United States for propping up dictators, but instead is terrified that there is a third choice — the people’s freedom — between creepy strongmen and even creepier pre-modern theocrats.

But back again to the good Dr. Zawahiri, who had still more complaints beyond oil and corrupt leaders that explain why he, of course, plans on more murdering of Westerners.

“What you have you seen, O Americans, in New York and Washington and the losses you are having in Afghanistan and Iraq, in spite of all the media blackout, are only the losses of the initial clashes.”

And we know precisely what were our perceived pre-September 11 wrongs that caused “New York and Washington” since Dr Zawahiri’s boss, bin Laden himself, spelled them out in a 1998 fatwa.

“The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies — civilians and military — is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip.”

Note that bin Laden omits any reference to American efforts to save Muslim Kuwait (a war in which in vain he also volunteered to fight against Saddam Hussein), to save Balkan Muslims (which his own mujahadeen had failed utterly to do), or to stop the Soviet killing of Afghan Muslims (a war in which his resistance counted on American arms to save his fellow Muslims).

The constant theme of this envious and insecure motor mouth? Americans saved Muslims, while bin Laden’s minions talked big, but couldn’t do much against much stronger Baathist Iraqis, godless Soviets, and nationalist Serbs.

September 11 was the promised answer to bin Laden’s fatwa. Later when America withdrew all troops from the land of Mecca, his death promises increased rather than ceased.

Remember that Dr. Zawahiri lists both Afghanistan (his former headquarters) and Iraq in the same breath as reasons for his attacks to come. We in our civil discord tend to distinguish the two theaters; al Qaeda in its unity does not.

So as we try to assess the causes of Islamists’ venom toward the West, it seems wiser to listen to what they say rather than what we say they say.

If we would do that, we would conclude that the hatred of radical Islam is fed by envy, frustration, and pride — and thus existential: They despise Americans for who we are.

That’s why al Qaeda must constantly find new grievances, whether the West Bank, Israel itself, Jews, oil prices, troops in Saudi Arabia, Oil-for-Food, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

Indeed, the latest two-hour training video is little more than cut-and-paste from the Michael Moore Left and hand-me-downs from Euro anti-globalist radicals. Thus America, al Qaeda assures us, “seeks to ravage the entire globe for the interest…of corporate companies,” and so kills the sons of Islam “in Palestine, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Indonesia, the Caucuses, and elsewhere.”

We in the West don’t listen to them when they promise us our deaths.

We should. They are yelling as loud as they can to tell us something that we don’t really want to hear.

Couple Celebrates 81st Wedding Anniversary

From Associated Press:

CHATEAUROUX, France - A French couple who celebrated their 81st wedding anniversary Friday offered this advice on love and longevity: Keep arguments to a minimum, eat well and wash it down with a glass of wine.

Andre and Marguerite Debray met shortly after the end of World War I, in which he served, and got married on Aug. 12, 1924.

Mr. Debray is now 107 years old and his wife is a few years younger at 101. Retired for several decades, the Debrays spent their careers as teachers.

To celebrate the anniversary, the couple planned a family lunch with a champagne toast at their home in the village of Chateauroux, in central France, Mrs. Debray said in a telephone interview.
The couple has two children, four grandchildren and six great grandchildren.

Asked for the secret to staying together so long, Mrs. Debray replied: "Love and respect for the other person."

Their fondness for each other has grown over time.

"Life trained us. We never fought. We lived together so long that we have the same tastes, the same habits," Mrs. Debray told Le Parisien newspaper, adding that her husband might not be perfect but his faults lessened over time. "It's been so long, I got used to them."

Mr. Debray still enjoys a glass of wine with lunch.

"I also like a good wine," said Mrs. Debray, adding that she never followed a diet. "I don't know what that is. I eat everything that is edible."

I once asked a couple who had been married over 40 years, and who were clearly very happy with each other (they had a big, beautiful family of ten kids, and countless grandchildren), what the secret to marriage was. This is what they told me:

"You know how people always say a relationship is where people share, and meet each other half way? Well, that's not it. Don't go half way. Each of you give the other 100%. When you can't get your way, give. Give 100%. And keep being willing to give 100%. You have to trust that the person you married is also willing to give 100%."

If you are married to the wrong person this is a recipe for a life of martyrdom. However, I am blessed to be married to a great woman, and this wisdom has worked out very well for us.

Ariel Sharon At The White House

From LGF commenter No Sharia In Canada:

Ariel Sharon came to Washington for meetings with George W. and for a state dinner. Laura Bush decided to bring in a special Kosher chef and have a truly Jewish meal.

At the dinner that night, the first course served was matzo ball soup. George W. looks at this and after learning what it is called, he tells an aide that he can't eat such a gross and strange-looking brew. The >aide says that Sharon will be insulted if he doesn't at least taste it.

Not wanting to cause any trouble (after all, he ate sheep's eye in honor of Arab guests), George W. gingerly lowers his spoon into the bowl and retrieves a piece of matzoth ball and some broth. He hesitates, then swallows.

A big grin appears on his face. He finds that he really likes it, and digs right in and finishes the whole bowl.

"That was delicious," Bush says to Sharon. "Do Jews eat any other part of the matzoth, or just the balls?"

Bad News From Iraq

I've been looking for good news in the War on Terror, but recently I have been unable to find much. Here, Diana West in the Washington Times worries about the impending institution of Sharia law which will likely be mandated by the new Iraqi Constitution:

Monday, Aug. 15, promises to be a great day for sharia, or Islamic law. It marks the end of the constitutional wrangling in Iraq, and the beginning of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. Both events fought for, facilitated, even micromanaged by the United States — should expand the domain of Islamic law, which codifies female inferiority and religious inequality.

I don't know a better way to quantify the two events. By day's end, Iraq, if it settles as expected on a draft constitution based in sharia, and Gaza, as a new sector of the already sharia-vested Palestinian Authority, will have joined the community of nations at odds with the free world.

That sounds crazy, too. But no more so than the thought of American troops fighting off Iranian-supported death squads to shore up a government led by a possible Iranian agent — Ibrahim Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister and leader of the Tehran-allied Dawa faction.

It sounds fantastic, but the notion comes from the serious-minded Carolyn Glick of the Jerusalem Post, who recently wrote:

"Both US and Iraqi officials — Shi'ite and Sunni — have since the inauguration of the Iraqi Governing Council in the summer of 2003 stated repeatedly and matter-of-factly that he [Mr. Jaafari] is an Iranian agent."

Mr. Jaafari spent years under Iranian protection during Saddam Hussein's regime; he also just concluded a three-day visit to Tehran where he sealed oil, military and tourism deals. I don't recall hearing any word on ending Iran's recognized sponsorship of terror and unrest in Iraq.

If Sharia winds up as the law of the land, or possibly even the "inspiration" of the law of the land, in Iraq, we will have fought for nothing. We will have poured tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of millions of dollars, and an infinite amount of blood, sweat and tears, into the sand, for nothing.

Here, from Reuters, comes news that the Shiites (the majority Islamic sect in Iraq) are demanding an autonomous region within Iraq. Oh yes, and the area they want all to themselves, just so happens to be "oil-rich":

NAJAF, Iraq (Reuters) - With four days left until Iraq's leaders have promised a draft constitution, powerful Islamist leaders made a dramatic bid on Thursday to have a big, autonomous Shi'ite region across the oil-rich south.

(Pastorius note: Islamist" is a nice way of saying Islamofascist, or in other words, one who will wage Jihad in order to establish Sharia throughout the world.)

The head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) spelled out his demands to tens of thousands of chanting supporters in the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf.

But minority Sunni and secular opponents, as well as rival Shi'ite Islamists in the coalition national government, swiftly poured cold water on an idea that fueled fears about sectarian battles over oil and Iranian-style religious rule in the south.

Some saw it as a negotiating tactic ahead of a self-imposed deadline on Monday to present the draft to parliament; a top Shi'ite negotiator, who dismissed the demand made by SCIRI chief Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, said 16 points were still in dispute.

It was unclear whether the row -- and continued arguments over the extent of Islamic law -- would delay delivery of a text that Washington hopes can help quell the Sunni Arab insurgency.

The crucial issue is the nature of federalism and the quest for wording to satisfy Kurdish demands for continued autonomy in the north, Shi'ite hopes for some new autonomy in the south, and also address concerns among Sunni Arabs and others in the center that they not be left with a rump Iraqi state deprived of oil.

"If we can deal with that ... we should finish in the next few days so the draft will be ready on time," Bahaa al-Araji, a senior Shi'ite on the constitution drafting panel, told Reuters.

"If there were Shi'ite and Sunni regions it would simply entrench sectarianism and destroy the unity of Iraq."

Hakim, a striking figure in clerical robes whose long exile in Tehran make him a figure of suspicion for many Sunni Arabs, was backed up in his demands at the Najaf rally by the leader of the Badr movement, formed in Iran as the armed wing of SCIRI.

"They are trying to prevent the Shi'ites from enjoying their own federalism," Badr leader Hadi al-Amery told the crowd, which had gathered to commemorate the assassination two years ago by a car bomb in Najaf of Hakim's brother, the former SCIRI leader.

"What have we got from the central government but death?" he said, recalling decades of oppression under Sunni-dominated rule from Baghdad, most recently by Saddam Hussein.

"We think it necessary to form one whole region in the south," said Hakim, a major force in the coalition that came to power in January's election, secured by U.S. military force.

But Laith Kubba, spokesman for Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari, an Islamist from rival Shi'ite party Dawa, said: "The idea of a Shi'ite region ... is unacceptable to us."

"It's a bad idea," Kubba told Reuters.


Yet despite the initial cold shoulder, it may be significant that Hakim made his announcement hours after meeting Iraq's top cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in Najaf on Wednesday.

Though Sistani, who rarely appears in public, has typically made no comment, his backing could be vital and some political sources close to Islamist thinking say there is broader support, well beyond SCIRI, for the autonomy project in years to come.

Could this be the rise of a new Ayatollah? Notice the people he is surrounded with have support in Tehran.

But wait, there's more. It seems that a U.S. citizen, who is accused of ties to Osama Bin Laden, now works for the Iraq's government. From Newsweek, via Jihad Watch:

Aug. 10, 2005 - A former Washington-area man accused in court papers of being the “American contact” for an Osama bin Laden “front organization” is now believed to be working for the new Iraqi government’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, two U.S. law-enforcement officials and a longtime associate of the man tell NEWSWEEK.

Tariq A. Hamdi, who allegedly delivered a satellite-telephone battery to bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998, has left the United States and has told associates he is currently employed in the Iraqi Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, said the government officials, who asked not to be identified because of pending legal charges against Hamdi.

Hamdi's precise status with the Iraqi foreign ministry could not be immediately determined. But one of the U.S. law-enforcement officials said that federal prosecutors were concerned enough about Hamdi’s current status that they undertook a legal review with the State Department to determine if it would prevent them from charging him with federal crimes because of diplomatic immunity. But the prosecutors determined that his diplomatic status was “irrelevant” because the crimes they were considering charging him with took place before the current Iraqi government even existed, the official said.

Hamdi, an Iraqi-born American citizen who formerly lived in the Washington suburb of Herndon, Va., and worked for an Islamic think tank, has long been under scrutiny by federal law-enforcement agents in connection with a broader, three-year long probe into a web of Islamic charities with suspected terror links.

Are we going to let these guys beat us? This is no time for us to be worrying about Iraqi soveignty. This is the time for us to be worrying about the future sovereignty of Western Civilization.

In World War II, we did not beat the Nazis and then allow Nazis to run the new German government. We "deNazified" Germany. We wrote their constitution. We put their government in place. Democracy and sovereignty was a reward won over time.

In Japan, we eliminated the dangerous elements of the Shinto-inspired Japanese terrorist fanaticism by mandating that the Emperor of Japan could no longer legally be declared a God. This along with Democracy helped create a new mindset for the Japanese people whereby the Emperor, and therefore the state, were no longer worth dying for.

These are the kinds of measures we ought to be using now. But, maybe the reason we are not using such measures is because we have designated this a "War on Terrorism" instead of a War on Islamofascism.

Am Islamofascist, or Islamist, is a person who desires to see Sharia implemented as the law of the land, throughout the world. An Islamofascist believes that violent Jihad is an acceptable, and potentially necessary means of establishing Sharia and Islamic supremacy.

If we clearly understood that such an ideology is our enemy, then there is no way we would allow "Islamists" to sit in the Iraqi coalition national government, and there is no way we would allow even the discussion of implementing Sharia as the law of the land in Iraq.

This is absurd. How can we allow this to happen?

Muslim Calls For Fatwa of
Excommunication for Osama Bin Laden

Mamoun Fandy is a senior fellow of Middle East and Islamic politics at Baker Institute at Rice University. Here, in an editorial from USA Today, he calls for Muslim clerics to issue a Fatwa of excommunication for Osama Bin Laden. From Jihad Watch:

The time has come to issue a fatwa to excommunicate Osama bin Laden and his followers from the world of Islam. In fact, as terrorism rages, we need a stream of solid counter-fatwas - legal pronouncements in Islam — from the Muslim community.

Thus far we have heard fatwas, such as the one issued last month by the Fiqh Council of North America, telling us that Islam does not condone violence or that Islam condemns these actions. These types of words are not enough. We need to move beyond abstract condemnations and actually exclude those who give Islam a bad name.

In the same spirit that bin Laden and his group label moderate Muslims as Western lackeys, it is time Muslim leaders pronounce bin Laden by name as non-Muslim.

That's right, excommunicate him.

A clear fatwa should come from the centers of theology in the Muslim world — from al-Azhar University, a prestigious school of Islamic law in Cairo, and from Mecca.

And if a mosque is used as a place to plan attacks or to shield the perpetrators, Muslims should withdraw the name of that mosque, meaning it can no longer serve its holy purpose. It has been desecrated by such evil. The terrorists of Leeds, Britain, allegedly cooked their plots to bomb London inside a mosque, putting signs outside the door that they were praying. Praying for what — for God or for Satan?

God said that those who spread destruction on earth should be punished and that their hands and legs should be cut off, a metaphor for the severity of the punishment. Yet some Muslims continue to cheer bin Laden. The unspoken message sent to him is that "you are doing to the West what we want done."

Now, this is what a real moderate Muslim looks like. Notice he says the violence in the Koran is a metaphor for the severity of the punishment. This is what we do in Judaism and Christianity.

Our Bible calls for homosexuals and adulterers to be stoned to death, but we do not do that. We no longer read such passages literally. Instead, we believe that these acts will be punished by God, as He sees fit. Because vengeance is His.

Thank you, Mr. Fandy. You are like water in a desert.

EU Commissioner Calls on Europeans to
Make More Babies

Thanks to PapiJoe at Marlowe's Shade for making me aware of this:

BRUSSELS, August 10, 2005 ( – A European Commissioner warned that the continent’s low birthrate is one of three most pressing issues facing the European Union.

“The collapse of social policies in support of working women and families has increased the burden on women, and contributed to the depression of fertility rates,” a press release from the office of the EU Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities stated.

At a conference organized by the Commission last month, Commissioner Vladimír Špidla warned, “Between now and 2030, a loss of 21 million people of working age, or 7% of the workforce, will see Europe's potential growth decline from 2% today to 1.5% as soon as 2015 and to as little as 1.25% in 2040.

“We must pull out all the stops to react to this,” Spidla emphasized. “Either we help out or we lose out.”

“Now is the time to act,” the Commission added. “There are just six years before 2011, when a sharp decline in the active working population (aged 15-64) will coincide with a significant rise in the number of over 65s.”

The conference was part of the Green Paper process, in which the European Commission opened up a public consultation, until October this year, entitled ‘Confronting demographic change: a new solidarity between the generations.’ The consultation is a response to Europe's demographic trends, which show people having fewer children and living longer, leading to fewer working age people and more elderly people to care for.

The Green Paper, released in March, warns that the fertility rate for all EU member countries is below that of replacement rate – 2.1 children per woman.

All right Gentlemen. Start your engines.

Guardian Gets Taken In By Second
Sweet-Talking Islamofascist In a Month

From Harry's Place:

Last January, the Guardian published an edited version of a speech attributed to Osama Bin Laden in the form of an opinion piece in its Comments section. This article was the source of some hilarity, as wits started to describe Osama Bin Laden as a "Guardian columnist".

Slightly less amusing was last month's "Aslam Affair", in which the Guardian published a series of articles by an activist in Hizb'ut Tahrir, a racist theocratic totalitarian political party.

(Pastorius note: Hizb'ut Tahrir was recently banned by the British government, as an organization which supported terrorism and preached Jihad.)

There were really two aspects to the Aslam Affair. The first was that Aslam's articles were in effect propaganda pieces for Hizb'ut Tahrir, but that the Guardian had not disclosed to their readership, Aslam's political activism. The second was that the Guardian clearly had little understanding of the nature of Hizb'ut Tahrir's politics.

Today's Comment piece by Sa’ad al-Fagih [sic] is, I think, a somewhat more worrying example of the Guardian's naiivity in the field of extremist Islamist politics. The essence of the article is that the United Kingdom government needs to change its policies as it is playing into the hands of al-Qaida.

What concerns me is this.

Sa’ad al-Faqih described in the footnote to the article as “a leading exiled Saudi dissident and director of the Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia”.

In fact Sa’ad al-Faqih is a little bit more than that.

Al-Faiqih seems to have bought the satellite phone which was used by one of the Al Qaeda suicide bombers who blew up the US embassy in Nairobi.

Sa'ad al-Faqih, was "designated" by the United States Treasury on December 21, 2004 and on 23 Dec 2004 was named on the United Nations 1267 Committee consolidated list of individuals belonging to or associated with the Al-Qaida organisation.

The list of damning evidence against Sa’ad al-Faqih is extensive. Go read the rest over at Harry's Place.

From what I can tell, the Guardian is the paper of record for the liberal end of the British political spectrum. Harry calls the Guardian naive here. Well, if they are naive, it means they don't know things that I do know.

Here's the thing, until 9/11, I was a typical dumb American. I played in rock bands, worked as a salesman, and hung out at the mall with my wife. Admittedly, in the past four years I have done quite a bit of research on the history of anti-Semitism and the Islamic Jihad. But somehow, it doesn't make sense to me that four years of study on my part should put me ahead of the Guardian (a world-class newspaper) on the knowledge curve.

Let's put it this way, the Guardian is either Liar, Lunatic or Stupid. In any of the three cases, they need to violently overhaul their editorial staff, or they need to put themselves out of our misery.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

In a television interview, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Hosein Musavian explains the art of negotiation to the Euros who have been attempting to block Iran's nuclear weapons development program:

There was a time when we said we would not work with Europe, the world, or the IAEA, and that we would not comply with any of their demands. There were very clear consequences: After 50 days, the IAEA Board of Governors would have undoubtedly handed the Iranian dossier over to the (U.N.) Security Council. There is no doubt about it. As for those who say we should have worked only with the IAEA – this would have meant depriving Iran of the opportunity to complete the Esfahan project in the one-year extension.

Esfahan’s (UCF) was completed during that year. Even in Natanz, we needed six to twelve months to complete the work on the centrifuges. Within that year, the Natanz project reached a stage where the small number of centrifuges required for the preliminary stage, could operate. In Esfahan, we have reached UF4 and UF6 production stages.

We suspended the UCF in Esfahan in October 2004, although we were required to do so in October 2003. If we had suspended it then, (the UCF) in Esfahan would have never been completed. Today we are in a position of power: (The UCF) in Esfahan is complete and UF4 and UF6 gasses are being produced. We have a stockpile of products, and during this period, we have managed to convert 36 tons of Yellow Cake into gas and store it. In Natanz, much of the work has been completed.

Thanks to our dealings with Europe, even when we got a 50-day ultimatum, we managed to continue the work for two years. This way we completed (the UCF) in Esfahan. This way we carried out the work to complete Natanz, and on top of that, we even gained benefits. For 10 years, America prevented Iran from joining the WTO. This obstacle was removed, and Iran began talks in order to join the WTO. In the past, the world did not accept Iran as a member of the group of countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. In these two years, and thanks to the Paris Agreement, we entered the international game of the nuclear fuel cycle, and Iran was recognized as one of the countries with a nuclear fuel cycle. An Iranian delegate even participated in the relevant talks. We gained other benefits during these two years as well.

You gotta love your enemies when they tell the truth. Thanks Hosein.

Go see the video of this interview over at LGF.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

London Telegraph Admits It

I'm sure a lot of what I post here at CUANAS must seem extreme. Well, one of the more extreme things I post on with frequency here is the fact that Iran wants to obliterate Israel. As in wipe them from the face of the map, possibly with nuclear weapons.

Yes, that sounds crazy. Who would think that a modern nation state would even consider using nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike against another state? Well, how about the London Telegraph:

Ever since its 1979 Islamic revolution the only fate Iran has had in mind for Israel has been simple: its destruction. Now that Teheran seems to be moving towards acquiring its own nuclear arsenal, its plans for its great enemy threaten to be both fiery and radioactive.

Sometimes Iran's stated policy towards Israel is couched in inflammatory rhetoric, like that on a 40ft banner that used to hang outside the entrance of the foreign ministry in Teheran bearing the message: "Israel Must Burn".

Sometimes the language is tamer, such as the "Down With Israel" chants of students who march after Friday prayers in Teheran week in, week out.

But whatever the tone, the message remains the same. The Jewish state has survived wars, internal upheaval, intifadas and bloody entanglements in the internal affairs of its neighbours. But now a major enemy, one committed to its annihilation, appears close to deploying the most destructive force known to Man.

"Having the ayatollah regime armed with nuclear weapons is an existential threat to the state of Israel," Mark Regev, senior spokeman at its foreign ministry, admitted grimly. "We take the issue extremely seriously.''

But while the danger Israel faces is clear, what it should do about the threat poses much more of a quandary.

Some Israelis cite the precedent of the 1981 unilateral Israeli airstrike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor. Israel, they argue, should do the same again and launch pre-emptive military attacks on Iran's growing nuclear infrastructure.

But Iran has developed its nuclear programme with such a scenario in mind. It has deliberately spread its facilities far and wide, using nine locations, according to one intelligence source.

And each facility is buried under tons of reinforced concrete, making it more difficult to destroy, even with the help of the BLU-109 "bunker-buster" bombs the US is selling its closest Middle Eastern ally.

Iran, moreover, is further away from Israel than Iraq, raising even greater doubts about the ability of the F15 and F16 planes Israel would use in any air raids to reach their target and then make it home without being refuelled.

And there is also the question of how the aircraft would get close enough to hit their targets. The US controls Iraqi airspace but it seems inconceivable that Washington would open it up to Israeli combat jets and tankers.

While the problems facing air strikes are significant, Israel's military nevertheless believes it has the means to cause serious damage to the Iranian nuclear capability.

Israel's cruise missiles, launched from planes or submarines, give the country a capability that it did not have in 1981 when it attacked the Iraqi reactor with a conventional bombing sortie.

"It's a bit more challenging in Iran but the military option remains a real one," said David Ivri, a retired Israeli air force officer who commanded Operation Opera, the attack on Iraq's reactor.

"After all, the aim would not be to neutralise the Iranian nuclear programme. That would be impossible. But what we could do is delay it considerably.

"That was our aim in Iraq and that is what we achieved - a very long delay.''

The calculation Israel must make is a simple one: when will Iran become a nuclear power?

The Iraq attack was launched only when Israel's intelligence concluded that Saddam Hussein's regime was within a year of producing its own nuclear weapons.

It also followed a lengthy diplomatic campaign by Israel to dissuade France from selling nuclear technology to Iraq. When that failed, Mossad agents blew up components due to be shipped to Iraq at a warehouse in France.

Only when it was clear that Iraq's nuclear programme continued did Operation Opera get the green light.

According to a senior figure in the Israeli Defence Force quoted in the Jerusalem Post, Iran will not be able to produce a nuclear bomb until 2008 at the earliest; 2012 is a more realistic date and experts believe that the current situation is insufficiently acute to warrant military action.

"The best-case scenario for Israel is that the negotiations between Iran and the European Union succeed," said Emily Landau, senior research associate at the Jaffee Centre for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv. "And at the moment that is still the most likely possibility.

"If you look at the wording of every statement by Iran, they sound defiant but always include some sort of reference to the talks and the possibility of some sort of new initiative. As long as this sort of language continues, then a full-blown crisis can be avoided."

This would suit Israel, which backs the negotiations and wants to avoid turning the current crisis into a row between Iran and itself.

As long as international negotiators are taking the lead, Israel is happy to stay on the sidelines.

And there is one important factor at play: it is one of the Middle East's worst kept secrets that Israel has the nuclear bomb. Iran certainly knows this and it will have a clear deterrent effect.

The result is that Israel might not need to take pre-emptive military action against Iran - if only because Teheran would never use a nuclear weapon against Israel for fear of itself being attacked, and annihilated, by the Jewish state's nuclear arsenal.

Don't count on that, buckaroo. One thing the Jihadis keep telling us over and over is they love to die in martyrdom for Allah. You know, because he's the greatest.

You know what? The fact that it is an open secret that Iran intends to destroy Israel is evidence of the general anti-Semitism of the West. What has Israel done to Iran? Nothing. Their hatred of Israel is 100% tribal, racist, nonsense. And yet the world is willing to ignore it.

If you were to ask anyone in the West, "Would we ignore a new Nazism were it to rise to power?" everyone shake their heads vigorously, "No, we would never allow that to happen again."

The truth is, not only would we allow it again, many of us would aid and abet such a force with our silence, and tacit agreement. Just like we did before.

Two Afghan schoolgirls pass by US soldiers standing guard with an armoured vehicle in a street of Kabul in July 2005. The US military signalled it plans to hand over responsibility for security across Afghanistan to NATO in 2006(AFP/File)
 Posted by Picasa

Brigitte Gabriel, Lebanese Christian

The Jihad Against Christians In Lebanon

From Front Page Magazine:

Frontpage Interview guest today is Brigitte Gabriel, a survivor of Islam's Jihad against Lebanese Christians. She is now an expert on the Middle East conflict who lectures nationally and internationally on the subject. She's the former news anchor of World News for Middle East television and the founder of

FP: First things first, tell us a bit about your background.

Gabriel: I was raised in the only Christian country in the Middle East, Lebanon. A lot of people think the Middle East has always been made up of Moslem countries. That is not true. There once were two non-Muslim countries in the Middle East. One is a Jewish state called Israel which is under attack for its existence today and the other was a Christian country called Lebanon now under a Moslem majority controlling influence.

When Lebanon got its independence from France in the 40's the majority of the population was Christian. We didn't have any enemies. We were merchant, descendents of the Phoenicians, strong in commerce in which we prospered. In no time Lebanon became the Paris of the Middle East the banking capital of the Middle East. We were the only westernized Arabic speaking country in the region.

Even though I was raised in a Christian country, it was still an Arabic country trying to please its neighbors, the Arab Muslims. Even the Christian private school I went to was effected. When we studied the Bible, we only studied the New Testament. I never saw the Old Testament or heard anything about it, because it was considered the enemy's bible. All I heard was Israel is Satan, Israel the devil, Israelis are demons, and they are the source of the problem in the Middle East. The Jews are evil, they are unstoppable and they want to control the world. I heard nothing but hatred toward the Jews.

FP: Can you expand a bit on some of the tragedy that befell your family? I am sorry that this is painful territory.

Gabriel: The Christians in Lebanon always had problems with the Moslems, but we never thought our neighbors would turn on us. That situation was aggravated by the influx of the Palestinians coming from Jordan after King Hussein kicked them out in Black September. That's what tipped the scale in Lebanon. Not only had Moslems become the majority but they now also felt empowered by the presence of the Palestinians and Yasser Arafat wanting to attack the Christians, take over Lebanon and use it as a base from which to attack Israel.

When the Moslems and Palestinians declared Jihad on the Christians in 1975 we didn't even know what that word meant. We had taken them into our country, allowed them to study side by side with us, in our schools and universities. We gave them jobs, shared with them our way of life. We didn't realize the depth of their hatred to us as infidels. They looked at us as the enemy not as neighbors, friends, employers and colleagues.

A lot of Muslims poured in from other Muslim countries like Iran -- the founder and supporter of Hezbollah, one of the leading terrorist organizations in the world today. They came from Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The Lebanese civil war was not between the Lebanese, it was a holy war declared on the Christians by the Muslims of the Middle East.

They started massacring the Christians, city after city. Horrific events the western media seldom reported. One of the most ghastly acts was the massacre in the Christian City of Damour where thousands of Christians were slaughtered like sheep.

The Muslims would enter a bomb shelter, see a mother and a father hiding with a little baby. They would tie one leg of the baby to the mother and one leg to the father and pulled the parents apart splitting the child in half.

A close friend of mine was mentally disturbed because they made her slaughter her own son in a chair. They tied her to a chair, tied a knife to her hand and holding her hand forcing her to cut her own son’s throat.

They would urinate and defecate on the altars of churches using the pages of the bible as toilet paper. They did so many things I don't need to go into any more detail. You get the picture.

Americans just don’t realize the viciousness of the Militant Islamic fundamentalist.

Posted by Picasa

Iran Threatens the U.S. With "Grave" Consequences

From the BBC, via the Astute Blogger:

Iran has warned it would be a "grave miscalculation" for the US and EU to refer Tehran to the UN Security Council over its nuclear programme.

The warning came after Iran broke UN seals at its nuclear plant at Isfahan, making it fully operational.

Iran's chief negotiator at the talks there said Tehran had an absolute right to produce nuclear fuel.

Cyrus Nasseri told the BBC's Newsnight programme that talks with the EU to continue a suspension of its uranium conversion work had broken down.

Dismissing the EU's proposals of economic and political concessions as a "package of lollipops", Mr Nasseri said: "We do not for the moment have much hope in the talks whether now or in the future."

"It is absolutely wrong to consider that only a few states in the world, the US and a few states in Europe, plus Russia, should have the exclusivity producing fuel."

The breaking of the seals at Isfahan took place under the supervision of the IAEA, which has installed equipment to monitor activity.

Mr Nasseri said: "I think that would be a grave miscalculation by the US and particularly by Europe to move towards the path of confrontation.

"There is no legal base whatsoever to go to the Security Council. If it is, it is by political choosing and it will be big, big mistake."

So, Iran is threatening the United States with war if we refer them to the dreaded Security Council. Iran is so insistent on it's sovereignty in this situation that they are unwilling to have the United Nations, an organization famous for it's lack of teeth, consider the problem. Instead "grave" consequences lie ahead for the United States, if we even go the diplomatic route.

We'd better just shut up, put our hands in our lap, and do as we're told then.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Oh Yeah?
Well We'll Just Shoot 6001 Right Back At You,
So There

Here's a little blast from CUANAS past (circa May 26, 2004):

Those Iranian Government officials must be watching the WWE for lessons in diplo-speak. Jeez, check this out from Michael Ledeen at National Review:

Meet Hassan Abbasi, a well-known Iranian political scientist, longtime top official of the Revolutionary Guards, and currently "theoretician" in the office of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (how does one get a job description like that, I wonder) and the head of the National Security and Strategic Research Center. Abbasi holds special responsibility for North American affairs.

That would be us 'murikins, for those of you keeping score at home.

Apparently morale is very low in the ranks of the Basij, the group of fanatical thugs that do the regime's dirty work in the streets, things like beating up women whose scarves show too much hair, rounding up student protesters, and so forth. Friends of mine in Iran tell me that Basiji are becoming convinced that the regime's days are numbered, and they are understandably discouraged.

... last Sunday, Abbasi set out to restore the Basiji's enthusiasm for the Islamic Revolution. Speaking at the Technical College of Tehran, he made some amazing statements.

"The infidels — Western countries and America — are the sworn enemies of God and Muslems and any action taken to terrorize them or frighten them is considered holy and a source of pride." Abbasi went on, "Lebanese Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas have all been trained by these hands," that is, Iranian hands.

Thus far, the usual jihadist rhetoric, although the specific confirmation of Iran's intimate links to three of the world's most lethal terrorist organizations was a bit unusual. But then he went on with a megalomanical vision that bears some attention.

"We intend to withdraw $53 billion of Iranian and Arab investments from the U.S.A. and thus cause instability [in] its economy, we take pride that our actions have brought 1/9 of the budget deficit in America's economy this year and we shall keep up with our economic actions."

The claim to have caused nearly ten percent of the American deficit probably refers to the rise in oil prices. But this was only the beginning of his promise to bring America to its knees.

"We have identified some 29 weak points for attacks in the U.S. and in the West, we intend to explode some 6,000 American atomic warheads, we have shared our intelligence with other guerilla groups and we shall utilize them as well. We have set up a department to cover England and we have had discussions regarding them[;] we have contacted the Mexicans and the Argentineans and will work with anyone who has an axe to grind with America."

...when an official as authoritative as Abbasi tells the regime's loyalists in a closed meeting that Iran is sabotaging our economy and organizing terrorist attacks on our territory, you can take that to the bank.

Sooner or later we will be forced to fight back against the mullahs, because their war against us is driven by fanatical hatred of everything we stand for and the knowledge that their regime is doomed if we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is no escape from this war, whatever the appeasers in Foggy Bottom may think. We can win or lose, but we can't get out of it.

The claim that he has six-thousand nuclear warheads might sound preposterous, but I started getting really, really scared when I heard that he actually pronounced the word nuclear correctly.

Ok, back to present-day CUANAS. The fact that Mr. Abbasi was so specific as to the number of targets would indicate their might be something real about this threat. I joked about it in the original post not because I didn't think it was important to take his words into consideration, but because clearly there is a lot of bluster going on.

Now, in light of the more contemporary "American Hirsoshima" threat, this threat from the leadership of Iran should be taken even more seriously.

Holocaust As Rave Party

I've often compared Europe's plummets into the dungeon of Jew-hatred to drunken binges and filth-ridden orgies, so why not the Holocaust as the ultimate Rave Party?:

PARIS - An Internet film clip that depicts the Auschwitz death camp as a rave party drew sharp criticism from a leading Jewish rights group Wednesday, which urged authorities to order the film to be removed from several European Web sites.

The 3-minute video depicts SS soldiers as DJs and flashes offensive messages over images of concentration camp victims. The video alternates black-and-white photos of Holocaust atrocities with color images of youths partying at an open-air rave.

Jaroslaw Mensfeld, a spokesman for the Auschwitz Museum, said he was "absolutely shocked." Some 1.5 million people, mostly Jews, were killed at the Nazi camp during World War II.

"I don't understand how a person can make such a movie," he said.

The film is currently posted on a Dutch Web site, two sites in Poland and has inspired concerts in Belgium, the Wiesenthal Center said.

The Dutch Complaints Bureau for Discrimination on the Internet, acting on a complaint it received six weeks ago, had the film pulled from three Web sites.

The complaints bureau determined the film was "illegal" and that it "trivialized and defamed" victims of the Holocaust, it said in a statement Wednesday.

One Dutch site still posting the film says it's doing nothing wrong and won't remove the clip, which it says was made by a Dutch student.

You gotta love it when your enemies tell you exactly who they are.

Because They Are A Sovereign Nation

Iran will break the UN seals on their atomic plant. From Reuters:

VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran began breaking U.N. seals at a uranium processing plant on Wednesday, U.N. and Iranian officials said, a step on the road to production of enriched uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons.

"They have begun breaking the seals," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.

"They are going to break all the seals and begin operating the plant in full."

As Iran prepared to restart the sensitive sections of the plant at Isfahan, the European Union's three biggest powers tried to persuade the 35-member board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to warn Tehran to stop the work.

Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

The U.N. watchdog put on the seals after Tehran agreed with Britain, Germany and France to suspend all nuclear fuel work last November to ease tensions after the IAEA found Iran had hidden weapons-grade highly enriched uranium.

Earlier this week, Iran restarted work at less sensitive, unsealed areas of the plant after rejecting a package of economic and political incentives from the EU3 to give up its nuclear program.

IAEA officials agreed Tehran's request to remove the seals after installing surveillance cameras to ensure no uranium is shifted away from the plant for any covert weapons work.

Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, confirmed on Wednesday that the removal had begun.

Under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran has signed, Tehran may process and enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But the EU3 say the only way to prove peaceful intentions is to renounce all sensitive technologies.


The German government said Iran had rejected the EU3's incentives after only "brief and superficial review" and appealed to Tehran to take the "sensible path" and look at the proposals again.

"We appeal urgently to the Iranian side to return to the status quo ante, to a full suspension of all enrichment-relevant activities," a government spokesman said.

The IAEA board convened an emergency meeting on Tuesday but quickly adjourned to give the trio time to negotiate with other key members of the 35-nation board about the text of an IAEA resolution urging Iran to immediately resume the suspension.

One EU diplomat said that the United States, Russia and China and the other Western countries on the IAEA board all supported its toughly-word draft resolution, but developing countries like India, Brazil and others opposed it.

"The non-aligned countries don't want a resolution at all but we're meeting with them today and will make it clear that they're a minority," the diplomat told Reuters. "I think they'll give in. We're quite firm on the need for a resolution."

Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Oh Yeah? How 'boutcha Other Fatwa?

The United American Commitee didn't take to kindly to the recent Muslim Fatwa condemning terrorism, especially since a UAC member had recently had another Fatwa issued calling for his death:

“These groups are only deceiving America, they fail to mention any terrorists or terror groups by name, they merely state that they do not condone the unjust killing of the innocent, or civilians.” remarks U.A.C. chairman Jesse Petrilla, “non-believers are not innocent according to Islamic law, and we are not civilians according to Islamic jihad, we are the enemy, and according to Islamic extremists, our killing is not unjustified.”

One of the groups tied to the fatwa against terror was the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). The Untied American Committee adamantly objects to a statement made by one of MPACs founding members, Dr. Maher Hathout of Egypt, a U.S. citizen. In that statement he essentially issued a fatwa of death against a Los Angeles homeless activist by the name of Ted Hayes.

“As long as they’re talking about fatwas, what about the fatwa on my life?” says Hayes, whose outspoken opinions against Islamic extremism have gained him friends and foes alike. “How can these groups issue a fatwa against terrorism and extremism, yet their members issue other fatwas which seem to support terrorism and extremism?”

Mr. Hayes is still waiting for an answer on that question.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

Our enemies are out in force, giving us their thoughts, and letting us know exactly what they intend to do to us. From Jihad Watch:

The following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese researcher Anis Al-Naqqash, which aired on Al-Manar TV on August 3, 2005...

Al-Naqqash: The claims about Islam's renunciation of violence are meaningless, unfounded, and illogical. Why? Because Islam is one of the greatest advocates of violence, when violence is warranted, and one of the greatest advocates of peace and compassion, when compassion is warranted.

Islam is the religion of life in general, and not a blind religion. Islam does not surrender to foreign aggression. So stating categorically that Islam is a religion of love that rejects violence – This is a big lie. "Take them and kill them wherever you find them." This is taken from the words of Allah (the Koran). About whom? About Allah's enemies.

This is violence.

Yeah Anis, I agree. That is violence. No argument from me on that.

And then there's this, about Omar Bakri Mohammed, who just two days ago fled Britain in lieu of his probable deportation for inciting Jihadi violence against British citizens:

Omar Bakri Mohammed, one of the Islamic extremists who faces possible treason charges over support for the London bombers, plans to come back to Britain after leaving at the weekend, he has said....

"I am going to return back in four weeks unless the Government say we are not welcome, because my family is in the UK.

"I left by my own passport. I do not think I will have any problem returning back to the UK but I do not want the Government to use the presence of Omar Bakri to change the rules."

He said he believed the Government was using him to put pressure on the Muslim community.

He added: "I wish for the British people to think about Islam. I wish as well that this Government will go back to its own sense, not changing its values because they do not know who committed the bombings in London."

Bakri denied he had called the July 7 bombers the "fantastic four" and said he condemned the atrocity.

"I never, ever spoke about the bombings in London. Fantastic Four is a film, nothing to do with the bombings. I never, ever talked about the bombings except to condemn the killing of innocent people."

The radical cleric sparked outrage last week when he said he would not inform police if he knew Muslims were planning a bomb attack on a train in the UK and supported Muslims who attacked British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Asked whether he would inform police if he knew a Muslim was planning to commit a crime, he said his faith does not allow him to do so.

"I will never report to the police any Muslim because Islam forbids me. Definitely I would stop him whatever the cost, even if it cost me my life. That is my duty as a Muslim.

"My religion forbids me to report a Muslim to the British police.

"I believe Islam is superior and nothing supersedes it but we can live with you in harmony," he said.

See what I mean? You just gotta love it when your enemies tell you the truth.

The Verse That Killed The Entire Fatwa

One Koranic verse that I have often heard quoted which gives me much comfort and hope for the future of Islam is “Whoever kills a person it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind."

This Koranic verse was quoted in the recent Fatwa condemning suicide bombing which was released by the Fiqh Council and endorsed by CAIR. This verse was, I'm sure, the reason many of us were initially impressed by the Fatwa.

The verse, as it stands, really is very beautiful. It reminds me of the New Testament passage where when Jesus tells the crowd, "Love your neighbor," the Pharisee asks Christ, "Who is my neighbor?" in the hopes that he would get a complex answer which would mitigate the saying. But instead, Christ turns it around on him by relating the story of the Good Samaritan; the point being that we don't choose who our neighbors are, and it is our responsibility to be good neighbors to all those around us, no matter what race or creed.

Of course, the legitimacy of the Fatwa unraveled as we learned of the terrorists ties of many of the twenty signatories. But, now comes information that it seems there is reason to fear the use of this verse itself. From Ilana Mercer in Front Page Magazine:

Prompted by Dr. Daniel Pipes, I examined the context of the passage in The Meaning of the Qur’an by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, only to find that the FCNA has “decontextualized” it. The Qur’an actually says the following:

“On that account: We ordained
For the Children of Israel
That if anyone slew
A person—unless it be
For murder or for spreading
Mischief in the land—
It would be as if
He slew the whole people:
And if anyone saved a life,
It would be as if he saved
The life of the whole people.
Then although there came
To them Our Messenger
With Clear Signs, yet,
Even after that, many
Of them continued to commit
Excess in the land.”

The verse apparently concerns the dread-Jew. At the very least it’s fair to say this Quranic ayah is considerably less humanistic and universal than the Council claims. “Spreading mischief,” whatever that entails, qualifies as a reason to slay a person. Unjust killing is clearly not too circumscribed an activity. The Fatwa finesses the original words—and their context.

Devoid of the killing component, the Talmudic version simply and unequivocally states that, “To save one life is like saving the world." Contrary to the Quranic Ayah, it doesn’t whittle down humanity.

The real issue here is this: whatever ancient Jewish or Church teachings may have preached, the modern nation-states dominated by Jews and Christians (believers and non-believers) follow the rule of enlightened Western law. It’s indeed possible there are sadistic Americans and Israelis who’d like to put apostates and blasphemers to death, genitally mutilate little girls, amputate the hands of thieves, beat their wives with impunity, stone women for committing adultery (the definition of which includes rape) and homosexuals for sodomy, or consider the testimony of a non-Jewish or Christian male to be worth half that of a Jewish or Christian male (women witnesses are similarly weighted in Islam). But they can’t. Or if they did, they’d be punished. Western law won’t countenance such cruelty.

Not so the law in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or in other Muslim countries where the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (Shari’a) are law. Yet the Fiqh Council assures us that the Qur'an embraces humanity. Even more ironic: in the process of persuasion, the Islamic community’s professed front men find the need to fib about what the Qur’an really says.

Monday, August 08, 2005

Given Over To Depravity

Fjordman and PapiJoe, from Marlowe's Shade, look at the apparent death wish of the West, and ask some profound questions. First, Fjordman:

Do we need God? I am not a religious person, and I used to be almost hostile of Christianity. My views have slowly softened quite a lot, especially after I started reading about Islam. I notice Christianity is spreading in China at a time the country is booming (the same for South Korea), and is weak in Europe, a continent and a civilization that seems to be on its deathbed. Tiny, Jewish Israel has managed to stave off repeated Islamic attacks for decades.

I remember an article I posted before:

The Spiritual Malaise That Haunts Europe

Europe is depopulating itself in numbers greater than at any time since the Black Death of the 14th century. When an entire continent, healthier, wealthier and more secure than ever before, fails to create the human future in the most elemental sense — by creating the next generation — something serious is afoot.

Demographic vacuums don't stay vacuums; they get filled — in Europe's case, by Islamic immigrants.

Europe's effort to create a tolerant, civil, democratic civilization by cutting itself off from one of that civilization's sources — Jewish and Christian convictions about the dignity of the person — is likely to fail.

Is our lack of religion the reason for our indecisiveness and difficulty in seeing right from wrong?

PapiJoe considers the same problem, and shows us where, if not corrected, this will inevitably lead:

A strong case can be made that Europe is losing its ability to thrive, not only culturally, but even biologically. And the US doesn't seem to be too far behind. What could be causing this existential free-fall?

Spengler has been harping on this theme for a while now, and this time he's put some numbers together to back up his assertion that secular populations inevitably dwindle. He sees the predominance of atheism and relativistic values as a primary cause, and I tend to agree.

But European culture has taken a turn for the macabre that goes beyond sterile secularism.

Eight years ago it was reported that 8% of
infant deaths in Holland were due to lethal injection, long before the Groningen Protocols were suggested. While some in Europe still have the capacity to be shocked by infanticide, the Dutch don't seem to be among them. And there is no rational explanation for this recent horror in a French morgue.

If the reader will recall, there was a different kind of outrage that took place in France's morgues two years ago, when the cadavers of the elderly piled up, victims of a brutal heat wave. The
problem was the younger relatives of the deceased that were unwilling to interrupt their lengthy summer vacations to claim the bodies.

Spengler has pointed out that the failure of Europeans to maintain steady population levels is due to a resistance to the self-sacrifice required to give birth to and raise children.

I think it's fair to say that secular Europe has become a
cult of self in the spiritual vacuum its thought leaders have created.

What's difficult to connect is how this culture of
malignant narcissism morphs into morbid symptoms such as euthanasia, infanticide, anti-Semitism and self-loathing.

I propose that there is a death-urge in operation in Europe and in the leftist elite of the US. It is somewhat similar to Freud's concept of Thanatos, but I don't agree with his Buddhist-like conception of it balancing the sex drive.

Outside of a Judeo-Christian ethical system, it is certainly difficult to explain the connection of the death-urge to narcissism. These traditional values focused the individual not on oneself but directed one's service to others, and devotion to God. Anything else fell under a rubric that more than ever is an object of the world's ridicule, that of sin.

And as outdated as this concept is considered, it does directly address the madness that is gripping the West: "The wages of sin is death..."

Yes, and here's another verse which indicates that such depravity is inevitable in a society which does not acknowledge God:

Since they didn't bother to acknowledge God, God quit bothering them and let them run loose. And then all hell broke loose: rampant evil, grabbing and grasping, vicious backstabbing.

They made life hell on earth with their envy, wanton killing, bickering, and cheating. Look at them: mean-spirited, venomous, fork-tongued God-bashers. Bullies, swaggerers, insufferable windbags! They keep inventing new ways of wrecking lives.

They ditch their parents when they get in the way. Stupid, slimy, cruel, cold-blooded. And it's not as if they don't know better. They know perfectly well they're spitting in God's face. And they don't care--worse, they hand out prizes to those who do the worst things best!