Saturday, September 10, 2005


Never Forget September 11th Posted by Picasa

I'm Only Talking About Shaq


That Shaq is one good mother... :


MIAMI - Sweat dripping from his head as he worked in the midday South Florida sun, Shaquille O'Neal loaded the last item into a cavernous 18-wheel trailer and pointed to the generous stranger.

"Give the man a hug," he urged his children, who quickly obliged. "Tell him thank you."

For the last week, O'Neal and his wife have coordinated efforts to help those in Louisiana and Mississippi whose lives were ripped apart by Hurricane Katrina. And Saturday, O'Neal was on the front line, personally accepting medical items, toiletries, clothes and other items from those inclined to help.

The tractor-trailers hired by the O'Neal family are expected to begin rolling Tuesday toward Baton Rouge, La. — where O'Neal, the Miami Heat center, attended LSU.

"I commend everybody who's helping out in some way," O'Neal said. "Whether it's monetarily or going to the stores and buying cases of water, bundles of ice ... there's a lot of people chipping in, and my hat goes off to every American and non-American that's helping."

"I'm just doing what I've been taught by my parents to do," O'Neal said. "This is the right thing to do, and I'm trying to urge other people to do it."


Gee, Pastorius, that's nice and all, but why are you posting about this on CUANAS?

Well, I'm glad you asked. The reason is because Shaquille O'Neal is a Muslim.

He's a Muslim who helps people when they need help. When God's people need to be fed, Shaq feeds them. When God's people are thirsty, Shaq will bring them water. When God's people are tired and cold, Shaq will clothe them and give them a place to stay.

He doesn't confine his charity work to fellow Muslims. He helps "the least of these."

Jesus said that when you feed his people like this, it is as if you have fed Him.

Shaq seems like a righteous man to me.

Peaceful State Watch


It looks like my predictions are coming true. Israel tells Gaza, "No attacks, and we mean it":


JERUSALEM - Israel threatened Saturday to deliver an unprecedentedly harsh response to any attacks from Gaza after Israeli troops quit the territory next week and hand it over to the Palestinians.

Egypt, meanwhile, deployed the first of 750 soldiers assigned to police the volatile Gaza border to prevent arms smuggling and illicit crossings after the Israelis end their 38-year occupation.

"An hour after we leave the field, there will be a strategic change ... in the nature of our response to even an attempt at terror," Maj. Gen. Yisrael Ziv, the military's chief of operations, told Israel Radio. "We shall have a far more extreme reaction to any attempt."


I just hope the Palestinians (known as the people who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity) will miss this opportunity to get their asses kicked.

Build a state, please. Build a constitutional government, with modern human rights provisions. Build businesses. Build schools. Build friendships. Please build.

They Did What? To Her Clitoris?
With a Dull Blade and No Anaethesia?


Good news. In Denmark, Islamic Imams are calling for a ban on Female Genital Mutilation. From Fjordman:


Circumcising girls should be prohibited, says a group of prominent Danish imams. The imams stated in their declaration that circumcision is a cultural practice - not a religious one - and can and should be avoided, reported daily newspaper Information on Friday.

The declaration was signed by Abdul Wahid Pedersen, Mohammed Fouad al-Barazi, Ahmed Abu-Laban, Fatih Alev, Abu-Bakar Nur Shirwa, and Adan Yusuf Qanyare. Al-Barzi's status as a prominent Islamic clergyman lent authority to the statement.

'No forms of circumcision of women are required or customary for Muslims, and Danish law prohibits any form of female circumcision - regardless of whether it takes place in Denmark or outside of the country - therefore we recommend that circumcision of girls in all its forms is stopped,' the imams wrote in their declaration.

How many girls in Denmark have been circumcised is unknown, but according to the World Health Organisation, the practice is slowly on the rise internationally.


But, it seems the Danish Imams are swimming upstream because the sacred Hadiths call for female circumcision. Therefore, in Egypt, Doctors are proposing a "moderate" of mutilation. From the Fatwa Bank, via Fjordman:


Islamic Ruling on Female Circumcision

Actually, this is a controversial issue among jurists and even among doctors. It has sparked off fierce debate in Egypt whereby scholars and doctors are split into proponents and opponents.

However, the most moderate opinion and the most likely one to be correct is in favor of practicing circumcision in the moderate Islamic way indicated in some of the Prophet's hadiths – even though such hadiths are not confirmed to be authentic.

It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said to a midwife: "Reduce the size of the clitoris but do not exceed the limit, for that is better for her health and is preferred by husbands".

The hadith indicates that circumcision is better for a woman's health and it enhances her conjugal relation with her husband. It’s noteworthy that the Prophet's saying "do not exceed the limit" means do not totally remove the clitoris.

Actually, Muslim countries differ over the issue of female circumcision; some countries sanction it whereas others do not. Anyhow, it is not obligatory, whoever finds it serving the interest of his daughters should do it, and I personally support this under the current circumstances in the modern world. But whoever chooses not to do it is not considered to have committed a sin for it is mainly meant to dignify women as held by scholars.


The Imam at Fatwa Bank is kind of up in the air on the issue, isn't he? Do it if you want, or not if you don't want to. He's like a relativist - about mutilation.

Great.

Anyway, this is all a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, because the reality is Female Genital Mutilation is on the rise throughout Europe:


Young girls born in Europe to immigrant families from Africa are being subjected to ritual genital mutilation, and authorities are doing little to discourage it, a leading women’s rights activist warned.

Somalia-born supermodel and best-selling author Waris Dirie, who has campaigned to end the disfiguring practice she suffered at age five in her homeland, said yesterday that she estimates one in every three African families living in Europe is secretly carrying out the ritual on their daughters. No official figures exist.

The procedure – illegal in most European countries – is especially prevalent in Germany and the Netherlands, as well as in Austria, where an estimated 8,000 girls born into immigrant families have been affected, Dirie said.

“We don’t know who’s doing it and where,” because there are few initiatives to prevent it or to encourage doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers and others to report suspected cases, Dirie said. An exception is France, where there is strong awareness and education, she said.

“What good is a law if no one is paying attention?” Dirie told reporters in Austria, where she was being honoured yesterday by a Roman Catholic men’s movement for her efforts to stop the practice.

Islamic religious leaders are telling Europe’s Muslim Africans that the prophets recommend the ancient ritual, which involves the removal of the clitoris, often with a dull blade and no anaesthesia, Dirie said.

“That is a catastrophe,” she said. “Every imam who is not actively against genital mutilation is guilty. Mutilation is not a tradition – it’s a crime that must be abolished.”


Islam, as practiced, enslaves and mutilates women. There is no room for this in the world. We need to rid the world of Imams who preach this madness.

Friday, September 09, 2005

The Grand Vision Of
The War On Terror Part III


Part III is posted over at The Internet Journal of Public Policy.

Hope you like it.

Will The Christian Lambs Lay Down For the Lions?


Pamela at Atlas Shrugs has been tearing it up recently. She is one of the best bloggers on the internet, and has the best-looking blog around.

I am particularly appreciative of the work she is doing to bring awareness to the fact that Islamic radicals have have been going on rampages against Christians recently, which have been almost as bad as their campaign against the Jews.

Here's the news from the Peaceful State of Palestine:


Christians in the Holy Land have handed a dossier detailing incidents of violence and intimidation by Muslim extremists to church leaders in Jerusalem, one of whom said it was time for Christians to "raise our voices" against the sectarian violence.

The dossier includes 93 alleged incidents of abuse by an "Islamic fundamentalist mafia" against Palestinian Christians, who accused the PA of doing nothing to stop the attacks.

The dossier also includes a list of 140 cases of apparent land theft, in which Christians in the West Bank were allegedly forced off their land by gangs backed by corrupt judicial officials.

A spokesman for the Apostolic Delegate, the Pope's envoy to Jerusalem, said nothing had been done to tackle the problem despite repeated appeals to the PA to rein in Muslim gangs. The dossier currently in church hands details far worse allegations of violence, notably the torture and murder of two Christian girls in 2003. (Telegraph-UK)


But wait, there's more:



A Muslim mob converged on the Palestinian Christian town of Taibeh, burning and looting 13 homes owned by relatives of a man suspected of having an affair and impregnating a 30 year old Muslim woman who worked for him. Prior to the mob attack, in yet another suspected "honor killing," the pregnant woman, Hiyam Ajaj, was found dead from poison.

Lara Sukhtian, of the Associated Press (AP), has written a compelling article about the incident that included context regarding Muslim-Christian tensions, as well as the disturbing practice of "honor killing" among both Muslim and Christian Arabs. While I understand that coverage of the massive Hurricane Katrina relief effort has appropriately bumped many other news items, this compelling story is of particular interest to Christians and women's rights advocates, as well as the general public.

In contrast to the dwindling population of Christians in the PA territories -- as well as surrounding Muslim countries -- Israel's Christian population is vibrant and growing.



Radical Islam has seized the reins of power in much of the Muslim world. They are at war with us. We must realize the truth of this. Radical Muslim ideology and government controls the counries of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the Sudan, Niger, and to a lesser extent, United Arab Emirates, and Egypt.

That's a lot of countries and a lot of people. And they want to bring down Western Civilization and replace it with an Islamic Caliphate.

We need to shake ourselves awake and start really fighting. We could lose all of this, my friends.

As we approach 9/11 we must realize that the message they sent us was that they will do anything they can to kill as many of us as they possibly can. Think about what that means in a world where a single weapon can wipe out a city.

We need to wake up.


These are the flags of a few Islamic countries. Note the crescent, which is the symbol of Islam, just as the cross is the symbol of Christianity. Posted by Picasa




Say No To "The Crescent of Embrace"

This is the design for the memorial to commemorate the the crash of United Air Lines Flight 93 in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001. It is entitled "The Crescent of Embrace."

UAL Flight 93 was the flight where American hero Todd Beamer and his fellow heroes stormed the cockpit and took the plane down, saving countless American lives.

We don't need hugs, from a crescent of embrace, or anything else, to commemorate such heroism. We need to celebrate the lives of our brothers and sisters.

The architects who designed the "memorial" actually sound as if they are sincere. But, at best, their sincerity has led them to create a completely inappropriate, and downright offensive design.

The people who were killed on 9/11 were killed in the name of Islam. To erect a "memorial" commemorating those who were murdered which features the symbol of the ideology of the murderers, is akin to erecting a memorial to the Holocaust which features a Swastika.

Let me be clear. I do not think all Muslims are evil, nor is all of Islam evil. However, as I said, the murders of 9/11 were committed in the name of Islam. The last thing we want to remind ourselves of when honoring our dead is the ideology of the those who murdered our brothers and sisters.

I want to vomit when I think of this travesty of a memorial. We can not allow this to happen. Do we really want to allow our civilization to drown itself in Ophelia's tears?

Enough of feeling sorry and sad. We need to be angry. We need to fight for the beautiful civilization we created.


UPDATE: My friend at Always On Watch just emailed me this poem, written by one of her high school students. This kid's thoughts put the the sentimentality of the "adult" memorial to shame:


What Dreams May Come

Early to rise,
Early to bed,
For yearsHistory has repeated itself.

Day and night,
Night and day,
The world keeps turning
Like a needle on a broken record.

Over the years,
the record has a few scratches.
And one scratch is
Enough to stop the music-

On this day a shout came from many people-

People who would get up,
have their coffee,
Read the newspaper,
and go to work,

But this time all eyes are on those who shouted-
Shouted-
This is not a dream.

Those people died.
This is real smoke-
On this day all schooling stopped.
All roads to Washington are closed.

As the families of those who died
Watched in horror as this
News was being repeated
Like a broken record on the television,

All hope was lost.
Nothing ran through their minds
Except that family member,
That empty chair,
The kiss or hug before their spouse,
son, or daughter went to work.

To those who lost someone important to them-
On this day the world stopped.

What of them?
What dreams may come for them?
I pray and hope for comforting dreams,
Dreams of happiness and love.

For the bodies of the lost loved ones may be here,
But their souls are up there,
Walking on the streets of gold
And sitting at the right hand of God.
They will be watching,
And hoping for dreams that are magical.

To those who came to destroy
The freedom of America-
Our freedom cannot be destroyed!
Every time an attempt or an attack is made,

People from all over the world unite
To help fight for freedom
and destroy the C.A.I.R.ing system that hates
Everything we are and do.

God is on our side,
And the American dream still lives.


See, the kid gets it. A child is needed to lead us. Although, I must say, I have a feeling this child is more of a man, than the appeasing, sobbing, crying weasels who would think a "crescent of embrace" is an appropriate "memorial."

This kids poem has REALITY in it. It is not sentimental. It talks about the ways things happened, the loss people felt, their prayers for their lost loved ones, the faith they wield.

The "crescent of embrace" is a sentimental, maudlin, syrupy, flight into mystic emotionalism. A society which becomes mystic in it's approach to daily life is a decadent society.

We need to be real. We need to feel the punch in the face of reality. The crunch of our teeth. We need the kick in the gut, to have the wind knocked out of us, so that we are gasping for breath.

Gasping for life itself.

We need to cry out, "We don't want to die. We want to live."

And then, we need to kick some ass.

"LET'S ROLL."


UPDATE II: You can email the architect who designed this "memorial" at paul@paulmurdocharchitects.com.

Please be polite, but please be explicit in your disapproval of his work. Mr. Murdoch seems like he might be a good and sincere person, but what he has created is a travesty.

Here's what I sent:

Mr. Murdoch,
You seem like a good and sincere person who genuninely wanted to create a memorial honoring the dead of UAL 93. However, what you have created is a travesty.

There are many good Muslims who practice a moderate form of Islam. But, the people who were murdered on September 11th, 2001 were murdered in the name of Islam. And the crescent is the symbol of Islam just as surely as the cross is the symbol of Christianity.

To erect a memorial in honor of those murdered which features a crescent, is akin to erecting a memorial to the Crusades which features a cross, or to erecting a memorial to the Holocaust which features a swastika.

Please do everything in your power to see that your creation is not used.

Sincerely,

Pastorius
Chistians United Against the New Anti-Semitism
http://www.cuanas.blogspot.com/


My friend Always on Watch checked in with her email to the people at Paul Murdoch Architects:

Dear Mr. Murdoch,
Using the crescent, the symbol of Islam, is an unacceptable theme for a memorial to Americans who may have saved one of our nation's landmarks. By using the symbol, you are giving tacit support of radical Islam, the ideology which perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.

Furthermore, use of the crescent desecrates the memory of those American patriots who died in the service of this nation.

Two years ago, I personally visited the Shanksville site. I was so moved by the impromptu tributes there! Even the grafitti in the portable toilet honored those patriots aboard Flight 93. This site in Shanksville deserves a better tribute than the symbol you are proposing.

If you persist in using the crescent design, you will have, in effect, placed the equivalent of a swastika at Auschwitz. Would you do such an insensitive thing? Worse, would you so glorify the hate-filled ideology responsible for the slaughter of millions?

Be an American, sir! Do not use the crescent as a theme for the Flight 93 Memorial!

Posted by Picasa

Thursday, September 08, 2005

The Grand Vision Of
The War On Terror, Part II
The Homoerotic Cult of Islamofascism


Jamie Glazov interviews Ralph Peters about his view of the overarching strategy, possibilities, and meaning of the War on Terror. When we left off yesterday, Peters was discussing the abuse and enslavement of women in the Islamic world, and the cultural weakness which it reveals. From Front Page Magazine:
Peters: Now, I realize this isn't the sort of thing most people consider as a strategic factor, but I am thoroughly convinced that the one foolproof test for whether or not a society has any hope of making it in the 21st century is its treatment of women. Where women are partners, societies take off--as ours has done for this reason and others. Where women are property, there's simply no hope of a competitive performance.

In the collective culture of the Middle East, we're dealing with a deeply neurotic, if not outright psychotic civilization. I wish I could be more positive. But the average Middle Eastern male just has snakes in his head. And, by the way, the place isn't much fun, either. A mega-mall or two does not make a civilization.

FP: You make the observation that “Islam produced a strain of violent homoeroticism that reaches into al-Qaeda and beyond.” Please expand on this reality a bit for us.

Peters: Another issue "sober" Washington wouldn't consider as a strategic concern, but this ties in with the fear of and disdain for women. If you read the notes and papers they left behind, it's evident that the hijackers of 9/11 were a boy's club with strong homoerotic tendencies.
Read Mohammed Atta's lunatic note describing how women must be kept away from his funeral to avoid polluting his grave. Does that sound like a guy with a happy dating history?
Of course, sex between men and boys is a long tradition from North Africa through Afghanistan (fear of women always leads to an excessive fixation on female virginity--so she won't know her husband's inadequate--as well as homoerotic undercurrents).

They don't talk about it, of course--it's supposed to be anathema--but very few Middle Eastern mothers would trust their good-looking young sons around many adult males. This has deep roots, right back to the celebrations of the Emperor Babur's fixation on a pretty boy in the Baburnama. And the related dread of the female as literal femme fatale, as vixen, as betrayer, appears in much of the major literature--especially the "Thousand and One Arabian Nights," which, in its unabridged, unexpurgated version, is one long chronicle of supposed female wantonness and insatiability (the men are always innocent victims of Eve).

Pretty hard for the president to work this into a State of the Union message, but I'm convinced that sexual dysfunction is at the core of the Middle East's sickness--and it's certainly sick.
Nothing about our civilization so threatens the males of the Middle East as the North American career woman making her own money and her own decisions. We don't think of it this way, but from one perspective the best symbols of the War on Terror would be the Islamic veil versus the two-piece woman's business suit.

There is no abyss more unbridgeable between our civilizations than that created by our respect for women and the Islamic disdain for the female. There are many aspects of our magnificent civilization that threaten traditional, backward societies, but nothing worries them so much as the independence of the Western woman--not that they approve of freedom of any kind.
This may sound extreme, but I have repeatedly come across stories over the past few years - written or related by Arabs who have left Islam - which make the same claims about the homoerotic nature of Islamofascistic society. For instance, here is one such article by Physllis Chesler, wherein she discusses the stories of various ex-Muslims:
... a crucial question must be asked: from a psychological and anthropological point of view, what kind of culture produces human bombs, glorifies mass murderers, and supports humiliation-based revenge? According to Minnesota based psychoanalyst and Arabist, Dr. Nancy Kobrin, it is a culture in which shame and honor play decisive roles and in which the debasement of women is paramount.
In an utterly fascinating and as-yet unpublished book, which I will be introducing, the Sheik's New Clothes: the Psychoanalytic Roots of Islamic Suicide Terrorism, Kobrin, and her Israeli co-author, counter-terrorism expert Yoram Schweitzer, describe barbarous family and clan dynamics in which children,
1) both boys and girls, are routinely orally and anally raped by male relatives; infant males are sometimes sadistically over-stimulated by being masturbated;
2) boys between the ages of 7-12 are publicly and traumatically circumcised; many girls are clitoridectomized; and
3) women are seen as the source of all shame and dishonor and treated accordingly: very, very badly.

According to Dr. Kobrin, "The little girl lives her life under a communal death threat--the honor killing."
Both male and female infants and children are brought up by mothers (who are debased and traumatized women). As such, all children are forever psychologically "contaminated" by the humiliated yet all-powerful mother.
Widespread child sexual abuse leads to paranoid, highly traumatized, and revenge-seeking adults. Clearly, only evolution of democracy and the elevation of women can begin to change such dynamics. Western feminists, American leaders: Please note. Alas, historically and theologically, Arab and Muslim culture strongly opposes both democracy and equality for women. This is why the battles to liberate Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East are so important and so very difficult.
Here's a story from the Palestinian ex-Muslim, Walid Shoebat:
Walid Shoebat, an ex-PLO terrorist, came to visit. He has been speaking about his renunciation of terrorism and conversion to evangelical Christianity. Shoebat confirmed the widespread sexual abuse of both boys and girls in Palestinian society. "It is a strange society. Homosexuality is forbidden but if you're the penetrator, not the penetrated, it's okay." He is describing prison sexuality. "If you're a teenage boy with no hair on your legs other boys your age will pinch your butt and tease you. Once, I saw a class of clothed teenage boys sexualize their gymnastics exercizes. And once, on a hiking trip, I saw a line of shepherd boys waiting for their turn to sodomize a five year old boy. It was unbelievable."

Shoebat's father also told him stories about starving Arab men who would barter sex for meat from Iraqi soldiers. According to Shoebat, teenage boys prey upon younger children; older male relatives prey upon pre-adolescent and adolescent boys and girls. They do not have intercourse with the girls since this would render them un-marriageable and bring shame upon their families. I heard many stories in both Afghanistan and Iran about the male preference for anal sex, even within marriage, either as a form of birth control or as a preferred homosexual practice.

Most Arabs and Muslims will deny that this is so. They will attack westerners who say so as "orientalists, colonialists, racists."
Such perversion reveals a profoundly weak culture. When human beings treat each other with such disrespect it is evidence of deep anger, which at bottom is self-loathing. A society which produces such deep human wells of self-loathing is also a society which is ready to turn on itself, if given a reason to do so.
The overarching strategy of the War on Terror is to plant Democracies which can then shine as Cities set on a Hill for the rest of the Islamic world. Democracy will serve as the stark contrast needed to give bitter, hopeless people, trapped in this perverse culture, the perspective needed to renounce the existent culture and demand change.
This is why we need to persevere; for the hundreds of millions of people living lives of enslavement and perpetual psychological torment. As a moral civilization, we must commit ourselves to making sure this sick state of affairs is not allowed to continue on.

A Coincidence
Or Reason To Be Afraid?


The Astute Blogger points out that Bashar Assad of Syria and Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority have both canceled their trips to New York City for next weeks United Nations General Assembly Convention:


1 - Assad has just canceled his NY visit - scheduled to allow him to attend the opening of the UN.

2 - Abbas did the same thing earlier in the day (blaiming it on "unrest" in Gaza).

SO... WHAT DO THEY KNOW? Or fear? I think they might know something very bad is planned to coincide with the UN General Assembly convention - and/or the anniversary of 9/11. AND: while a lot of our resources are focused on the Gulf Coast.

I hope the FBI is reading this...

[ASIDE: Ariel Sharon will be attending. If he cancels, then I am staying out of town!]


I'm not too sure there is reason to be afraid. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, will be there. It is unlikely that if Assad knew of a possible terror operation he would not tell Ahmadinejad. Besides, the information would much more likely go the other way, as I believe Iran would be the first to know if anything was up.

If Ahmadinejad cancels, then everybody better head out to the Hamptons for some sun.

P.S. The thing that really worries me about this is I don't think I've seen the Astute Blogger be wrong on any of his predictions as of yet. He's gotta be wrong sometimes, right?

Don't Let The Door Hit You In The Ass
On The Way Out


This Jihadi has a really, really good idea:


LONDON: A radical Islamic cleric who was banned from Britain in the wake of the July 7 London bombings on Wednesday described the political response to the attacks as "evil," and urged British Muslims to follow his example by leaving the country.

Omar Bakri Mohammad, who was born in Syria but lived in Britain for 20 years and had been allowed to live indefinitely without being granted a passport, left for Beirut in August....

Bakri, who praised the September 11 hijackers in the United States in 2001 as "magnificent," prompted outrage after the July 7 bombings when he said he would never tip off police if he knew a Muslim was about to carry out an attack....

He said he left Britain because of the government's response to July 7, and to the failed repeat bombings a fortnight later, which has seen a crackdown on Islamic extremism.

"I left with the intention that I did not want to come back, because of the evil ideology and evil policy adopted by the British government," Bakri said.

Before this response to the bombings, Muslims in Britain were "living in harmony," Bakri said. "I was living in the U.K. because I really loved the country, which was really my second home, and I had no problem with the culture.

"However, after the bombings of July 7, I think the British government adopted a policy to cover up their own failure to find who was behind the bombing, to start to accuse the so-called extremists. Unfortunately some people bought that from them."

Britain's Muslim population should consider following his lead, Bakri said.

"Myself, personally, I do not see any reason to stay in the U.K. after the new laws of terrorism," he said. "I think the Muslim community can no longer live in peace in the U.K. It is better for them to think to leave."


I wish all Jihadis would follow his lead.

Wednesday, September 07, 2005

The Grand and Inspiring Vision
Of The War on Terror, Part I


The bigger picture in the War on Terror; first, Victor Davis Hanson explains why we can't simply up and leave Iraq, the way the surrender monkeys on the anti-War Left keep calling for:


Vietnam is once again in the air. Last month's antiwar demonstrations in Crawford, Tex., have been heralded as the beginning of an antiwar movement that will take to the streets like the one of 30 years ago. Influential pundits -- in the manner of a gloomy Walter Cronkite after the Tet offensive -- are assuring us that we can't win in Iraq and that we have no option but a summary withdrawal. We may even have a new McGovern-style presidential "peace" candidate in Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

America's most contentious war is being freely evoked to explain the "quagmire" we are supposedly now in. Vietnam is an obvious comparison given the frustration of asymmetrical warfare and savage enemies who escape our conventional power. But make no mistake, Iraq is not like Vietnam, and it must not end like Vietnam. Despite our tragic lapses, leaving now would be a monumental mistake -- and one that we would all too soon come to regret.

If we fled precipitously, moderates in the Middle East could never again believe American assurances of support for reform and would have to retreat into the shadows -- or find themselves at the mercy of fascist killers. Jihadists would swell their ranks as they hyped their defeat of the American infidels. Our forward strategy of hitting terrorists hard abroad would be discredited and replaced by a return to the pre-9/11 tactics of a few cruise missiles and writs. And loyal allies in Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan, along with new friends in India and the former Soviet republics, would find themselves leaderless in the global struggle against Islamic radicalism.

The specter of Vietnam will also turn on those who embrace it. Iraq is not a surrogate theater of the Cold War, where national liberationists, fueled by the romance of radical egalitarianism, are fortified by nearby Marxist nuclear patrons. The jihadists have an 8th-century agenda of gender apartheid, religious intolerance and theocracy. For all its pyrotechnics, the call for a glorious return to the Dark Ages has found no broad constituency.

Nor is our army in Iraq conscript, but volunteer and professional. The Iraqi constitutional debate is already light-years ahead of anything that emerged in Saigon. And there is an exit strategy, not mission creep -- we will consider withdrawal as the evolution to a legitimate government continues and the Iraqi security forces grow.

We forget that once war breaks out, things usually get far worse before they get better. We should remember that 1943, after we had entered World War II, was a far bloodier year than 1938, when the world left Hitler alone. Similarly, 2005 may have brought more open violence in Iraq than was visible during Saddam's less publicized killings of 2002. So it is when extremists are confronted rather than appeased. But unlike the time before the invasion, when we patrolled Iraq's skies while Saddam butchered his own with impunity below, there is now a hopeful future for Iraq.


Yes, and as I said earlier today (in this post), our victory in Iraq, and the Constitutional Democracy which it is bringing about will be a step in the strengthening of moderates across the Islamic world, giving them the courage and vision to throw off the shackles of their radical Islamic governments.

And besides, an even larger vision for the War on Terror is slowly starting to take shape. Can we remake the whole world as we did in World War II? Ralph Peters believes we can, and he gives his prescription for just how we can do it. The first step is to beat the hell out of the Islamic extremists:


... the First Battle of Fallujah, in the spring of 2004, was an example of how to get it as wrong as you possibly can. We bragged that we were going to "clean up Dodge." And the Marines went in, tough and capable as ever. Then, just when the Marines were on the cusp of victory, they were called off, thanks to a brilliant, insidious and unscrupulous disinformation campaign waged by al-Jazeera. I was in Iraq at the time, and the lies about American "atrocities" were stunning. But the lies worked and the Bush administration, to my shock and dismay, backed down.

Let's be honest: The terrorists won First Fallujah. And for six months thereafter Fallujah was the world capital of terror--a terrorist city-state. It was evident to all of us who had served that we'd have to go back into Fallujah, but the administration--which I support--made the further error of waiting until after the presidential election to avoid casualties or embarrassments during the campaign. Well, fortunately, in the Second Battle of Fallujah the Army and Marines realized they had to do it fast, before the media won again and the politicians caved in again. The military had been burned once and they were determined not to get burned again. And they did a stunning job--Second Fallujah was a model of how to take down a medium-size city. Great credit to the troops, mixed reviews for the politicos.

The bottom line is this: If you have to fight, fight to win ...
We should never go to war lightly, but if we must fight, we have to give it everything we've got and damn the global criticism. There's a straightforward maxim that applies: In warfare, if you're unwilling to pay the butcher's bill up front, you will pay it with compound interest in the end.


The second step is to understand the evil of the vision of the enemy, and understand how it's evil leads to weakness:


Any society that refuses to exploit the talents and potential contributions of half of its population can't remotely hope to compete with the USA or the West in general. Worse, the virtual enslavement of women is as much a symptom of other ailments as it is a problem in and of itself. Where women are tormented by bitter old men in religious robes, there's never a meritocracy for males, either. And such societies are consistently racially and religiously bigoted. Take Pakistan: While the USA is operating at a phenomenal level of human efficiency in the 21st century, say 85%, Pakistan would likely measure in at 12 to 15%.

They just keep falling comparatively farther and farther behind, they hate it, and, of course, they blame us. We're dealing with the abject and utter failure of the entire civilization of Middle Eastern Islam--not competitive in a single sphere (not even terror, since these days we're terrorizing the terrorists). It's historically unprecedented--and unspeakably dangerous.

As far as the inhuman, inhumane--and stupid--treatment of women in the Middle East, yep, Islam is scared of the girls. I wish Freud were alive--he'd really get a look at a civilization's discontents. If you're not terrified of female sexuality, you don't lock women up, insist on covering them up from scalp to toenail and stone them to death for their "sins."

Every single Muslim culture in the greater Middle East is sexually infantile--to use the Freudian term. For all their macho posturing, the men are terrified of their feared inadequacy.
It's like one big junior high school dance, with the boys on one side of the gym and the girls on the other--except the boys have Kalashnikovs.

Now, I realize this isn't the sort of thing most people consider as a strategic factor, but I am thoroughly convinced that the one foolproof test for whether or not a society has any hope of making it in the 21st century is its treatment of women.

Where women are partners, societies take off--as ours has done for this reason and others. Where women are property, there's simply no hope of a competitive performance.


This is one of the keys to how Ronald Reagan was able to persevere, inspire faith, and, ultimately defeat Communism. In the early 1950's as a member of the Screen Actors Guild, Reagan watched as the Communists attempted to take over the Union through the means of thuggery.

Reagan assessed the situation thusly:

1) Any idea which has to use thuggery to win must not be capable of winning on it's own merits.

2) The weakness of Communism is in it's inability to inspire people to action through rewarding their successes.

His conclusion was that Communisim would, if challenged with strength and determination, eventually collapse under the weight of it's own bitterness and lethargy.

He stood up to the Communists in theUnion, and was rewarded with years of death threats and the loss of his first marriage to Jane Wyman. However, he persevered because his faith was based in reason, and he eventually won.

Likewise, he eventually was proven correct on the global stage as well, as we saw the Soviet Union collapse in 1989, and the Berlin Wall come down in 1991.

(To be continued tomorrow)

The Beginning of a Long Goodbye


Significant news about the war in Iraq from the Washington Post:


NAJAF, Iraq, Sept. 6 -- The U.S. military pulled hundreds of troops out of the southern city of Najaf on Tuesday, transferring security duties to Iraqi forces and sticking to a schedule that the United States hopes will allow the withdrawal of tens of thousands of its forces by early spring.

The handover came as Marine F/A-18 jets bombed two bridges near the Syrian border, hitting infrastructure in an area where insurgents have maintained effective control despite off-and-on offensives by U.S. forces. Insurgents have used the bridges to move fighters and arms across the Euphrates River toward Baghdad and other cities, the U.S. military said.

In the same area, U.S. warplanes later destroyed a building that insurgents had used to fire upon American and Iraqi troops, a U.S. military statement said. At least two suspected foreign fighters were killed, the military said.


Sounds like some final cleaning up before we leave.

Christianity In The
Peaceful Islamic State of Indonesia


The peaceful Islamic country of Indonesia has a law on the books called the Child Protection Act. That sounds like a good thing, right? We all want to protect children. So, what does a peaceful Islamic state like Inodnesia want to protect children from?


Why, Christianity, of course. From Little Green Footballs:


Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Three women charged with violating Indonesia’s 2002 Child Protection Act by trying to convert Muslim children were found guilty on all charges in an Indonesian court and sentenced to three years in jail.

The verdict against Rebecca Loanita, Etty Pangesti e Ratna Mala Bangun was pronounced on September 1 after four months of trial during which Muslim extremists tried to intimidate and influence the judges.

The charges against the three women were brought by the so-called the Indonesian Council of Mullahs which claimed they tried to convert Muslim children at a Happy Weekend event.

The three women had organised a week-end of songs, games and outings for Christian children alone, an element that their attorneys had stressed but that the court in Indramavu (West Java) chose to disregard it on the grounds that non-Christian children were present.

Muslim extremists were present at the trial hearings where they tried to intimidate the judges.

The women’s attorneys said that the decision was influenced by the constant threats and not any legal merit the case might have had. No Muslim child was converted and none was forced to attend.

What is more, the extremists released a statement to the press calling on the court to impose the death penalty on the women.

Eyewitnesses present at the sentence hearing said that the same extremists arrived carrying a casket shouting that they would bury the three women if they were not found guilty.

After the decision was read and sentence passed, the crowd in the courthouse broke out in shouts of “Allahu akbar” (God is greater).


You see, of course, this is the way it is done in a peaceful Islamic state.

By the way, one question; Aren't Leftists in our part of the world concerned that Christianity is harmful to children as well?

The Logic Of Islamofascism Explained


Jamie Glazov interviews Robert Spencer in Front Page Magazine. Mr. Glazov notes that he has received numerous death threats from Muslims for criticizing the violence which seems to be inherent in Islam. Glazov is confused. Spencer explains:


Glazov: ... the numerous death threats I have received entail the same irrational paradigm. Let me explain:

While it is a given that many Muslims are on our side against extremism, that we must ally ourselves with them (i.e.
Free Muslims Coalition, Sheikh Palazzi etc.), and that Muslims have the power to collectively reform and change their religion into one of tolerance and peace (and that we must promote this effort), I have at times shed light on the elements of the Islamic religion that, as you show, legitimize and promote violence. Because of this, I have often encountered email correspondence of the following nature:

[a] A Muslim emails me and tells me to never say again that Islam ever advocates violence because this is not true.

[b] I answer in an email that I am not saying such a thing off the top of my head but simply just gathering conclusions from reading the Qur'an (i.e. the Verse of the Sword, Sura 9:5, 9:29 etc.) -- a source from which Osama and al-Zarqawi receive their inspiration.

[c] Then the Muslim writes back saying that he will kill me.

The logic here is very twisted. How does the individual who threatens me rationalize his step c with step a?

If his effort is to convince me of the inaccuracy of my own findings, he is not doing a very successful or convincing job, to say the least. What is the psychology here?

Spencer: This is a strange contradiction from a non-Muslim perspective, but not from that of a Muslim who believes in traditional Islamic legal directives calling for the deaths of unbelievers who are at war with Islam.

From the perspective of such a man, Islam is indeed a religion of peace:

the peace that will prevail over the world when Sharia is the supreme law of every land.

To bring this about, he believes he is commanded by God to wage war – not undifferentiated mayhem, but war for specified purposes, under specific circumstances and for particular ends.

When you invoke the Qur’an and other Islamic sources to make that point that elements of the Islamic religion legitimize and promote violence, you are doing so as an infidel. Even if what you say is correct, you are approaching it all as an infidel and are thus insulting Islam. And this insult must be avenged. It isn’t that you are inaccurate, it is that you are critical.

You are mistaking what they see as justice for undifferentiated violence.


This would be the equivalent of an American killing a Muslim for saying that Democracy causes violence.

The Enemy's Biggest Weapon


Jamie Glazov interviews Robert Spencer in Front Page Magazine:


FP: What is your inspiration to speak the unspoken truths about Islam?

Spencer: I speak out simply because few others are doing so. The general refusal to face the realities of what we are really up against in what is popularly known as the war on terror is crippling our ability to mount a fully effective response to the challenge of the global jihad. Political correctness and well-meaning naïveté are playing into the hands of the jihadists and making for some egregious policy miscalculations. Several rather high-profile conservatives, for example, have told me that by focusing attention on the elements of Islam that give rise to violence and fanaticism, I am alienating moderate Muslims who might otherwise be our allies in the struggle against Islamic terror. So in effect they would prefer to pretend that Islam is a peaceful religion at its core in the hopes that this fiction will win us some friends in the Islamic world.

This kind of thinking is flawed in many ways. In the first place, pretending that anything false is true is not ultimately going to get us anywhere. And if we refuse to allow honest exploration of what it is about Islam that is making so many Muslims violent today, we are not really helping sincere moderate Muslims: in fact, we’re cutting the ground out from under them by denying that there is anything about their religion that they need to face and combat if they wish to establish a lasting framework for peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims.


I wish Robert Spencer would have been a little more clear here. He says that sincere moderate Muslims need to "face and combat" the realities of their religion. Yes, I do believe that there are sincere moderate Muslims who possibly need to "face" the reality. However, the emphasis should be on combat. Moderate Muslims know what the problem is. But, they need to find it within themselves to combat the Islamofascist Jihadis in their midst.

I find it hard to believe that people who are sincere moderates do not know what the problem is. Let's face it, normal human beings, would prefer to live in constand enmity with their fellow man.

I have often said, that I believe that the preponderance of Muslims are absolutely normal people - people just like us. However, I think they find themselves in the same situation that Natan Sharansky describes in his book The Case for Democracy. They are living in a Fear State. The cost of speaking out against the prevailing system is perceived to be too high to be worth doing.

This is why our overarching strategy in the War on Terror is the correct strategy. By setting up states within the Arab World which can serve as an example - of Democracy and Human Rights - to those who live in fear states, we are giving them the idea that they can overcome by speaking out. At a certain point, if we persevere, we will have brought about the tipping point, and all the dominoes will fall, as they did when the Soviet Union collapsed.

The problem is, in my opinion, we are a long, long way from that happening at this point. And, I believe that Iran is probably the key. And, apparently, it is the key we are afraid to turn.

Anyway, back to the Spencer interview. Glazov asks Spencer a great question:

FP: If Islam is truly a religion of peace and tolerance than why is it so dangerous to say what you want about it? You have received death threats over the years for instance. Can you talk a bit about this?

Spencer: Yes, these threats are in effect saying, “Say that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, or we’ll kill you!” I have received death threats, but I am not going to stop telling the truth because of them. If everyone who tells truths that others don’t want people to know gives in to violent intimidation, what kind of world would it be?



I'm glad Robert Spencer doesn't allow the death threats to stop him from speaking out. We all owe Robert Spencer our gratitude for the work he is doing. But, the truth is, even here in America, Robert Spencer is afraid.

You will notice he doesn't do a lot of public speaking. In addition, you might notice that no one knows where he lives. People like Michelle Malkin, or the boys at PowerLine, who do blogs which focus on a wider range of issues, and who do not make it their business to try to educate Americans about the menace of Islamofascism do not have any problem telling us where they live.

Robert Spencer will not do so, nor should he.

Now, think about it, if Robert Spencer has to be afraid living here in America, how much worse must it be in the Islamic world? That is the sum total of the problem. Fear is the biggest weapon of the enemy we have to defeat.

Tuesday, September 06, 2005

French Television Says Israel Killed Child On Purpose
Viewing Raw Footage Shows French Slander


From Nidra Poller in Commentary Magazine:


... the story of Muhammad al-Dura has attained near-mythic stature in the Arab and Muslim world. In the West, though its essence is largely forgotten, it has fired the political imagination of many who accept it as emblematic proof of Israeli culpability for the outbreak of the armed conflict and even for Palestinian “martyrdom operations” against Israel’s civilian population.

... a cameraman for France-2, a channel of the state-owned French television network, captured the death of a twelve-year-old Palestinian boy, allegedly shot in front of his helpless father by Israeli soldiers in the Gaza Strip. A news report, dramatically narrated by France-2’s Jerusalem correspondent, was instantly aired and was offered free of charge to the world’s media.

The effect was immediate, electrifying, and global. Overnight, Muhammad al-Dura became the poster child of the incipient Palestinian “struggle” against Israeli “occupation” and a potent symbol of the genocidal intentions of Israel’s government. A doctored photomontage was soon produced for Arab-Muslim viewers, featuring an imported image of an Israeli soldier apparently shooting the boy at close range.

That the death of Muhammad al-Dura was the real emotional pretext for the ensuing avalanche of Palestinian violence—and a far more potent trigger than Sharon’s “provocative” visit to the Temple Mount—is attested by the immediate and widespread dissemination of his story and of the pietà-like image of his body lying at his father’s feet.

Streets, squares, and schools have since been named for the young Islamic shahid. His death scene has been replicated on murals, posters, and postage stamps, even making an iconic appearance in the video of Daniel Pearl’s beheading. His story, perhaps the single most powerful force behind the Palestinian cult of child sacrifice over the last years, has been dramatized in spots on Palestinian television urging others to follow in his path, retold in a recruitment video for al Qaeda, and immortalized in epic verse by the Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish.
But is it true? Although serious doubts were immediately raised about the veracity of the France-2 news report, they were swept aside by the emotions it provoked and by the flare of violence in the last months of 2000. France-2 indignantly turned down all requests to investigate or even to help others investigate by releasing outtakes. To this day, many people believe that even to raise a doubt about the authenticity of the report is tantamount to denying the reality of the 9/11 attacks on New York City.


But let us begin at the beginning, with France-2’s prize-winning scoop, aired just hours after the incident.

Here is what viewers saw and heard: a few seconds of rioting somewhere on the West Bank, followed by a vague scene of armed men at Netzarim junction, a crossroads in the Gaza Strip. A jeep comes down the road. A single shot rings out, and a man in uniform at the open door of the jeep falls or jumps to the ground, clutching his right leg. An ambulance pulls up, stops on the far side of the road. The man is dragged across the ground, placed on a stretcher with his weight resting on his wounded right leg, and loaded into the ambulance. Charles Enderlin, France-2’s correspondent, announces in an eyewitness-style voiceover:

Three PM at Netzarim junction in the Gaza Strip. A dramatic turn of events. The Palestinians shot live ammunition, the Israelis replied. Ambulance drivers, bystanders, journalists are caught in the crossfire.

Now the camera focuses on a man and a boy crouched behind a concrete barrel or culvert, their faces contorted in fear. Enderlin: “Here Jamal al-Dura and his son are targets of gunfire from Israeli positions.” The camera pans to a nearby Israeli outpost. The father waves with his right hand in the direction of the Israeli position. The father is hunched behind the barrel, the boy nestled against his back. Enderlin:

Muhammad is twelve years old. His father tries to protect him. He waves. But another round of fire bursts out. Muhammad is dead, and his father grievously wounded.

During the 55-second sequence, two shots have hit a concrete-block wall that stands like a backdrop for the scene, landing far afield of the father and son. Other bullet holes, similarly off-target, can be seen in the wall as well. The father shields the boy; the father’s arm is clearly visible, perpendicular to the ground. Guttural cries are heard, adding to the feeling of panic. The last round of gunfire kicks up a cloud of dust, obscuring the man and boy. When the dust clears, the boy is stretched out at his father’s feet; the father bobs his head as if groggy.

And that was it. As Enderlin would later explain, the reason France-2’s scoop was offered free to the world was that the producers did not want to earn a profit from so tragic an incident. Only the terrible moments of the child’s death throes, he added, had been edited out, being “too unbearable.”


The film sequence itself, attributed at first to a “France-2 cameraman,” was subsequently identified as the work of the station’s Palestinian stringer, Talal Abu Rahmeh. By then, the full authority and reputation of France-2 itself had been indelibly stamped on the footage.

Within days, an elaborate narrative was being disseminated to flesh out the elusive details of the 55-second video. On October 3, 2000, testifying under oath before the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the cameraman Talal Abu Rahmeh alleged that Israeli soldiers had intentionally, in cold blood, murdered the boy and wounded the father. Abu Rahmeh’s testimony was precise and vivid.

There had been, he said, a five-minute exchange of fire between Palestinian policemen and Israeli soldiers. This was followed by fully 45 minutes of gunfire coming exclusively from the Israeli position and aimed directly at the man and the boy crouching desperately behind a concrete barrel. According to the cameraman, he had captured on film a total of 27 minutes of this fusillade, risking his own life in the process. As an experienced war photographer, he could attest without hesitation that the Israeli outpost was the only position from which the boy and the man could be hit.

Early on, for example, it was pointed out that the 55-second video did not show any of the normal signs consistent with wounds from high-power bullets. There was no blood on the victims’ clothes, on the wall, or on the ground. Their postures appeared wholly voluntary, with no sign of shock or trauma.


As for Abu Rahmeh’s claim of a 45-minute free-for-all, experts in ballistics concurred that automatic rifles fired uninterruptedly for that length of time would reduce their victims to shreds, and the concrete block wall behind them to rubble. Nor did such behavior accord with what one knew about the ethics, discipline, and skill of IDF soldiers.

Early doubters of the received version included the French documentary filmmaker Pierre Rehov, who sued France-2 for spreading false information; the case was thrown out of French court. Nahum Shahaf, an Israeli physicist who led the first official IDF investigation, has been studying the incident ever since, accumulating one of the most exhaustive film libraries on the subject. Metula News Agency (MENA), an Israel-based, French-language service, likewise undertook a lengthy and still ongoing investigation.

Esther Schapira, a German television producer who went to Israel convinced of IDF guilt, came away with a film exposing the contradictions and discrepancies of the France-2 news report; she was convinced that the boy had been killed by Palestinians. In a June 2003 article in the Atlantic, the American journalist James Fallows concluded that Muhammad al-Dura “was not shot by the Israeli soldiers who were known to be involved in the day’s fighting,” but also that we would never know who killed him.

... we do have extensive evidence of what was occurring at Netzarim junction on September 30, 2000. More than a dozen cameramen were at the junction filming the action that day. They were all Palestinian, but they were working for Reuters, AP, NHK, France-2, and other prestigious networks. Aside from Abu Rahmeh’s footage, brief excerpts from what they shot have appeared in news broadcasts. But hours of outtakes also exist, and their eloquence is astounding. I cannot claim they show everything that happened, but enough raw footage exists to substantiate what follows.

On all the outtakes I saw, only one exchange of gunfire takes place: a brief outburst from the bunkers and a responding series of shots, ostensibly from the Israeli position. As for the death scene, it was filmed in front of a concrete-block wall abutting a makeshift building, opposite the pita but situated at an angle that made the al-Duras’ barrel inaccessible to gunfire from the Israeli outpost.

The Reuters, AP, and France-2 outtakes that I viewed show two totally different and easily identifiable types of activity at Netzarim junction: real, intifada-style attacks, and crudely falsified battle scenes. Both the real and the fake scenes are played out against a background of normal civilian activity at a busy crossroads.

In the “reality” zone, excited children and angry young men hurl rocks and Molotov cocktails at the Israeli outpost while shababs (“youths”) standing on the roof of the Twins throw burning tires down onto the caged lookout; this goes on seemingly for hours, without provoking the slightest military reaction from Israeli soldiers.


At the same time, in the “theatrical” zone, Palestinian stringers sporting prestigious logos on their vests and cameras are seen filming battle scenes staged behind the abandoned factory, well out of range of Israeli gunfire. The “wounded” sail through the air like modern dancers and then suddenly collapse. Cameramen jockey with hysterical youths who pounce on the “casualties,” pushing and shoving, howling Allahu akhbar!, clumsily grabbing the “injured,” pushing away the rare ambulance attendant in a pale green polyester jacket in order to shove, twist, haul, and dump the “victims” into UN and Red Crescent ambulances that pull up on a second’s notice and career back down the road again, sirens screaming.

In one shot we recognize Talal Abu Rahmeh in his France-2 vest, filming a staged casualty scene.* (* Students in a special course at the Israeli Military Academy, who had access to this raw footage, tagged and tracked the amateur actors as they went through their day, playing multiple roles. The injured and dead jump up, dust themselves off, play at offensive combat; casualties evacuated by ambulance are later seen loading a fellow actor into an ambulance or smiling with satisfaction as the ambulance door slams shut.)

Split seconds of these ludicrous vignettes would later appear in newscasts and special reports; the husk, the raw footage that would reveal the fakery, had been removed, leaving the kernel rich in anti-Israel nutrients. Such staged scenes showed up, for example, in a dramatic CBS 60 Minutes special report on Netzarim crossing—a place “now known,” intoned Bob Simon, echoing Palestinian sources, “as Martyr’s Junction.”

The al-Dura death scene was filmed right in the middle of these falsified incidents. It can be localized and situated. In one section of Reuters footage we see the man and the boy crouched behind the upended culvert as a jeep drives slowly up the road, stops in firing range of the Israeli position that is clearly visible in the near distance, makes a U-turn, drives in the opposite direction, stops short of the barrel/culvert, and helps perform the clearly faked evacuation of a man wounded in the right leg, as also shown in the France-2 news report. In fact, two ambulances stand for a long moment no more than fifteen feet from the al-Duras. There is no evidence of armed combat in their vicinity. No sound of gunfire. Men run down the road, passing in front of the al-Duras. No one is hit.

I also viewed a copy of the satellite feed transmitted by Abu Rahmeh late in the afternoon of September 30. In addition to the 55 seconds aired that evening, it includes a final image of the boy who would be described afterward as “killed instantly by a shot to the stomach”: in it he is seen shifting position, propping himself up on his elbow, shading his eyes with his hand, rolling over on his stomach, covering his eyes.


Go read the rest.

America's Most Wanted Terrorist
And His Nuclear Ambitions?


World Net Daily says there is a terrorist within the United States already who has control of nuclear weapons and is planning on using them to destroy American cities and wreck our economy. I present this article not because I necessarily believe this information to be true (it probably isn't), but because I think it might be true. From World Net Daily:


The individual who merits the distinction of the "America's most dangerous" fugitive is Adnan el-Shukrijumah, a diminutive, 30-year-old terrorist who stands at 5-foot-4 and weighs 140 pounds.

El-Shukrijumah represents the perfect "sleeper agent," since he speaks English without the slightest hint of an accent and possesses the uncanny abilities to blend into a crowd, to alter his looks, and to assume a multitude of identities. He is the proverbial Mr. Cellophane. Nothing about el-Shukrijumah indicates his radical Islamic orientation. He remains clean-shaven and never wears a long shirt or chews a toothpick. He has been known to have a beer on occasion (like an average American Joe), to smoke an occasional Camel and even to carry rosary beads in his pocket.

El-Shukrijumah's face does not appear on the nightly news, even though a BOLO ("Be-On-the-Lookout") was issued March 21, 2004, by FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft.

He is neither the subject of feature articles in leading newspapers nor of special reports on CNN and Fox News, let alone the three major networks. But no one is more of a threat to the lives and well-being of every man, woman and child within the United States than this ferret-faced terrorist.

Adnan el Shukrijumah, a trained nuclear technician and accomplished pilot, has been singled out by bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri to serve as the field commander for the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil, a nuclear event that is known among al-Qaida planners as "the American Hiroshima."

The terrorist was last seen in Mexico, where, on Nov. 1, 2004, he allegedly hijacked a Piper PA Pawnee cropduster from Ejido Queretaro near Mexacli to transport a nuclear weapon and nuclear equipment into the U.S. The plane's tail number was XBCYP.

Adnan el-Shukrijumah was born in Guyana Aug. 4, 1975 – the first born of Gulshair el-Shukrijumah, a 44-year-old radical Muslim cleric, and his 16-year-old wife.

In 1985, Gulshair migrated to the United States, where he assumed duties as the imam of the Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn.

The mosque, located at 554 Atlantic Avenue in Brooklyn, has served as a hive for terrorist activities. It has raised millions for the jihad and has served as a recruiting station for al-Qaida. Many of the planners of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, including blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, were prominent members of this notorious "house of worship."

Adnan Shukrijumah attended flight schools in Florida and Norman, Oklahoma, along with Mohammad Atta and the other 9-11 operatives, and he became a highly skilled commercial jet pilot, although he, like Atta and the other terrorists, never applied for a license with the Federal Aviation Commission.

In April 2001, Shukrijumah spent 10 days in Panama, where he reportedly met with al-Qaida officials to assist in the planning of 9-11.

Following the success of 9-11, el-Shukrijumah became singled out by bin Laden and al-Zawahiri to spearhead the next great attack on America – a nuclear attack that would take place simultaneously in seven U.S. cities, leaving millions dead and the richest and most powerful nation on earth in ashes.

To prepare for this mission, el-Shukrijumah, along with fellow al-Qaida sleeper agents Anas al-Liby, Jaber A. Elbaneh, and Amer el-Matti, was sent to McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, a facility that boasted a five-megawatt nuclear research reactor, the largest reactor of any educational facility in Canada.

At McMaster, where they may have enrolled under aliases, el-Shukrijumah and his associates reportedly wasted no time in gaining access to the nuclear reactor and stealing more than 180 pounds of nuclear waste for the creation of radiological bombs.

Jane Johnson, a spokesperson for McMaster University, declined to comment on the stay of the al-Qaida operatives at the school. She insisted that such information was confidential.


See, there are problems with this story. A radiological bomb is of no use to a person who wants to destroy a city. And it would be of no interest to a person who already planned on having a nuclear weapon, because a nuclear weapon would be so much stronger as to render a radiological bomb irrelevant.

Author V.S. Naipaul Discusses Islam,
The West, India, and the Arab World


From Fjordman:


What is of account, in Naipaul's view, is the larger global political situation -- in particular, the clash between belief and unbelief in postcolonial societies. ''I became very interested in the Islamic question, and thought I would try to understand it from the roots, ask very simple questions and somehow make a narrative of that discovery,'' he said. To what extent, he wondered, had ''people who lock themselves away in belief . . . shut themselves away from the active busy world''?

''To what extent without knowing it'' were they ''parasitic on that world''? And why did they have ''no thinkers to point out to them where their thoughts and their passion had led them''? Far from simple, the questions brought a laserlike focus to a central paradox of today's situation: that some who have benefited from the blessings of the West now seek to destroy it.

In November 2001 Naipaul told an audience of anxious New Yorkers still reeling from the attack on the World Trade Center that they were facing ''a war declared on you by people who passionately want one thing: a green card.''

What happened on Sept. 11 ''was too astonishing. It's one of its kind. It can't happen again,'' he said in our conversation. ''But in the end it has had no effect on the world. It has just been a spectacle, like a bank raid in a western film. They will be caught by the sheriff eventually.''

The bigger issue, he said, is that Western Europe, while built on tolerance, today lacks ''a strong cultural life,'' making it vulnerable to Islamicization. He even went so far as to say that Muslim women shouldn't wear headscarves in the West. ''If you decide to move to another country and to live within its laws you don't express your disregard for the essence of the culture,'' he said. ''It's a form of aggression.''

And yet, for all his laments, Naipaul is not invested in the notion that Western civilization is in decline. ''That's a romantic idea,'' he said brusquely. ''A civilization which has taken over the world cannot be said to be dying. . . . It's a university idea. People cook it up at universities and do a lot of lectures about it. It has no substance.''

The ''philosophical diffidence'' of the West, he maintains, will prevail over the ''philosophical shriek'' of those who intend to destroy it.

A Hindu by birth, though not observant, Naipaul finds India a place of great hope. It is, he says, the country where belief and unbelief coexist most peaceably. The economic development of India -- and China -- he said, will ''completely alter the world,'' and ''nothing that's happening in the Arab world has that capacity.''

Yet Naipaul called it ''a calamity'' that, even with its billion people, ''there are no thinkers in India'' today. India is also where he turns for a theory of history. ''The only theory is that everything is in a state of flux,'' he said. This is his own ''personal idea,'' he said, but one linked to a philosophical concept in Indian religion.

Monday, September 05, 2005



Opelia Drowning With A Rose


I've Been High
by
R.E.M.


Have you seen?
Have not will travel
Have I missed the big reveal?

Do my eyes,
Do my eyes seem empty?
I've forgotten how this feels.
I've been high
I've climbed so high
The light, sometimes it washes over me.

Have you been?
Have done will travel
I fell down on me knees
Was I wrong?
I don't know, don't answer.
I just needed to believe.

I've been high
I've climbed so high
The light, sometimes it washes over me.


So I dive into a pool.
So cool and deep that if I sink I sink,
And when I swim I fly, so high.

What I want
All I really wanted
Just to live my life on high.
And I knowI know you want the same
I can see it in your eyes.

I've been highI've climbed so high
The light, sometimes it washes over me.
Washes over me
I close my eyes
So I can see
Make my make believe, believe in me.


Posted by Picasa

Mysterious Blast In Gaza


Associated Press can't figure out what happened:


GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A mysterious blast after nightfall Monday leveled a building in Gaza City, killing four people and wounding at least 30, residents and hospital officials said. The violent Islamic Hamas group blamed Israel, but the Israeli military said it was not involved.

The explosion came hours after Palestinian security forces got their first look at demolished Jewish settlements in Gaza, touring the area ahead of Israel's formal handover in mid-September. The joint tour by Palestinian commanders and Israeli military officials marked the first time Palestinian authorities were allowed into the settlements, which were evacuated two weeks ago.

The blast in the Gaza City neighborhood of Shajaiyeh destroyed a house where known Hamas members lived. Hamas charged that an Israeli missile hit the house, with a group spokesman, Munir al-Masri, accusing Israel of continuing its "dirty assassination policy, which gives us the right to respond and to defend ourselves."

Some residents said it was apparently a case of explosives in the house detonating prematurely as Hamas militants worked on a bomb.


Gee, do you think? Has Israel ever denied responsibility? Like say, did they deny that they took out Yassin, or Rantissi? God, is AP stupid, or do you think they just don't want to know?


Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas called the explosion "regrettable" ...


Why do you think Abbas thinks it's regrettable that Hamas didn't get to finish making their bomb?

The Truth Will Win Out
And America Will Prevail


This news is coming from this blog a couple of days later than it was first revealed (because I'm so sick of the political carping), but just for the record:


Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state’s emergency operations center said Saturday.

The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request.

“Quite frankly, if they’d been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals,” said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.

“The federal government stands ready to work with state and local officials to secure New Orleans and the state of Louisiana,” White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. “The president will not let any form of bureaucracy get in the way of protecting the citizens of Louisiana.”

Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state’s victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.


Arghh. I am so sick of all the blame Bush crap. CNN is on non-stop hate Bush mode. CNN is broadcasting to the world that America is idiotic and that Bush doesn't care about the American people. Outside of America, no one even knows what is going on.

My blogbrother Titus has a post on how the truth came flying right out of Mayor Nagin's mouth the other day, and CNN buried that too:


Mayor Nagin: The President looked at me. I think he was a little, uh, surprised. He said, "Mr. Mayor, I offered two options to the Governor. I said he (and I don't remember exactly what...) two options. "I was ready to move today. The Governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision."

Interviewer: The President told you the Governor said she said she needed 24 hours to make a decision?

Mayor Nagin: Yes.


Go read the rest.

And I've got a message for all you America haters out there who are spreading slander about us when we're down. We'll meet you in the history books my friends. And they will show how we beat this, and we will become richer and you, in your idiocy and with your childish attitudes, will be poorer, because you don't take responsibility for yourselves. Instead, you just try to blame America and take America down.