Saturday, October 01, 2005

The Mandate From Hell
The Islamofascist Government of Algiers
Reelected With 97% of the Vote

From the Financial Times of London:

Amid serious doubts over official turnout figures, the Algerian government yesterday claimed an overwhelming 97 per cent approval in Thursday's referendum on "peace and reconciliation" aimed at consolidating the country's return to stability.

No independent monitoring of the vote count was allowed. However, human rights groups and some local journalists said the official turnout figure of nearly 80 per cent bore little resemblance to reality. They warned that alleged electoral fraud would antagonise those who suffered most during the civil war in the 1990s, and expressed fears that Algeria was marching back towards autocracy.

Yes, it looks that way, doesn't it? I only wonder whether it's backwards movement, or simply the wolf taking off his sheep's clothing. What do you think?

Meanwhile, apparently, the government of Algiers is claiming their "victory" constitutes a mandate for the release of Islamic Jihadis from prisons:

Algeria's government yesterday said it had won overwhelming support for a broad amnesty for Islamic guerrillas and would soon draft laws allowing fighters to be released.

The interior minister, Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni, said there had been a 97% yes vote in Thursday's referendum, which is intended to bring an end to more than a decade of guerrilla war. He also said the turnout had been unusually high at around 80%, despite the fact that polling stations in and around Algiers appeared largely empty for most of the day.

Maybe there were a lot of absentee ballots cast.

But, the good news is the Jihadis are, apparently, rejecting the amnesty which is being offered to them:

ALGIERS, Oct. 1 (Reuters) - An Internet statement attributed to Algeria's largest outlawed Islamic militant group, aligned with Al Qaeda, says that it opposes amnesty in exchange for laying down its arms and that it will continue its jihad, or holy war.

In a Sept. 29 referendum, Algerians approved a government offer of partial amnesty for combatants in a civil war that lasted more than a decade and claimed more than 100,000 lives, mostly those of civilians.

"This vote is a waste of time," said the statement on an Islamist Web site, dated Sept. 27 and attributed to Abdelmalek Droukdal, also known as Abu Mossab Abdelwadoud, the leader of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat. "Algeria is not in need of a charter for peace and national reconciliation, but in need of a charter for Islam."

Got that? They said it, not me. Islam, not peace.

How Tuvia Grossman Became A Palestinian

An important post from Neo-Neocon on how the Associated Press ended up creating an anti-Semitic myth based upon this photograph.

Posted by Picasa

The Jihad of the Mind

Recently, a Jihad-supporting Saudi Prince acquired a 5% share of NewsCorp, the parent company of Fox News. Here from Frank Gaffney, via Always on Watch, is a commentary on why this is a big, big problem:

With surprisingly little media attention, Saudi Arabia has bought a stake in the company that owns what has been, until now, arguably its most visible and influential critic: the Fox News Network. Will this be the end of Fox’s “fair and balanced” coverage of the immense Saudi role in promoting Islamofascist terror?

The answer to this incalculably important question may lie in understanding who this prince is, and the nature of his deal with Rupert Murdoch, the principal owner of Fox’s parent, the News Corporation.

Al-Waleed is said be the world’s fifth richest man and now NewsCorp’s fourth largest voting shareholder (behind the Murdoch family, Liberty Media and fund giant Fidelity Management & Research Co). Such a role would appear to give the Prince some say over the way the business is run. That could, presumably, extend to the content of Fox programming and that of the company’s other media outlets (which include DirecTV and 20th Century Fox).

... public relations is not exactly something at which Al-Waleed has previously excelled. But not for want of trying. Recall that he was the Saudi prince who made headlines after September 11th when he visited Ground Zero and offered then-New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani a $10 million check for relief efforts.

A few days later, however, the prince released a statement that blamed the United States and its support for Israel for the devastating 9/11 attacks. To his credit, “America’s Mayor” immediately returned the prince’s check with a statement: “There is no moral equivalent for this attack. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification when they slaughtered…innocent people….Not only are those statements wrong, they’re part of the problem.”

Shortly after the check fiasco, he permitted the CBS program “60 Minutes” to profile him and his hyper-rich, internationally jet-setting lifestyle. ... he told his incredulous interviewer, Ed Bradley, that that Saudi Arabia is a country with “no problems.”

When pressed, he insisted, “What I'm telling you is Saudi Arabia has no civil unrest, no civil disobedience. Sorry. Saudi Arabia is a very stable country. Sure…we had these bombs here and there, but they were all related to a certain subject.”

Even more troubling than having a Saudi spinmeister, even a lousy one, at the decision-making table of America’s most successful, and conservative, television network is another aspect of Al-Waleed’s deal with Mr. Murdoch. The Australian entrepreneur has reportedly also given the prince the unfiltered ability to broadcast Saudi-produced materials directly into America on Murdoch’s satellite.

Here’s how that part of the deal will evidently work: Prince Al-Waleed’s Rotana Audio Visual Company, which operates TV channels in the Middle East, has signed a deal with DirecTV, the TV-satellite firm controlled by NewsCorp. As a result, it would seem Rotana will be able to beam its programs into U.S. cable boxes without interference from federal regulators, or anybody else.

Rotana has a huge library of movies, music and television programs. Such programming has to also include vicious anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American incitement. That is, after all, the only kind of material the Wahhabi religious censors approve for production and broadcast in Saudi Arabia. Could that be what the prince has in mind for DirecTV subscribers?

It may seem that al-Waleed's assertion that Saudi Arabia is a country with "no problems" is simply a silly, miscalculated P.R. spin. But, it isn't simply that. Instead, it is an example of the cultural discourse in the Islamic world. Leading intellectuals, holders of high office, and members of the media commonly say, and seemingly believe the most outlandish and contradictory things. Here are some examples:

1) After the Egypt Air crash, when an Islamic pilot crashed the jet into the sea in a successful "suicide" (read Jihad) attempt, members of the American NTSA were stymied by the Egyptian government whose officials maintained the pilot could not have been attempting to down the plane because such a thing would have contradicted Islam.

2) Leading intellectuals and politicians proclaim Israel downed the WTC buildings.

3) Leading Arab politicians perpetuate Holocaust denial and conspiracy theories of Jewish complicity with Hitler.

The truth is, such thinking is not simply a dimwitted public relations maneuver, but is, instead, evidence of the twisted Islamic-supremacism of the Jihadi mindset. These people believe these things, against all logic, because they believe that, as Muslims, they are superior and thus entitled to reshape the fabric of reality to fit their myths.

When they say these things, we are to believe them. We are to be humiliated and subdued by such statements. Humiliated, because they will not back down no matter how much we protest, and subdued because they will dominate us with their imperialism of the truth. We are supposed to bow down to their lies.

It is crucial that we understand this. They are not stupid, they are not incapable of logic, and they are not merely lacking in the sophistication required to do coherent public relations. These truth-raping machinations are, instead, are best understood as Jihad of the mind; which is part of the larger Jihad seeking to establish a global Caliphate.

In fact, we can expect that the Prince's acquisition of NewsCorp stock is only the beginning of such Jihad in our country.

The Imam and the FDNY

You know, for God's sake, it seems like everytime we find a good moderate Muslim Imam, or human rights activist, or whatever, he turns out to be just another Jihadi. Recently the Fire Dept. of New York went looking for a Muslim Chaplain. Oh boy.

The source is Associated Press and Newsday. The story and comment from Christian Hate?:

The Fire Department of New York wants to appoint a Muslim chaplain. They thought they’d found the man for the job, and were on the point of swearing him in, when it emerged that he’d given an interview in which he’d expressed scepticism that the World Trade Center could really have been demolished by a couple of jumbo jets.

“Was it 19 hijackers who brought it down, or was it a conspiracy?" inquired Imam Intiqab Habib. The sources don’t say who he thinks did the conspiring, but it’s not hard to guess.

Well, New York firefighters evidently have low tolerance for half-baked conspiracy theories about the events that cost 343 of their comrades their lives. Muslim firefighters say they had no idea that he held these views. So the FDNY is still looking for a Muslim chaplain.

What this says about the state of Islam is in is pretty depressing. It’s surely no coincidence that Habib studied in Saudi Arabia, and, as Irshad Manji argues in her manifesto for an Islamic Reformation, the sooner that country’s ideological stranglehold on the faith can be broken the better.

But let’s not dwell on the negative. Contemplate for a moment, if you will, what it says about the nation the rest of the world loves to hate – and which a significant chunk of the world hates particularly because of its friendship with Israel: the Fire Department of New York is looking for a Muslim chaplain.

Thanks for the compliment, my brother. (Chistian Hate? is written by a Englishman)

Friday, September 30, 2005

Bush Corners the Mullahs

From Jerome Corsi at World Net Daily:

Iran now faces going before the Security Council if the mullahs persist to enrich uranium. In August, Iran defied the EU-3 by breaking off negotiations and resuming uranium processing at Isfahan. The Iranians are now threatening to start enriching uranium at their centrifuge processing plant at Natanz, claiming that under the NPT they have the "right" to pursue the "full fuel cycle," just so they stop one or two steps short of actually making a nuclear weapon. Reports coming out of Iran suggest that technical problems are holding up the Iranians. Evidently, the uranium hexafluoride gas coming out of Isfahan is of such poor quality that processing it in the centrifuges at Natanz would actually damage the centrifuges.

Right after the 2004 Inauguration, President Bush and Secretary of State Rice met in Europe with the EU-3 and agreed to support the then-ongoing negotiations with Iran on one condition. That condition was that if the negotiations broke down, then the EU-3 would vote in the IAEA to take Iran before the Security Council. The EU-3 kept their part of the agreement. What Iran had not counted on was the condition President Bush had set with the EU-3 – namely, that Iran must agree to stop permanently all uranium processing for negotiations to resume, or for resumed negotiations to end successfully. With this condition set, the strategy to corner the mullahs was put in place.

Inch by inch, the president intends to take away all the Iranians' wiggle room. If Iran wants nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the president is prepared to agree, provided that 1) Iran accepts the needed nuclear fuel from others, and 2) that Iran makes all aspects of their nuclear program fully transparent to aggressive international inspection. The Iranians have made it clear they will never accept these conditions. But if the Iranians are telling the truth in that peaceful use of nuclear energy is all they want, then the offer to provide the nuclear fuel should be good enough. If the Iranians refuse, suspicions rise that they are lying, intending to engage in subterfuge so they can continue their clandestine weapons program.

The Iranians respond by asserting a "right" to process uranium as a matter of national pride. But they give themselves away when they act cornered, threatening to cancel deals to sell India oil because India voted with the U.S. at the IAEA.

So, President Bush's gambit is likely to work. But what happens next? Russia and China, both permanent members of the Security Council, are unlikely to vote for greater sanctions against a non-compliant Iran. Maybe Bush wants to expose both Iran and the United Nations. Is the Security Council truly anti-American? Would the Security Council support a rogue terror-supporting state like Iran, with no clear assurance that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons? Maybe this is the full gambit – to corner both Iran and the Security Council.

The Bush administration fought hard to get John Bolton in place. If the goal is to corner both the Iran and the Security Council, John Bolton is the right guy.

Let's hope so.

Faith-Based Initiatives In the Wake of Hurricane Katrina

From Joseph Farah:

Thanks to the urging of Republican officials, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has agreed to transfer taxpayer money to churches and other religious organizations as reimbursement for providing shelter, food and supplies to survivors of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

That was the "good news" from Washington this week.

The American Civil Liberties Union wasn't happy about it – and neither am I. We differ only on our reasons.

The ACLU, of course, believes the allocation of federal tax dollars to religious groups for any reason is a violation of the First Amendment prohibition against establishing a state church.

But the idea that the First Amendment forbids the government from promoting religion in the broadest terms is just plain bogus. It wasn't true for 200 years of American history. This is a recent invention of extremists who would share little in the way of civic values and republican philosophy with Thomas Jefferson – the man who coined the term "separation of church and state."

Jefferson didn't believe in anything remotely resembling our modern notions of "separation of church and state." His concerns, and the concerns of the other founders, were all based on how government might harm churches, not vice versa.

And it is this concern of mine – not any phony First Amendment issues – that leads me to oppose this latest government attempt to seduce the church.

We don't need it. Like practically everything else government touches, it's going to do more harm than good. It will result in profligate waste and inefficiency. And though there is no First Amendment problem with the idea, there very definitely is a constitutional problem.

The charity programs to be funded have nothing to do with the enumerated powers of the federal government. In other words, they are none of Washington's business. They are rightly the domain of the churches and private charities, not the U.S. government.

This represents the government's latest bid to usurp the authority and mission of the churches. It's the church's job to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and nurse the sick – not the U.S. government's.

Government has already far exceeded its constitutional authority and largely hijacked this vital role from the church. That's neither to the church's credit, nor the government's.

I'm glad to see Farah coming out against this. I have another problem with churches being given money for services by the government. That is, such an arrangement will make churches beholden to the government, which will inevitably lead to churches changing their services to fit the dictates off the government. While the government doesn't do a lot of things well, one of the things it does do well is attatch strings to the money it hands out. The church would wind up hanging in a tangle of red tape, some of which would go against the foundational beliefs of Christianity.

In short, the Church will become a fee-for-service organization. As the Bride of Christ, were not supposed to be getting paid for our Love.

Intelligent Design Theory
If Only I Could Remember My Name

Roger Simon makes a good point when he says Intelligent Design theory is a threat to our economy (well, except for the bloviating):

Go ahead and believe the "intelligent design" theory if you want to - I think it's claptrap and an insult to theists - but please keep it out of the science classroom. Our social studies and humanities classes are already polluted by enough asinine nonsense from the fuddy-duddy left. We don't need to have science turned into Bible class (covert or otherwise) from the other side.

I don't blame the biology teachers in Dover, PA for keeping this pseudo-science out of their classrooms. They've got plenty to do getting their high school students prepared for the serious (and worsening) competition of the global economy. (You can bet their peers in Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai aren't wasting a helluva lot of time on "intelligent design.")

To be clear. I have no objection to crèches at the mall, the Ten Commandments in court rooms, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, etc., etc. Although I support separation of church and state, I'm happy to respect everyone's beliefs and I'm not particularly scared of this country turning into a theocracy. But the science classroom is for science. Students in Dover, Pennsylvania and other rural areas are just as entitled to a real education as those in Los Angeles and New York. In fact the country needs them to have it, especially in science and math. And in the case of public education, it is not in our interest to waste precious taxpayer dollars teaching mythology in biology.

Like, I said, I think Roger Simon has a good point, but I say he's bloviating because of the use of the words like "claptrap" and "asinine." He has pronounced Intelligent Design to be claptrap, and yet he hasn't made a single argument against it. In fact, I doubt he could, because I doubt he has read the work of any Intelligent Design theorists.

But, here's the thing; I have. And honestly, I don't think Intelligent Design has risen to the level of a theory yet. The basic idea is that Universe is too complex and, well, "intelligent," to have occurred randomly. What's more, this idea is backed up by science, in the sense that science has yet to explain how the Universe could have evolved to this level of complexity in the 15 billion years that it has, apparently, existed.

Most arguments about both evolution and Intelligent Design consist almost entirely of bloviating. I have had many unfortunate discussions with my fellow Christians over the years on the subject of evolution. Often,their primary argument, seems to consist of the sentence, "We didn't come from monkeys. It says in the Bible that God created man in His Image."

Yes, yes, I know it does. But, could not God have used evolution as one of the mechanisms by which He created us?

Now, here's the thing that most people misunderstand about Intelligent Design theory. It does not say that evolution hasn't occurred. Nor does it say that evolution might not very well be the primary mechanism by which life has developed. It simply says that Natural Selection, alone, can not account for the amount of change which has occurred in the given lifetime of the Universe.

When Roger Simon says that Intelligent Design theory is an "insult to Theists," he demonstrates that he has never read any real Intelligent Design theorists, because, while most ID theorists are Christians, or Jews, it is not a Christian or Jewish theory. It is simply a theory which says that there must have been an "intelligent" creator.

Now, here's my problem with Intelligent Design. In all I have read of it, I have yet to come across more to the theory than the idea that there must be intelligence behind the complexity. Ok, that seems reasonable. In fact, I think it is even an important thought. However, in and of itself, it is not science. It is simply the beginning of science.

Why do I say that? Well, what Intelligent Design theory does (as far as I have gotten with it) is it

1) runs through the evidence for Natural Selection having created the universe by itself,

2) pronounces that it could not have,

3) says that there must be intelligence behind the complexity.

To it's credit, ID Theory does give specifics about why there must be intelligence. The specifics have to do with things such as the fact that DNA code is comparable to computer code. That there are mechanisms in cellular structure which function in ways which are almost exactly analogous to machines such as rotors, etc. So, the idea is, if life is made up of exactly the same structures that we create when we create machines and computers, then there must be intelligence behind life.

Of course, the whole thing simply could go the other way. In other words, we create things this way because it makes sense to us, because of how we ourselves are structured. In other words, we create machines and computers because, as is always true with artists, our subject matter is ourselves.

I, actually, largely agree with Roger Simon that Intelligent Design theory can, and probably will, be harmful to American Education. Why? Well, because I think many teachers will simply use it as a Trojan Horse in which to deliver Creationism. In other words, they will use ID as a way to teach that the Universe was literally created in seven days, or 168 hours.

That is highly unlikely, to say the least. If that was so then why are we receiving light on planet Earth which originally set out from it's star billions of years ago. Is God tricking us?

No, I doubt that. (I'm being sarcastic here, just in case it isn't obvious.)

But listen, while I do think that Intelligent Design Theory could very likely be a danger to American Education, in the long run, I think the questions it asks are very important ones.

Here's a new way to think about Intelligent Design. If all Intelligent Design says is, there must be intelligence behind the design of the Universe, then what if that "Intelligence" were simply, say, a scientist in a lab? What if we are simply an experiement in a Petri dish somewhere? Or, what if we are the creation of a machine? Could it not be possible that sometime in the past some other intelligence had formed, created machines, which then created us?

It sounds like Science Fiction? Yes, well, our world itself is beginning to sound like science fiction, if you haven't noticed. We are just entering a century which will dazzle our minds with bioengineering, nanotechnology, computer chips processing at the speed of light, quantuum computing, life-like robotics, etc. When you take such things into account the notion that we, ourselves, may have been created by a "scientist" somewhere is not so insane.

Now, here's another thing. What if that "scientist" who created us left clues in our code on how to contact him? What if he included his name and email address? What if we could finally learn our own names? The names he gave us. In other words, what if we could learn what it is we were created for?

I say, this is not an impossible notion, and for this reason, I think the pursuit of Intelligent Design Theory may be among the most noble quests on which the human race has ever embarked. As long as we don't set out on the journey thinking that we know exactly where we will wind up, we should do as well as we always have done, which means we will probably find some very interesting answers, and create some stuff we never anticipated along the way.

After all, that's how science is done.

Britain Says Israel's Offensive Is "Appropriate"

From the Jerusalem Post, via Little Green Footballs:

Israel's response to the recent Kassam rocket attacks on Sderot has been measured and appropriate, Kim Howells, Britain's Minister of State for the Middle East, told The Jerusalem Post, disregarding Palestinian appeals for the world to rein in the IDF.

Howells, on a three-day visit to the region, hinted in an interview Wednesday night that financial aid to the Palestinian Authority might be withheld if the PA did not seriously begin tackling the terrorism in its midst.

"The Palestinians are receiving more aid per capita than any other people on the face of the earth, and we want to see some proper response," Howells said, hinting at a decrease of economic aid if the Palestinians don't fight terror.

"I thought the retaliation this week was proportionate," said Howells about the IDF operations. "The [Palestinian] attack was a very serious one, it could have killed a lot of people. It's a miracle really there weren't more casualties."

"I think there is no excuse now," he added. "Gaza is now in the hands of the Palestinian Authority, and there are no Israeli troops there. One hopes that where tough decisions have to be made, Abu Mazen [PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas] and the PA will make them."

At the same time, Howells said, the world would carefully watch how "selective" the IDF's retaliation would be. "I don't think that any nation on earth relishes the prospect of world opinion if it retaliates by shelling indiscriminately. But it seems to me that the Israelis have targeted with great care those it believes responsible for firing those rockets."

If this care continues, Howells said, "the world will understand [Israelis] are trying to defend their citizens, which after all is the primary responsibility of any government."

(Rubbing my eyes. Blinking. Trying to refocus. Rubbing my eyes again. Taking a drink of water. Trying to read again. Getting up and going to the bathroom. Coming back and trying to read again.)

No, it really does say that. Britain has really emerged from the REM stage and appears to be almost fully awake.

Of course, it's appropiate for a state to kill those who are responsible for attacking them. Sheesh, that's been my point all along here at CUANAS. If the governments of the world all stop picking on Israel and the Jews like this, I'll have lost my raison d' etre.

Hallelujah. I would love to stop writing this blog.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Dictatorship As Piracy of the State

There's an important discussion going on over at the Belmont Club. It began with a post by Wretchard regarding the fact that Belgium has issued an arrest warrant for the former dictator of Chad, Hissene Habre. Mr. Habre is, being accused of torture and various Crimes Against Humanity.

The discussion revolves around the legitimacy of one state trying the leader of another state for Crimes Against Humanity. Check this out:

desert rat said...

Senegal arrests Hissène Habré and deports him to Belgium.
We have arrested folk in transit to Canada and deported them by rendition to their "Home" counties.
We have siezed "Criminal Terrorist" suspects in Italy and delivered them to Eygpt, if my memory serves.
International Law requires the Force of Arms to enforce it. Who the Police are, of course, makes all the difference.

wretchard said...

First of all, I'd like to observe there is nothing in principle which prevents any other country from claiming the same Universal Jurisdiction as Belgium. It follows that those countries can also issue warrants of arrest for people according to their lights, including members of Human Rights Watch and members of the Belgian judiciary. I'm not saying that such warrants are in the slightest justified, but I cannot see the objection in principle.

Desert Rat makes the very valid point that to a certain extent, nations do this already via treaty. Yet Human Rights Watch seems to regard this as unprecedented. One could say, OK: Belgium doesn't have the power to enforce their orders, so why worry? But is their right to issue the arrest order conceded?

desert rat said...

Mohammadan "Judges" issue Death Warrants, with bounties. The Iranian Death Warrant is still outstanding for Salman Rushdie, I think.

Iran never requested his extradition, the Brits won't deport accused criminals in Capitial Punishment cases.

Aristides said...

Dumb, actually. While this most recent indictment is aimed at a truly despicable character, in reality it is nothing more than a chum line for the anti-American laywer-sharks, who will eventually follow it to its inevitable conclusion. Lawyers who prosecute Crimes Against Humanity are paid out of the coffers of NGO's, who in turn receive their money predominantly from Leftist activists. Since these activists want nothing more than to see America embarrassed and her officials incarcerated, NGO's will market their legal product towards activist propensities by paying teams of lawyers to do just that.

Which will, much like the brew-ha-ha over Rumsfeld, alienate the good graces of America and American diplomacy, which for a has-been power like Belgium is just plain dumb. If it weren't so potentially disrupting, it would be laughable.

TigerHawk said...

The Belgian law is absurd. Fundamental justice requires that people "choose," at least in a theoretical sense, the laws under which they will be subject. Personal jurisdiction over a prospective defendant, therefore, is dependant upon "contacts" with the jurisdiction seeking to enforce its laws. If Habre has committed crimes against Belgium or Belgians, then he may be subject to its jurisdiction. Otherwise, he should not be.

The United States has not helped itself in this regard, by the way. It has long tried to extend its laws and its personal jurisdiction against businesses and individuals with scant contacts. But American inconsistency in this matter does not make the Belgian law any less unjust.

Aristides said...

Yes, any country can claim universal jurisdiction, but in the past crimes that merited such jurisdiction, piracy for instance, were well-defined and the norms well-established by consensus, or at least by great powers.

Unilaterally declaring universal jurisdiction has happened, but only by global powers like Britain in the 19th Century. Belgium doing it for an ill-defined "crimes against humanity" is, since it is a third rate power, quite unprecedented.

wretchard said...


You are right in every practical sense. But in terms of perception, the Left has framed the debate yet again.

Personally I think we should arrest and prosecute all scumbag dictators and issue a warrant of arrest for Fidel Castro as well. Now that the Cold War is over, why not go after these guys? But we won't. The issue will be politicized and the "bad" dictators (i.e. the ones who knew Ronald Reagan) will have warrants outstanding and the "good" ones will get admiring visits from world statesmen.

Aristides said...

That is a very interesting thought, Wretchard, about arresting all dictators. Upon reading it, it struck me that a plausible end-state of Bush's goal--ending tyranny in our world--could be a push by America to label tyranny a crime against humanity and thereby enforcing this law via universal jurisdiction. Dictatorship as piracy, but of nations, not ships, and once again the English-speakers step to the plate.

It is not yet time, but if China's dictatorship should fall and democracy rise in its place...

Just a thought.

And, a rather brilliant thought at that. Go read the rest of the disussion.

"Tataglia Is A Pimp"

From the Moscow News via Roger Simon:

Moscow "has stepped up military-technological cooperation with Tehran," the business daily said, citing an unidentified source.

It said top officials within Russia's military-industrial complex decided to concentrate on arms sales to Tehran for two reasons.

"Firstly, as many weapons as possible must be sold to Iran before an international embargo against this country comes into force."

Secondly, should the United States decide to go to war in Iran, Russia wants Iran to be well-armed to ensure that U.S. forces become at least as bogged down there as they already are in Iraq, the daily said.

"In either case, such a policy carries a high risk of creating a major international scandal, at the very least," the newspaper commented.

Desperation, greed and stupidity have ruled Russia since the tsars. Why should it change now?

Both Russia and China are playing the same game with Iran. In fact, Russia and China are using Iran as an unaccountable weapon against the United States, in the very same way Iran uses Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, and various other Jihadi groups as an unaccountable weapon against us. This war is being fought in layers. The real powers of the world can not afford to go up against each other directly, so they use smaller countries to attack us indirectly.

Pamela at Atlas Shrugs calls Iran "the Tataglias" and the China/Russia Axis "Barzini." The reference is to The Godfather. Barzini, the mastermind, used the Tatglia family to get to the Don. Yes, it was Barzini all along, and yes, it has been China and Russia all along.

It's a very dangerous game they play. They had better hope that none of their little Jihadis goes to far one day, or they will find a barrage of nuclear-tipped ICBM's jammed up their asses.

We live in interesting times, and most of us seem not even to know it.

Flight Attendants Outraged Over Jodie Foster Film

From Reuters:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Labor unions representing most of the nation's 90,000 flight attendants have urged their members to boycott a new Jodie Foster film that portrays a flight attendant and a U.S. air marshal as terrorists.

They said that casting cabin crew members as villains in the movie "Flightplan" was irresponsible in light of heightened security concerns since the September 11, 2001 attacks, in which suicide hijackers used airliners as guided missiles.

The Walt Disney Co. film, which was the No. 1 release at the North American box office last weekend, stars Foster as an airline passenger who awakens from an in-flight nap to find her young daughter missing. It turns out that one of the flight attendants aboard is involved in a terrorist plot hatched by the plane's air marshal.

A union statement issued on Tuesday also complained that other flight attendants in the film are shown as being "rude, unhelpful and uncaring."

"This depiction of flight attendants is an outrage," said Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) International President Patricia Friend. "Flight attendants continue to be the first line of defense on an aircraft and put their lives on the line day after day for the safety of passengers."

An AFA spokeswoman in Washington said the unions worry that moviegoers will take away impressions that will make it more difficult for flight attendants to "earn the trust and respect of passengers."

"It's just so irresponsible," the spokeswoman, Corey Caldwell, told Reuters on Wednesday.

She said the portrayal of airline cabin crew members as evil-doers adds further insult to long-standing Hollywood stereotypes that have depicted flight attendants as sexualized bubble heads or as harsh, humorless disciplinarians.

A Disney spokesman said that in making "Flightplan," which grossed nearly $25 million last weekend, "there was absolutely no intention on the part of the studio or filmmakers to create anything but a great action thriller."

Pastorius Note: No Mr. Disney Spokeshole, there was intention on the part of the Disney corporation to AVOID AT ALL COSTS any realistic discussion of terrorism. There was an implicit intent to further Dhimmify Americans.

I say everyone should boycott this movie. In fact, I haven't seen a Hollywood movie in a year, other than childrens movies. If I could avoid those without making my poor kids have to be part of my adult wrath at Hollywood, believe me, I would.

Think about the unspoken reality of this Flight Attendant Union Press Release. Flight Attendants are in the air all the time. They and their fellow flight attendants know each other and talk with each other on a fairly constant basis. Considering all the rumors, and in some cases, direct testimonies about Muslim-looking men conducting dry runs, these Flight Attendants know the truth of what is going on. They know that this War on Terror is being fought right under their noses. And, they are being portrayed as the dangerous bad guys?

God, what an insult that must be to them.

Be extra nice to the Flight Attendant next time you fly.

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Bush Declares Saudi Arabia Fit For Financial Aid?

What the ...?:

"I hereby certify that Saudi Arabia is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the proposed assistance will help facilitate that effort," Bush said.

Under a 2005 spending bill, direct U.S. aid to Saudi Arabia is forbidden unless the president certifies that Riyadh is cooperating with efforts to combat international terrorism and that the money will help that campaign.

Why does Saudi Arabia need financial aid? The people who make up the government are the richest people in the world. Sure, many of their people are poor, but that's because the government does nothing for them. So, why should we help?

And besides, as Jihad Watch notes, Saudi Arabia is not REALLY helping in the War on Terror:

Saudi Arabia has “seen the face of the devil, and they don’t want it.” So says Prince Saud, the Saudi Foreign Minister. The Saudis have seen the light since 9/11, he says, and they want no part of religious extremism; the Kingdom is no longer a haven for terrorists.

While the Prince’s words were soothing, it is much more likely that he and other members of the House of Saud have seen the face not of the devil, but of the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2005. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the Act and the general incitement to terrorism in America through jihadist literature and speech are scheduled to begin October 25, and the Saudis are scrambling to appear as if they have decisively rejected the jihad terrorism that they so energetically backed for so many years.

But have they? Not exactly. “Oh Allah, liberate our Al-Aqsa Mosque from the defilement of the occupying and brutal Zionists….Oh Allah, punish the occupying Zionists and their supporters from among the corrupt infidels.” According to the Middle East Media Research Institute, Sheikh Abd Al-Rahman Al-Sudayyis preached that in a sermon in Mecca on July 15 – of 2005, not 2001. He also railed against American pop culture, which he termed “the terrible deluge of all manner of vice, which is considered a form of moral terrorism against the values, ideals, and virtues of the Islamic nation.” His sermon was carried on Saudi Arabia’s Channel 1.

Nor did Saudi TV, which is strictly controlled by the government, limit itself to prayers for punishment of the Israelis and Americans. On August 29 Saudi Iqra TV aired a program calling on Saudis to donate money to support the Palestinian jihad. “As the Prophet Muhammad said, Jihad is the pinnacle of Islam,” the program’s organizer reminded viewers. “A person who cannot wage Jihad with his soul is required to wage Jihad with his money, with his tongue, with his thought, and with any means at his disposal. There is no doubt that our brothers in Palestine desperately need financial support, which goes directly to this cause, and helps them to carry out this mission.”

On the same show, Sheikh Abdallah Basfar, secretary-general of the Muslim World League Koran Memorization Commission (a Saudi government agency) added: “All the funds sent via known charities and organizations reach your Muslim brothers, Allah be praised. Undoubtedly, this aid is obligatory and not just recommended. This is the duty of every Muslim, based on the scholars’ religious ruling that supporting our brothers in Palestine is obligatory. Therefore, material support is a duty.” Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who introduced the latest Saudi Arabia Accountability Act into the Senate, noted in support of the Act of 2003 that the Saudis “are reported to have contributed as much as $4 billion to Hamas over the course of the latest intifada.” Could some of that money have gone to finance Hamas’ suicide attacks against innocent civilians in buses and restaurants? Is it still going to finance Hamas’ terrorist activities? Nor is the Palestinian jihad the only ones the Saudis support. NBC’s Lisa Myers reported last summer: “An NBC News analysis of hundreds of foreign fighters who died in Iraq over the last two years reveals that a majority came from the same country as most of the 9/11 hijackers — Saudi Arabia. Among the suicide bombers was Ahmed al-Ghamdi, a one-time medical student and son of a Saudi diplomat. In December 2004, he climbed into a truck in Mosul and blew himself up. On an Internet video, another Saudi says goodbye to his mother, then drives an ambulance full of explosives into a building.” What motivated these people to go to Iraq? Unmistakably, it was the jihad ideology that, now over four years after 9/11, continues to be taught all over Saudi Arabia — while political correctness and fear prevent the State Department from identifying it as any problem, actual or potential.

There are, however, Saudi leaders who have come out against jihad in Iraq. The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Asheikh, has denounced it. Did he condemn attacks against American troops there and remind Saudis of their country’s alliance with the United States? Not exactly. He came out against “attempts by suspicious parties to trigger sectarian tension between the people of Iraq,” saying that such attempts only served “the aims of the enemies conspiring against Muslims.” In other words, he was only condemning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s recent declaration of war against Shi’ite Muslims. In an oblique condemnation of U.S. forces in Iraq, he also criticized those who committed “bloodshed and murder of innocents by planes and bombs.”

What has the U.S. done in response to all this? Last Friday, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey found that two Saudi officials who have been named as defendants in 9/11 lawsuits, Interior Minister Prince Naif and Prince Salman, Governor of Riyadh, were not liable. And last Wednesday, Associated Press reported that President Bush decided “to waive any financial sanctions on Saudi Arabia, Washington’s closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism, for failing to do enough to stop the modern-day slave trade in prostitutes, child sex workers and forced laborers.”

America’s closest Arab ally in the war on terrorism? Really? What kind of ally — particularly a tightly-controlled society like Saudi Arabia — allows a steady stream of its citizens to travel to a neighboring country to wage war against forces with which it is supposed to be allied? What kind of ally broadcasts exhortations to wage this war over its government-controlled television stations?

It’s time for Congress to pass and President Bush to sign the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act. After all, he himself said it best after 9/11: you’re either with the terrorists or with us. He should signal to the Saudis that they can no longer have it both ways.

WTC Hate-America Museum Idea Is Nixed

I will admit it. Some news is just too depressing/maddening for me to even deal with. The planned "International Freedom Center" at the site of the World Trade Center was one of those stories which so totally got me down that you won't find a single reference to it on CUANAS.

Until today, because the whole stupid idea got shit-canned by the most excellent Governor Pataki:

(New York -AP, Sept. 28, 2005) - Gov. George Pataki on Wednesday ousted a proposed freedom museum from its site at ground zero, declaring that the International Freedom Center has generated “too much opposition, too much controversy” to remain.

The decision follows months of acrimony over the Freedom Center, with furious families and politicians saying that the museum would dishonor the memory of the 2,749 people who died at the World Trade Center.

“We must move forward with our first priority, the creation of an inspiring memorial to pay tribute to our lost loved ones and tell their stories to the world,” Pataki said in a statement.

All I can say is: YES!!!

And really, eff all of you who came up with that hate-America idea. I wish you would all just move to France, for God's sake.

Heart of Darkness

From Little Green Footballs:

Heart of Darkness

The remarkable thing about the terror in Iraq is the silence with which it is greeted in other Arab lands. Grant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi his due: He has been skilled at exposing the pitilessness on the loose in that fabled Arab street and the moral emptiness of so much of official Arab life. The extremist is never just a man of the fringe: He always works at the outer edges of mainstream life, playing out the hidden yearnings and defects of the dominant culture. Zarqawi is a bigot and a killer, but he did not descend from the sky. He emerged out of the Arab world's sins of omission and commission; in the way he rails against the Shiites (and the Kurds) he expresses that fatal Arab inability to take in "the other." A terrible condition afflicts the Arabs, and Zarqawi puts it on lethal display: an addiction to failure, and a desire to see this American project in Iraq come to a bloody end.

Zarqawi's war, it has to be conceded, is not his alone; he kills and maims, he labels the Shiites rafida (rejecters of Islam), he charges them with treason as "collaborators of the occupiers and the crusaders," but he can be forgiven the sense that he is a holy warrior on behalf of a wider Arab world that has averted its gaze from his crimes, that has given him its silent approval. He and the band of killers arrayed around him must know the meaning of this great Arab silence.

There is a cliché that distinguishes between cultures of shame and cultures of guilt, and by that crude distinction, it has always been said that the Arab world is a "shame culture." But in truth there is precious little shame in Arab life about the role of the Arabs in the great struggle for and within Iraq. What is one to make of the Damascus-based Union of Arab Writers that has refused to grant membership in its ranks to Iraqi authors? The pretext that Iraqi writers can't be "accredited" because their country is under American occupation is as good an illustration as it gets of the sordid condition of Arab culture. For more than three decades, Iraq's life was sheer and limitless terror, and the Union of Arab Writers never uttered a word. Through these terrible decades, Iraqis suffered alone, and still their poetry and literature adorn Arabic letters. They need no acknowledgment of their pain, or of their genius, from a literary union based in a city in the grip of a deadening autocracy.

A culture of shame would surely see into the shame of an Arab official class with no tradition of accountability granting itself the right to hack away at Iraq's constitution, dismissing it as the handiwork of the American regency. Unreason, an indifference to the most basic of facts, and a spirit of belligerence have settled upon the Arab world. Those who, in Arab lands beyond Iraq, have taken to describing the Iraqi constitution as an "American-Iranian constitution," give voice to a debilitating incoherence. At the heart of this incoherence lies an adamant determination to deny the Shiites of Iraq a claim to their rightful place in their country's political order.

(Mr. Ajami teaches International Relations at Johns Hopkins University.)

It goes on from there. Go read it.

Living in America Without English

From, via Drudge Report:

In ethnically diverse Los Angeles, many immigrants find that learning Korean, Spanish or Mandarin is more important than English.

Manuel Aliga, a Peruvian immigrant, has spent years studying Korean. He runs a store that sells soccer supplies in Koreatown.

At the beginning, English was very important -- and it still is, if I need to go to a government office or court or get a license, Aliaga told the Los Angeles Daily News.

Aliaga began learning Korean because he worked in Korean owned groceries and wanted to talk to his employers and customers. Now, he needs to communicate with his own customers, suppliers and other business owners in the neighborhood.

But he has also become an admirer of Korean ways and now spends his spare time studying Korean history.

Martin Paik, a Seoul native who emigrated to Los Angeles by way of Argentina, does not speak English. He writes a column on conversational Spanish for the Korea Times.

In California, Spanish is more important than English, Paik. "I haven't found any inconvenience because I don't speak English.

Get a load of that last sentence. The fact of the matter is, American culture is based on English. All the primary documents of America Government (the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, etc., Supreme Court findings) are written in English. The libraries of our major universities are made up of books which are overwhelmingly written in English. The language of the stock exchange, and the various centers of financial power is English.

So, no matter how one feels about multiculturalism, it is clear that anyone who does not learn English is LOCKED OUT of these important institutions of power. If we allow areas to grow within our cities where foreign cultures grow as cultures within a culture, where they become little windowless mondads within our culture, impermeable membranes floating through culture but adding nothing to it and taking nothing from it, then we are setting up the conditions for future conflict.

If we don't do something about this problem, this non-English-speaking immigrant culture will continue to grow, and become more powerful within it's own sphere. It's economy will be largely separate. It will develope it's own institutions, beginning with churches and insurance cooperatives, and gangs/police. Eventually it will grow to the status of a nation within our nation. At that point we would be faced with the spectre of having to attempt to swallow an entire culture whole. As that is impossible, war would break out.

The answer in my opinion is to put a long, but temporary halt to immigration. This would give us the time and resources to begin to deal with the situation in front of us. We could develop systems and tools to reach out to the existent immigrant communities and help them to assimilate, help them become Americans. This would be the compassionate and wise thing to do.

The fact of the matter is, if we do not protect American culture, then America will eventually cease to exist. American culture is indeed a fluid and ever-changing culture. It is a melting pot. But, it is contained within a pot. It has a formal structure. If American culture loses strength over time, then immigrant culture would be likely to govern in the manner of the countries from which they came. Does that sound like a good prospect for the world?

If America ceases to exist, then there will be no America to immigrate to.

Tuesday, September 27, 2005

A Sin Of Omission

Perhaps the most important post in the blogosphere today is Zombie's "Anatomy of a Photograph", which analyzes how the mainstream media lies to us, even through the documentary medium of photography. Please cut and paste the link:

Israel Unleashes Missile Strike Against Gaza

Good for Israel. That's what they should do. When one state attacks another state, as the Palestinians have done to Israel, then the state which is attack is within their rights, and their responsibility to their own citizens to subdue their enemy. So, that's what Israel should do. Strike, strike, and strike again, until the Palestinians will fight no more. Of course, AP doesn't see it that way:

JERUSALEM - Israeli aircraft pressed ahead with its offensive against Palestinian militants, unleashing a barrage of missiles against targets throughout Gaza City early Wednesday, knocking out power and plunging the city into darkness. No injuries were immediately reported.

Missiles landed in at least three locations, including the impoverished Tufah neighborhood and the Bureij refugee camp, just south of the city. One airstrike hit a two-story building used by the ruling Fatah party. The offices provide tutoring lessons to school children, and cash and food assistance to families in Tufah.

Pastorius note: Who cares what kind of front they put up for cover. This is Palestinian propaganda. You can be sure that that building is also housing terrorists and their operations. On with AP's story:

Tensions in the region were further inflamed when Hamas militants released a video of a bound and blindfolded Israeli businessman who they had kidnapped and later killed — an attack that appeared to signal a new tactic in the militants' fight against Israel.

Pastorius note: Remember, just yesterday, Hamas had called a cease fire? And already they are back targeting Israel with rocket attacks. Why should Israel trust a word they say. They have done this time and time and time again. Back to AP's, uh, story,

Renewed fighting with the Palestinians in Gaza over the past week has compounded Sharon's political problems. Hamas militants launched dozens of homemade Qassam rockets at southern Israel over the weekend, prompting a major Israeli offensive, marked by airstrikes in Gaza and arrest raids in the West Bank.

Pastorius note: This is absolute bullshit (pardon my sloppy French), Sharon just today was reaffirmed by the Israeli Parliament. How is it that AP can say that his problems are compounded? It seems to me he has shored up his hold on power.

The leader of another Palestinian militant group, Islamic Jihad, said it will halt rocket attacks against Israel but reserved the right to retaliate for Israeli attacks.

Pastorius note: Make that the NEW leader of Islamic Jihad. Israel just killed their previous leader two days ago. So, keep on attacking buddy. You'll be dead soon, as well.

Monday, September 26, 2005

Wandering In the Wildnerness
With The Guardian

Thanks to Atlas Shrugs, for making me aware of this, from the Guadian:

Compassion is putting yourself in the other person's shoes and feeling sympathy. It does not require affection. One might feel compassion for Hitler, Stalin or Saddam on learning about their appalling childhoods (like most famous dictators, they lost a parent before the age of 14), or even for George Bush (who had a beastly time), but still hate them for what they did.

The Guardian has clearly lost their moral compass. It's going to be a long forty years.

Why Socialism Is Anti-Humanity

From, via Fjordman:

The Evil Socialism. Some admit that socialism is wrong and that it produces a destructive society, yet claim that is has good intentions and beautiful values. They say that socialists at least want to fight poverty and want better opportunities for the worst off. I would say that is at best misleading but mostly all wrong.

Socialism is not mainly about helping the poor and disabled or create progress. It is first and foremost about fighting wealth and in partucular stopping individuals from being successful. They hate when one person stands out, when one is more skilled, when one is rewarded for talent. And it is mainly for that hate that they fight for equality; not to give the poor a chance but to oppress genius and success.

Nobody should think she or he is better than anyone else is the motto. And if someone proves to be, that has to be neglected or fought. That is why they want the high taxes and massive regulation. That is why they preach equality and social values - to fight the remarkable and successful. If social matters and equality are the most important things, then surely great achievements are no good.

Since ideas, thinking and success are great human features, socialism is an ideology based on anti-humanity. That explains why it creates destructive societies. And that is. in turn, why it is not at all based on good values but evil ones.

Iran And The War on Terror

In an indispensible article, from National Review, Michael Ledeen warns that we had better do something Iran very soon:

While most media attention has been devoted to the "diplomatic" United Nations visit of Iran’s brand new terrorist president, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nezhad, the fascinating turmoil within Iran, both inside the mullahcracy and between the mullahs and the Iranian people, has gone largely unreported. There are three basic reasons for this silence:

First, because no Western government — sadly including the Bush administration — has any intention of taking serious action against Iran, even though everyone knows that Iran is directly responsible for killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans, Brits, and other Coalition soldiers and civilians.

Second, as a corollary to the first cause, because the whole question of Iran, which should be the central issue in the war against terrorism, has been reduced to a fatuous debate over the country’s nuclear program, and the attendant phony negotiations between the EU 3 (Britain, Germany, and France) and the mullahs. It was obvious from the outset that no good could come from these talks, because Iran will not abandon its nuclear program and neither the Europeans nor the Bush administration are prepared to do anything serious about it. The sham nuclear negotiations were in large part a way of avoiding what should be the central issue: Iran’s central role in the terror war against the West;

Finally, Western reporters in Iran are rightly afraid to report things that are damaging to the regime. They know that they can be expelled, or, as in the case of a Canadian female journalist who dared to look into the dark labrynths of contemporary Iran, brutally killed.

To take the nuclear "question" first: Anyone who believes that Iran is not on a crash program to build atomic bombs need only listen to the Iranian leaders speaking to their own people. On September 15, for example, there was a meeting at the defense ministry in Tehran, involving the defense minister, Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, and the heads of the Basij and Revolutionary Guards — the bloodiest arms of the regime. Right after the meeting, a young journalist reported on the official Jam-eh-Jam TV that Mohammad-Najjar had said that it is Iran’s "absolute right to have access to nuclear arms and that we must stand up to any pressure from the international community."

Immediately following the televised report about "nuclear arms," the broadcast network was disconnected. Shortly afterwards, Minister Mohammad-Najjar appeared on a radio broadcast for an interview about the meeting and attempted to whitewash his original remarks by stating the official disinformation that Iran "has the right to pursue a peaceful nuclear program for economic and energy purposes."

The regime has been threatening to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty if the EU appeasers dared to send the nuclear question to the U.N. Security Council, and, with a frequency and intensity that warrants our attention, threatening to attack the United States. Indeed — obviously believing everything they read in the New York Times or watched on our madstream television — the mullahs celebrated both the damage done by Katrina and the alleged ineptitude of the Bush administration’s response. With an America so weak and divided, the mullahs intoned, Iran could wreak devastation on every state.

The mullahs are altogether capable of deciding that events are now running strongly in their favor, and that they should strike directly at the United States. They look at us, and they see a deeply divided nation, a president who talked a lot about bringing democratic revolution to Iran and then did nothing to support it, a military that is clearly fighting in Iraq alone, and counting the days until we can say "it’s up to the Iraqis now," and — again based on what they see in our popular press — a country that has no stomach for a prolonged campaign against the remaining terror masters in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.

Osama bin Laden came to similar conclusions, and ordered the events of 9/11. Why should the Iranians — who have been major supporters of the terror network ever since the 1979 revolution — not do the same?

It may well be that the mullahs are torn between wild fear of America, and a fanatical conviction that they can finally destroy the great Satan. If, as I fear, they are either very close to, or actually possess atomic bombs, it might help explain their manic moments, and enable them to tell themselves that America would not dare attack a nuclear power.

Our main enemy, the single greatest engine in support of the terror war against us, whether Sunni or Shiite, jihadi, or secular, Arab or British or Italian or Spaniard, is Iran. There is no escape from this fact. The only questions are how long it will take us to face it, how effective we will be when we finally decide to act, and how terrible the price will be for our long delay.

How To Disappear Completely
Tate Museum London Removes Artwork
For Fear of Offending Muslims

From Associated Press:

LONDON - The Tate Britain museum has removed a work made up of sacred texts, from Christianity, Judaism and Islam - torn and mounted on glass - to avoid offending religious sensibilities following the July transit bombings in London, the museum said Sunday.

The museum said it was particularly concerned that John Latham's piece "God Is Great" could upset Muslims. It pulled the work from an exhibition of Latham's art despite his objection.

"Having sought wide-ranging advice, Tate feels that to exhibit the work in London in the current sensitive climate, post July 7, would not be appropriate," the museum said in a statement.

Three of the four men suspected of carrying out the July 7 attacks, which killed 52 victims and the bombers, were young Pakistani Britons. All were Muslim, and much political debate in Britain has since focused on homegrown Islamic extremism.

"God Is Great" consists of a large sheet of glass and copies of the Quran, the Bible and Judaism's Talmud that have been cut apart, with the pieces mounted on either side of the glass to make it appear that they are embedded in it.

The museum put up a notice in the exhibition explaining the decision, including Latham's objection to it.

Latham, 84, who made his name as a member of London's 1960s artistic avant garde, said the piece, which he made 10 years ago, was not anti-Muslim.

"Tate Britain have shown cowardice over this," he told The Observer newspaper. "I think it's a daft thing to do because, if they want to help the militants, this is the way to do it."

Once in a while we are treated to an act of cowardice so outlandish that it seems almost brave to brave to have committed such an act in full view of the public. Tate Museums masterful display of dhimmitude is one such act.

If all of Western Civilization, or even just a significant portion of our citizenship, were to behave this way, we will disappear completely.

This decision by Tate Museum London rivals the killing of Theo Van Gogh, and the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie, as an assault on art and free expression.

Sunday, September 25, 2005

Another Huge Defeat For The Left

They just keep racking them up, one after another. Today, the ex-Communists were ousted in the Polish election (From AP):

WARSAW, Poland - Exit polls showed Polish voters ousted the nation's scandal-prone government of ex-communists in parliamentary elections Sunday, giving a broad majority to two center-right parties that have promised tax cuts and clean government.

Prime Minister Marek Belka's defeated government had said it would withdraw Poland's troops from Iraq by Dec. 31, though it might keep some officers there as advisers. The challengers said they might be open to keeping them there longer if a "new contract" can be negotiated with the United States.

Projections based on exit polls by state television showed the socially conservative Law and Justice Party with 27.8 percent and the free-market Civic Platform with 24.1 percent. The governing Democratic Left Alliance, which has been plagued by Europe's highest unemployment rate and scandals, lagged behind with 11.2 percent.

The Astute Blogger notes:

Another BIG defeat for the Left! And this came in despite of the fact that the Left was anti-Iraq War. I guess the Poles - like the Aussies and the Brits and the Germans and the Japanese - aren't as anti-American and anti-Iraq War or as pro-Big Giovernment as the Leftists who dominate the worldwide MSM would like the public to believe.

BTW: of the major allies of Bush, ONLY Spain elected a socialist against the Iraq War and that ONLY came after the Spaniards cowered in fear and caved into al Qaeda as a direct result of the Atocha boimbings. As the poet once said: "The SHAME in Spain falls mostly on the INSANE" - (the Loony Left that is!).

Gaza Attacks Israel Attacks Gaza Attacks Israel Attacks Gaza ...

Israel kills the head of Islamic Jihad in Gaza:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Israel pressed forward with a broad offensive against Islamic militants on Sunday, killing an Islamic Jihad commander in a pinpoint airstrike in the Gaza Strip and rounding up more than 200 wanted Palestinians. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon promised to use "all means" against the militants.

The offensive, coming just two weeks after Israel withdrew from Gaza, followed a wave of militant rocket attacks against Israeli towns over the weekend. Israel has promised to continue with its airstrikes, arrests and a possible ground invasion until the rocket fire ceases.

"There shall be no restrictions on the use of all means to hit the terrorists and the terror organizations, their equipment and their hideouts," Sharon told his Cabinet Sunday.

Late Sunday, a top Hamas leader in Gaza said his group would halt the rocket fire.

Yeah, I'll bet.

You know they'll only halt rocket fire for a few days, and then they'll be right back at it. Israel need to consider any attack by the Palestinians in Gaza as an attack by one state on another. And, they need to retaliate accordingly.

As Roger Simon said the other day:

Look at it this way - if a major social group in Mexico was sitting in Tijuana lobbing missiles at San Diego and the Mexican government did nothing about it, would the United States have the right to respond?

The Peace Train To The End of Iran

Is the United States shoring up it's allies for it's war against Iran?

India toes US line, dumps Iran

In an overt and transparent shift in alignment and emphasis, the Congress-led UPA government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday signed up with the United States on a touchstone issue, asking Iran to be flexible and make concessions to avoid a confrontation with Washington on the nuclear issue.

India’s blunt message, which is also aimed at allaying U.S concerns over New Delhi’s long-standing ties with Teheran, was conveyed by Prime Minister Singh to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad when the latter telephoned him on Friday. In fact, the UPA government went to unusual lengths to disclose the gist of the conversation between the two leaders in a brief press release sent to select media.

The government statement read: "The Prime Minister received a phone call from President Ahmadinejad of the Islamic Republic of Iran at the Iranian request. The (Iranian) President raised the issue about Iran's nuclear programme in the IAEA. Prime Minister advised him that Iran should consider taking a flexible position so as to avoid a confrontation. The Prime Minister repeated the necessity for Iran to make concessions to this end. India supports the resolution of all issues through discussion and consensus in the IAEA."

Seldom, if ever, has the government been so direct and candid in conveying a foreign policy shift through an episode some American policy analysts saw as a test case for India-U.S ties.

I guess so.

Iran is making their own plans:

One of the difficulties the US is facing in an eventual military confrontation with Iran is that its forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere are vulnerable to counterattacks from the Iranians:

Iran prepares war plans, to strike bases incase of US mobilization

Iran has identified seven US bases in the region to attack in case there is the smallest sign of American mobilisation to its borders, and the military assets have been broadly identified to be in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Qatar, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, and Djibouti.

Official sources said Iran has also threatened US warships and specific military assets in the Persian Gulf in case it moved for a naval blockade, and these decisions were taken by the Iranian national security council after president Mohammad Ahmadinejad’s combative speech in the UN General Assembly, where he said that in the face of U.S. provocation, “we will reconsider our entire approach to the nuclear issue”.

Intelligence filtering out from the highest levels of the Iranian leadership suggests that it considers the present US threat more credible than any rhetoric in the past, and Iran is trying to forge a national consensus to face any military challenge from America.

The Iranian leadership is absolutely confident of prevailing over any US attack alone, and it assesses that the American military is “very tired” and cannot run a big military campaign against Iran for long, although independent analysts said the country was making a virtue of a necessity, because none of its neighbours was likely to support it against the United States.

It looks like it is becoming clear that, while the world will oppose us diplomatically, they will not lift a finger to help Iran. The truth is, the rest of the world do not want the Mullahs in power either. They oppose us because standing against the United States on "moral" groungs is the tried and true method for cowards to triangulating power.

God, I'm feeling a song comin on:

You know, I’ve been happy lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun

Oh I’ve been smiling lately,
dreaming about the world as one
And I believe it could be,
some day it’s going to come

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
there rides a peace train
Oh peace train take this country,
come take me home again

Now I’ve been smiling lately,
thinking about the good things to come
And I believe it could be,
something good has begun

(Come on! Sing it with me everybody)

Oh peace train sounding louder
Glide on the peace train
Come on now peace train