CUANAS: 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005

Monday, October 31, 2005

Fifth Night
Of Rioting
In Paris

Firemen try to extinguish a car set which was set on fire during the fifth night of riot in the Paris suburb city of Clichy-sous-Bois November 1, 2005:

Police fired tear gas canisters and rioters hurled Molotov cocktails as violence hit a poor Paris suburb for the fifth straight night in unrest that officials said had also spread to neighbouring towns.

... the unrest was reported to have spread to neighbouring areas of the Seine-Saint-Denis region abutting Paris.

Just after midnight in nearby Montfermeil, the municipal police garage was set ablaze and two cars destroyed, a prefecture spokesman said.

One police source told AFP that "the Clichy rioters are being copied in Sevran, Neuilly-sur-Marne and Bondy", where he said vehicles were torched.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy -- who has implemented hardline urban security policies in his bid to be a conservative candidate in France's 2007 presidential elections -- visited the administrative headquarters responsible for the suburb.

"Everyone has to understand that my determination is absolute" in confronting the violence, he told journalists.

Sarkozy, who is also leader of France's ruling UMP party, vowed to wage a "war without mercy" on crime in the Paris suburbs just a week before the rampages.

The Jihad
Is Worldwide
And Coordinated

Since the day the Towers fell, we've all known about Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. We know that Saudi Arabian-inspired Arab terrorists want to kill us. We know that they have attacked us in Iraq, attacked us in London, and have plotted to attack us in various places throughout the West.

However, there have been many other attacks, on many other fronts. Islamic Jihadis have killed schoolchildren in Beslan, Chechneya, which was part of the former Soviet Union. They have beheaded little Christian girls in Indonesia. They have killed Western tourists in Bali. But, these attacks horrific as they are, are never presented to us as originating from the same source as those we were hit with on 9/11.

Those of us who make it our business to study the worldwide Jihad know that these attacks are all inspired by the same ideology, but most of us have doubted that they are actually coordinated by a central entity.

Instead, we seem to believe that there are many terrorist entities all under the authority of different leaders. We know about Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hizbollah, Fatah, Hizb ut-Tahrir, Jamaat ul-Fuqra, Jemaah Islamiyah, etc., but we seem to believe that all these organizations are running their own separate Jihads, inspired by the same ideology. We seem to believe that this war is a war of copycat killings; Islamists inspired by the Jihad of other Islamists to wage Jihad throughout the world.

The above photograph shows Muslim schoolchildren in Indonesia, which, of course, is thousands of miles from the Arab world, worlds away from the Middle East conflict. But, what we see in this photo is Indonesian schoolchildren being used as walking billboards for Arab propaganda. Their headbands say "Al-Quds" which is the Arabic phrase for Jerusalem Day. Jerusalem Day is an Arab "celebration" of the Jihadi promise to drive the Jews of Israel into the sea. (Click here to see Indonesians carrying a poster of the Ayatollah Khomeini at the same celebration.)

In other words, little Indonesian schoolchildren who know nothing about Israel, who do not know Arabic, or even an Arab, and who have never met a Jew, are "campaigning" for the destruction of Israel. No, sorry, I don't believe they came up with this on their own over there in Indonesia. Instead, I believe that this is being coordinated from above.

I have no idea who is coordinating the Jihad. It could be Al Qaeda. It could really be that Osama Bin Laden is beaming out his signals from caves on the border of Pakistan. I don't know, but I believe it is becoming clear that much of this war is being waged from one central command post somewhere.

I do not come to this conclusion simply because of this photo. Instead, I have been slowly coming to this conclusion over the past several weeks, as I watch riots breaking out in Birmingham, England, and Paris, as I see bombs exploding in India, Iraq, Israel, as I see Christian girls have their heads cut off in Indonesia, as I see the Phillipines ceding the island of Mindanao to Jihadis, as I see Jihadis arrested in Germany, as I see Muslims threatening a newspaper in Copenhagen, as I see the President of Iran threatening America, and Israel, with annihilation, and as I see Zarqawi threatening voters in Iraq.

We are up against a totalitarian, worldwide menace; tens of thousands of warriors fighting in unity, hundreds of thousands who work in a collusion of silence, millions who believe in the ideology. Killing the leader will not end the Jihad. Taking out the command post, wherever it lies, will not slow the Jihad. Fighting with law-enforcement tactics will only embolden the Jihad.

Only freedom will end the Jihad. And those who are enslaved to Islam will have a very hard time learning what it means to be free as they cower in fear at the totalitarians around them. So, we need to strike fear into the heart of the Jihadis. They do fear Democracy. They fear Freedom, so we are on the right track, but we need them to fear us as well.

In order to get them to fear us, we will need to become brutal. But, the West is not ready to be brutal, yet. We need to cut off their funding, yes. We need to fight their ideology and replace it with a counter-ideology of freedom, yes. And we need to kill their Jihadi warriors where we find them. But, we need to go beyond that. We need to scare potential warriors away from joining the Jihad.

Until we are ready to be brutal with the Jihadis, we will not win. Until we are ready to hit them with the things they most fear, they will laugh at us, and come at us in ever stronger waves.

America has fought three of the most successful wars in the history of the world;

1) The American Civil War
2) The War Against Japan - WWII
3) The War Against Germany - WWII

I say these wars were successful because they permanently eliminated the menacing ideologies that gave brought about the wars in the first place.

The path to victory in all three of these wars was abject brutality. We beat our enemy, and we beat them, and we beat them some more. We beat them until they begged for us to stop, and then, we delivered a final and apocalyptic death blow. In the Civil War, we burned Atlanta to the ground. In the War Against Germany, we firebombed Dresden. In the War Against Japan, we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

These death blows helped to achieve final and lasting victory, because they told the enemy that they had no hope left. The enemy did not come away from these wars believing that, maybe, if they would have just tried harder, they could have defeated us.

And, after these death blows were delivered, we set in on an equally brutal campaign of destroying the ideologies of our enemies. We were as brutal towards their ideologies as we were towards their armies. In the South, there was the Reconstruction. The slaves were unitlaterally set free. The Southerners were allowed to receive nothing in return for their "property." In Germany, there was the process of reeducation and DeNazification. In Japan, we enforced a unilateral change in the Shinto religion. We declared that in Japan it was no longer legal to teach that the Emperor was God.

These are the things we need to be doing to our Jihadi enemies in the War on Islamofascist Terrorism. However, we are not doing these things. In Iraq, we have allowed Sharia to be enshrined in the Constitution. In Afghanistan, recently, a writer was thrown in jail, and sits their still, for the crime of criticizing Islam. And on all fronts, we are using almost antiseptically clean surgical strike tactics, which do not strike much fear into the hearts of our enemies.

The reason we are fighting such a war is because we are humanitarians. I am proud of our approach, but at the same time, I think it is mistaken and woefully inadequate. Just as Human Nature does not change with time, neither does the Nature of War. This is because the Nature of War is born of Human Nature. It is knitted into who we are as human beings, unfortunately.

I believe we are going to continue fighting this war in the current manner, but our enemy is only going to become stronger and stronger. The way we are doing battle only serves to get them angry enough to fight harder, and recruit more. The pace of the Jihad is quickening, and spreading out in greater and greater rings around the globe.

One day, if we do not eliminate Iran, we are going to wake up to a world which has been radically altered by Weapons of Mass Destruction. Life will be completely different. America will not be what it once was, and the people of America will be angry as all hell. At that point a "strong man" will be brought in to clean house. And a mighty housecleaning will be enacted across the four corners of the globe.

I do not want to see this happen. I do not want us to become the monsters we fight. The only hope I can see is for us - we who understand the nature of the Global Jihad - to begin to work to get the Jihadis angry over absurd, stupid stuff. We need to work to make them behave like fools. This whole Piglet scandal in Britian (where the British council banned publice displays of Piglet so as not to offend Muslims) is a important marker to me in the progress of the War.

We need to take a lesson from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. We need to ask ourselves, what is it that gets the Jihadis particularly angry, and then we need to work to bring about those circumstances in as absurd a fashion as possible. We need to be John Lennonesque in our tactics. In other words, we need to set up stunts, alert the media, and enact public displays of humorous and Dada-esque counter-Jihad.

The Jihadis will then be moved to anger, but it will be the kind of pathetic anger one might see when the big guy gets humilated in a bar by a little wimpy, smart-ass guy who has the whole bar laughing with glee at the big guys idiocy and humilation. Oh yes, they might come back at us with violence, and it may be deadly, but we can't fear these things. This is a war, and we are all part of it.

The purpose of this tactic is to smoke the Jihadis among us out into the open. To make them commit to their totalitarian ideology in full view of everyone. This way, the American public will become familiarized with the Jihadis. Since, our media won't tell us the truth, we'll have to motivate the Jihadis to tell us publicly. The violence which may ensue will only serve to give the public more education.

I'm posting this as a proposal. This seems like a very viable tactic. What do you guys think?

Fourth Night Of Muslim Rioting In Paris

From Little Green Footballs:

BOBIGNY, France (Reuters) — Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy on Monday defended his tough crime policies against claims they helped increase tension after a fourth night of rioting in a Paris suburb in which tear gas was fired into a mosque.

It was not clear who had fired the tear gas and Sarkozy, addressing police officers, vowed to find out what had happened.

Youths hurled rocks and set fire to cars in the northeastern Clichy-sous-Bois suburb of the French capital, where many immigrants and poor families live in high-rise housing estates notorious for youth violence.
French television said six police officers were hurt and 11 people arrested in violence partly fueled by the incident at the mosque.

“I am, of course, available to the Imam of the Clichy mosque to let him have all the details in order to understand how and why a tear gas bomb was sent into this mosque,” Sarkozy told about 170 police officers at the Seine-Saint-Denis prefecture in Bobigny, the local authority which oversees Clichy-sous-Bois.

The French police fired into a mosque, something we are loathe to do in Iraq. The French are pretty tough on terrorism. However, one wonders how long they're going to allow this to go on. Truth is, that by not putting down the riots swiftly, and powerfully, the French have guaranteed that this will happen more and more.

How To Disappear Completely

An excerpt from an article by Rachel Ehrenfeld and Alyssa Lappen at Front Page Magazine:

Judging from how Hamas is treated by the U.S. Administration, you would not know that it sits at the heart of the Islamo-Fascist movement, which President George W. Bush concretely defined and condemned three weeks ago.

Compare Hamas statements and its charter to those of Al Qaeda, Hizballah and other Islamist organizations: all strive to establish a Caliphate encircling the globe. Al Qaeda says: “We will turn the White House and the British parliament into mosques,” as documented by Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, Director of Orient Research Group in Toronto.

Similarly, Qatar-based sheik Yusuf al Qaradawi says “Islam will take over Europe by Dawa.” The spiritual leader of HAMAS, the late Ahmad Yassin said: “The 21st century is the century of Islam,” and his successor Mahmoud Zahar says, “Israel will disappear and after it the US.”

President Bush declared: “the way forward is confronting the threat armed gangs present to the creation of democratic Palestine.” But he stopped short of demanding that Hamas disarm. Still, that was enough to infuriate Hamas spokesman Sámi Abu Zuhri, who protested, “We consider this as a serious American interference in our internal affairs aimed to create an internal conflict.”

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat insists that allowing Hamas to participate in the election would be the terror group’s first step toward giving up its weapons.

I have a hard time believing that George Bush, and people in his Administration iare not aware that Hamas is bent on destruction. Still, it is almost impossible to understand their policy, or behavior towards Hamas. The only possible excuse is if we are simply biding our time.

This war is not just about Al Qaeda. We need to take out Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and we need to fundamentally change our relationship with Saudi Arabia.

If we don't do these things we will eventually be destroyed.

Sunday, October 30, 2005

Paris Through Tears

It's All About The Ladies

The women of Iraq want Saddam dead:

Najaf - Around 100 women dressed in black marched on Sunday in Najaf, the holy Shiite city south of Baghdad, to demand that ex-president Saddam Hussein be put to death.

"No to an adjournment, yes to the death penalty," chanted the women, clad in black abayas as they made their way from the school of religious studies down the city's main thoroughfare.
The women carried banners which read:

"The cries of martyrs echo still, we demand the death of Saddam Hussein," as well as photos of victims of his regime.

A World Without You

Iran started a landslide in their ego.

Regime Change Iran wants to get this message out to everyone. I agree that it is very important, so I (and quite a few other blogs) am posting it today:

If you follow the news you may have seen this picture, of Iran's President Ahmadinejad speaking at the "World Without Zionism" conference where he spoke of wiping "Israel off the map."But in this photo you can only see a portion of the graphic. The rest of the graphic speaks a thousand words.

The Iranian government produced sophisticated visual props for this important speech, designed to send a message to the USA and the English speaking world. Those who produced this graphic were sophisticated enough to know that it would provide a great photo op.What is the message they are trying to send?

Yes, that is the USA already at the bottom of the hourglass.But notice that the USA is already broken in the bottom of the hourglass prior to the fall of Israel.

For some reason the world media has largely ignored his statements against the USA. In his speech he said:

We are in the process of an historical war between the World of Arrogance [i.e. the West] and the Islamic world, and this war has been going on for hundreds of years. ...The issue of this [World without Zionism] conference is very valuable. In this very grave war, many people are trying to scatter grains of desperation and hopelessness regarding the struggle between the Islamic world and the front of the infidels ...

Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism? But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved...So how would the Iranian regime achieve this?You only need to listen to Ahmadinejad's chief strategic guru Hassan Abbassi, for the answer. Abbassi is the architect of the so-called "war preparation plan" currently under way in Iran. This is the same Hassan Abbassi who said:

We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization... we must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them.Abbasi believes that when President Bush says that no option is off the table he is only playing chicken. According to respected Iranian analyst, Amir Taheri, Abbassi has said:

The Americans are not ready to send a million men (to defeat the Islamic Republic)," Abbasi said. "Even economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic will fail thanks to opposition from the Western public opinion and the refusal of most countries to implement (them). ...But it is not only the US that Abbasi wants to take on and humiliate. He has described Britain as "the mother of all evils". In his lecture he claimed that the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and the Gulf states were all "children of the same mother: the British Empire." As for France and Germany, they are "countries in terminal decline", according to Abbasi."

Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover," he told his audience.So it appears that in the short term, the regime is hoping to start a limited war with the USA that it believes it can survive, since they don't believe that the West has the will nor the means to occupy Iran at this time. This will buy them time for their longer term strategic plans for the world. Why is no taking these threats seriously?

Dr. Zin at Regime Change Iran comments: The vast majority of the people of Iran do not share his views and long for real democracy in Iran. How long will we wait to support the people of Iran in their struggle to free themselves from these dangerous mad men?

My question is, how would Iran take out the United States? The only possible way to destroy our country is to use nuclear weapons. I don't think they have 29 nuclear weapons, yet.

Third Night Of Muslim Jihadi Rioting In Paris

Video Link.

Oh, d-d-Dear
Why Do They Me So?

I didn't think Britain's descent into dhimmitude could get any stupider than banning Piglet. Well, maybe it can't, but this TV show scheduled for tonight is a close second:

Islam’s greatest strength has always been its flexibility and ability to adapt to the local culture. This was what allowed it to spread from Spain to Indonesia and down through Africa, and what has given us today’s immense diversity of Muslim practices (warning; graphic image) and cultures. This flexibility is also where hope lies for the future of Great British Islam, with the youth seeking their own ways of being both British and Muslim.

Hey England, try just crawling under a rock and pretending you're dead. Then, maybe, if you're really good at barely breathing, maybe, just maybe the Muslims will leave you alone.

For God's sake.

Scary Halloween Costume
The Littlest Prisoner
at Abu Ghraib

Have I No Class At All?
No, I guess not.

Sadomasochistic Fantasies of Jihadis
Used As Anti-American Propaganda

Get a load of this:

Mr Al Dossary describes being brutally beaten by up to eight guards and being forced to walk on broken glass, then having his face pushed down into it.

He describes an incident in 2002 reported in the GDN last week, in which he was stripped naked then shackled to the floor on his back, while a female interrogator squatted nude over him and smeared him with her menstrual blood.

In another incident, he alleges he was forced to watch a man and woman having sex, before being offered sex with the woman if he co-operated with interrogators.

The list of alleged incidents of abuse appears endless and Mr Al Dossary,who is thought to have attempted suicide more than once, says even the memory of them is torture.

“As I recall these incidents, I feel that I am losing my mind and my body is shivering, with a painful feeling deep inside me,” he writes.

That's called an orgasm, Mr. Al Dossary.

Slumming With Prince Charles

The Anchoress sums it up just right:

So now, the Prince of Wales, who has done utterly nothing with his life while waiting for his genetically-predisposed to longevity mother to kick the bucket, is going to come to America to lecture The American President on being more tolerant to Islam.

It is understood that Prince Charles did not - and does not - believe that the actions of 19 hijackers should tarnish the reputation of hundreds of millions of law-abiding Muslims around the world.…He spoke warmly of the West’s debt to the culture of Islam and distanced moderate Muslims from misguided militants. “Extremism is no more the monopoly of Islam than it is the monopoly of other religions, including Christianity,” he said.

As I said, the do-nothing prince is going to lecture the American President who has done more to liberate Muslim peoples who were living under suppressive regimes, and who has done more to rescue Muslim peoples whose lives are torn by tsunami and earthquake, on how he should be “nicer” to the Muslims.

The prince of course has done great things for Muslims, too. He’s had dinner with them. He’s tried to “understaaaaand” them. He’s shaken their hands without wearing gloves.

The Anchoress has some great questions for Charles:

Hey, Charlie, have you read about the Islamist who have surface to air missiles and more into France?

I wonder if he’d like to be in New Delhi right now, telling the families of the dead and the blown-apart how “a few mischievous scamps with explosives on a bus” should not be taken too seriously. I wonder if he would have supper with a few Israeli’s who have lost their children on bombed-out buses, and try to “understaaaand” them, when they shiver at this sort of rhetoric which goes uncondemned by most of the world.

Being as how the man has never had to take a subway in his life, I guess the bombings in the London tubes didn’t quite register on his chukka-damaged brain, either. I wonder if he realizes that those bombings, and the ones in Indonesia, and in Bali, and in Turkey, and all the rest, were not being carried out by “other religions, even Christians”…

I wonder if he has any problem at all with Christian Girls being Beheaded in Indonesia. Carried out by…Methodists? Hmmm? Church of England? Hmmm? Jews????

And what about art, O cultured prince - the censoring of art, that’s quite all-right, as long as it’s not some Christian objecting to a crucifix beign submerged in urine?

The Anchoress is great, go read the rest.

New York Times:
Iraq Had 500 Tons Of Yellow Cake Uranium

It's the middle of the night here, and I was just kind of trolling the bowels of various blog comments sections and look what I found in the New York Times, circa May 22, 2004:

THE STRUGGLE FOR IRAQ: NUCLEAR MATERIALS; U.S. Announces It Intends to Move Tons of Uranium From Sealed Baghdad Repository By JAMES GLANZ (NYT) 1028 words Late Edition -
Final , Section A , Page 10 , Column 1 ABSTRACT -

US informs International Atomic Energy Agency that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from repository in Tuwaitha to more secure place outside Iraq; Western diplomat says agency has taken position that uranium is Iraqi property and that it cannot give permission to remove it (M)

You have to pay actual currency to go any further, and I would never do anything that would help enrich the anti-American regime at the New York Times, so you'll just have to go with that. But, that's enough, isn't it?

Iraq had 500 tons of yellow-cake uranium.

Like they say, "Bush lied, people died."

Religion of Peace

From

The San Francisco Chronicle:

An Iraqi Muslim in Basra celebrates the 27th night of Ramadan -- known as Lailat al Qadr, or "The Night of Powers" -- by sticking a knife in his forehead.

Saturday, October 29, 2005

While Neocons and Liberals Argue
There Are Parts of the World
That Are Going to Hell in a Hand-Basket

It looks as if America is having a nice cold civil war by proxy over its own identity and future.

The ideological components of this war might be taking place in the halls of academia and the congress and through US and international media, but the physical aspect is taking place in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, etc. Each camp here is producing, wittingly and unwittingly, its own allies there, both ideological and tactical.

And like in all proxy wars, these allies are quite capable of furthering their own particularistic agendas by stoking the debate here. ... this new American civil war ... has to come to an end.

Otherwise the war on terror can never be won and Iraq will be followed by Syria, then Lebanon then Sudan, then Saudi Arabia, then… You get the point.

Well, you will, if you read Wretchard.

Statue of the Saviour
With open arms above the yellow seashore
Sugar-loaf in majesty
Climbing from a silver sea
Dark eyed girls who smile at me
City of love and mysteries

Hirsi Ali: Hero of Western Civilization

Hirsi Ali is the Somalian-born Dutch Member of Parliament whose film Submission, made with Theo Van Gogh, stirred the Jihadis to kill Van Gogh. There is also a fatwa on her, and she has been living in hiding for the past two years.

This has not caused her to go silent, though. She continues to speak out, standing up for Western Civilization like few Western-born people have had the courage to do.

Hirsi Ali is a hero, and once again she is speaking out, trying to get her government to understand the threat of the Jihadis:

THE HAGUE, 29/10/05 - Measures to prevent terrorism will not succeed if these do not go hand in hand with the awareness that Islam is the core of the problem, according to conservative (VVD) MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She lashed out at Justice Minister Donner in an interview with public broadcaster NOS on Friday.

Hirsi Ali says Donner does not want to link religion to the murder of her friend Theo van Gogh for strategic reasons. "I consider this (position) fundamentally wrong", said the MP. Politicians must not be afraid to acknowledge that the core of the problem of terrorism "is puritan Islam", in her view. "If politicians run away from that, citizens will always keep the feeling: 'do they actually understand' (the problem)?"

Robert Spencer's comment: Indeed. The killer attached a note to Van Gogh's body containing Qur'an verses. He said in court that he killed Van Gogh for his religion. The sooner European -- and American -- authorities stop ignoring that and start taking realistic steps to deal with the fact that there are many more Bouyeris out there, the safer we will all be.

Burn Your Burqas, Baby

Some Muslims were offended by this photograph and others, which was displayed at an art exhibit at Harper College in Illinois, so, the college administration shut down the show:

An art exhibit that included photographs of nude Muslim women wearing only a head covering was taken down Thursday afternoon just hours after opening for public viewing at Harper College in Palatine.

The school invited Chicago photographer Amir Normandi to exhibit his works depicting Muslim women in Iran defying the wearing of the jilbab.

Muslim students at the college protested to officials about the pieces on display in Building C. Several students say the pieces — some showing young Muslim men with machine guns — were downright offensive.

“I think they should rip this down,” student Matt George said.

Ahmad Basalat, 21, of Bartlett said the exhibit expressed hatred toward Muslims.
Rich Johnson, co-coordinator of international students at Harper, said the exhibit was an event put on in conjunction with the college’s art department.

Another student, Hussein Ali, says a number of Muslim students at Harper now are thinking about leaving. “The Muslim students are thinking about boycotting Harper because of this,” said Ali, 23, of Schaumburg.

Gee, Is that a threat, or a promise?

Honestly, though, I wouldn't have included photographs of young Muslim men carrying guns in an art exhibit. You know why? Because, they should be in the photojournalism department.

United Nations Condemns Iran
Iran Snorts

The Astute Blogger notes that yesterday marked a milestone in history as the UN Security Council condemned Iran for it's threat against Israel (via the BBC):

The UN Security Council has issued a statement condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his call for Israel to be "wiped off the map". It follows similar criticism by several countries and a rare rebuke from United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan.

Israel had called for the UN session, and welcomed the unanimous statement. President Ahmadinejad however stood by his remarks, dismissing the criticism as invalid at an anti-Israel rally in the Iranian capital, Tehran.

The UN statement said: "The Security Council condemns the remarks about Israel attributed to Mr Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic republic of Iran."

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat has distanced the Palestinian leadership from the Iranian position. "What we need to be talking about is adding the state of Palestine to the map and not wiping Israel from the map," he told the BBC News website.

Egypt said Mr Ahmadinejad's outburst "showed the weakness of the Iranian government" while Turkey urged the president "to display political moderation".

Meanwhile, the Vatican expressed "great concern" about the "particularly grave and unacceptable comments denying the right to existence of Israel".

The UN condemnation has had no effect on Iran, however, as today their Foreign Minister got into the action:

Iran hit back at the U.N. Security Council on Saturday after the world body condemned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be destroyed.

The Security Council issued a statement Friday reminding Iran that, according to the U.N. charter, member states must refrain from threatening to use force against each other.

"The statement by the president of the U.N. Security Council was proposed by the Zionist regime to close the eyes to its crimes and to change the facts, therefore it is not acceptable," Iran's Foreign Ministry said.

Gosh, they certainly are "uncompromising" over there in Iran, aren't they?

Israel Attacks Gaza
As They Should

Israel gave the land of Gaza to the Palestinians, to do with as they please. Their government is made up of two violent terrorist organizations (Hamas and Fatah) who both call for the destruction of the state of Israel in their official charters.

Since, the Gaza Palestinians have had their own land, they have unremittingly attacked Israel, in words, demonstrations, and with rockets, and bombs. Earlier this week, a suicide bomber detonated himself, killing five Israelis.

Now, Israel is doing what a state should do when their people are attacked by the forces of another state. They are fighting back with strong force:

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

BEIT HANOUN, Gaza Strip - Israeli aircraft and artillery bombarded open areas in northern Gaza on Saturday as part of an intensifying campaign against Palestinian rocket fire on Israeli border areas.

No injuries were reported in the air and artillery strikes that began just after midnight and continued throughout the day. But missiles heavily damaged roads and water and sewage lines. Electricity in the area also was knocked out after the main transformer was hit. One missile tore a deep crater into a sandy field.

All that air power and no injuries. Why, it's almost as if the Israeli Defense Force goes out of it's way to avoid hurting people.

(Note: that was a sarcastic statement. The IDF always goes out of it's way to not harm civilians.)

Now, let's look at the next three paragraphs of the AP story individually. Because they are rather odd and notable:

Artillery shells were fired after Palestinian militants sent a homemade Qassam rocket slamming into southern Israel, the Israeli military said. Israel uses artillery shelling more sparingly than air strikes because it is less accurate and poses a higher risk of harming Palestinian civilians.

The writer of this story, Ibrahim Barzak, is a Palestinian Muslim. It is surprising to find him admitting that Israel makes every attempt to avoid harming bystanders. One has to wonder if something is up. Why is he trying to make nice?

Now, check out the next paragraph:

Palestinian Interior Minister Nasser Yousef, meanwhile, told his security chiefs that "firm and serious action" would be taken against facilities used to manufacture or store weapons, his office said in a statement released Saturday.

Look at that, the Palestinian Interior Minister is trying to make nice too. The only thing I can figure is that this round of IDF attacks really put the fear of Allah into these people.

Now, let's look at the next paragraph:

But there was no talk of disarming militants, as Israel has demanded, and the statement said Palestinian security forces "would not enter any house looking for weapons."

This sounds like more of the same from the Palestinians. And yes, it is. They are always saying they are going to rein in the militants, they are calling a truce, etc. etc. But, it never really happens, and they never do live up to their obligation (under the Road Map to Peace) to disarm the terrorists among them. That's because Fatah is the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which was always called a terrorist organization, until they were given legitimacy by a vote. Now, they are called a political party, but they didn't change their spots, as is evidenced by the fact that their charter still calls for the destruction of Israel, and their state-sponsored TV network calls for "death to the Jews" regularly.

So, what is notable then about that paragraph? Well, it's that Ibrahim Barzak actually seems to have challenged the Interior Minister with a question about disarming the terrorists. And when the Interior Minister refused to commit to doing what it is his obligation to do, Ibrahim Barzak noted it in a manner which connotes the deceitfulness of the Palestinian regime.

I would love to get any readers thoughts on what might be happening here, because I am perplexed.

Is France Under Seige?

Fjordman promised that his last few weeks of blogging would probably be his best. It looks like he may be right. Today, he has a ton of information on France that is absolutely amazing

First, comes news that there have been two nights of Muslim rioting in Paris:

Silent march follows Paris riots

Hundreds of people have taken part in a silent march through a suburb of Paris in memory of two teenage boys whose deaths sparked two nights of violence. Angry crowds clashed with police on Thursday and Friday nights, throwing stones and setting cars alight in the suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois.

The crowds blamed police for the deaths of the two boys, electrocuted when they climbed into an electrical station. Reports said the boys had been trying to evade police - who deny this. The authorities in Paris say no officers were chasing them at the time of their deaths. Police detained 14 people after Friday night's clashes, which officials said saw 15 police officers and one journalist injured, and a shot fired at a police van.

Thursday's violence broke out after youths attacked firefighters who had been called in to help the two victims, who were aged 15 and 17, and a third youth who received serious burns.

Second night of rioting in ParisHundreds of French youths fought with police and set cars ablaze in a suburb of Paris early Saturday in a second night of rioting which media said was triggered when two teenagers died fleeing police.

Firefighters intervened around 40 times on Friday night in the northeastern suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois where many of the 28,000 residents are immigrants, mainly from Africa, police and fire officers said.

Unidentified youths fired a shot at police but no one was hurt, police said. A police trade union called for help from the army to support police officers.

"There's a civil war underway in Clichy-Sous-Bois at the moment," Michel Thooris, an official of police trade union Action Police CFTC, said. "We can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting," he said.

Then there is this information on "No-go Zones" in France. Wait until you get a load of this:

September Diary

In Le Figaro daily dated Feb 1, 2002, Lucienne Bui Trong, a criminologist working for the French government's Renseignements Generaux (General Intelligence — a mix of FBI and secret service), complains that the survey system she had created for accurately denumbering the Muslim no-go zones was dismantled by the government.

She wrote: 'From 106 hot points in 1991, we went to 818 sensitive areas in 1999. That's for the whole country. These data were not politically correct.' Since she comes from a Vietnamese background, Ms. Bui Trong cannot be suspected of racism, of course, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to start this survey in the first place.

The term she uses, 'sensitive area,' is the PC euphemism for these places where anything representing a Western institution (post office truck, firemen, even mail order delivery firms, and of course cops) is routinely ambushed with Molotov cocktails, and where war weapons imported from the Muslim part of Yugoslavia are routinely found.

The number 818 is from 2002. I'd go out on a limb and venture that it hasn't decreased in two years. Note the French govt's response to these unpleasant statistics — they stopped collecting the statistics!

My God, what kind of society do they have going there in France. 818 areas the police can't go in without being beseiged by Muslim-thrown Molotov cocktails, etc.? They are under seige, literally. Areas of there country are occupied.

Read the rest:

The unreported race riot in France

Fredric Encel, Professor of international relations at the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration in Paris and a man not known for crying wolf, recently stated that France is becoming a new Lebanon. The implication, far-fetched though it may seem, was that civil upheaval might be no more than a few years off, sparked by growing ethnic and religious polarization.

In recent weeks, a series of events has underlined this ominous trend. On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates.

The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism. Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people."

One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground.

Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on whites."

Stoning in France

The alleged murderer of a 23-year-old Tunisian woman, whose stoned body was discovered on October 20, has been placed in police custody. The suspect, 18, arrested Sunday at his home, is an old acquaintance of the victim. He will be presented before the examining magistrate today.

Is France on the way to becoming an Islamic state?

France is facing the problem that dare not speak its name. Though French law prohibits the census from any reference to ethnic background or religion, many demographers estimate that as much as 20-30 per cent of the population under 25 is now Muslim.

The streets, the traditional haunt of younger people, now belong to Muslim youths. In France, the phrase "les jeunes" is a politically correct way of referring to young Muslims. Given current birth rates, it is not impossible that in 25 years France will have a Muslim majority. The consequences are dynamic: is it possible that secular France might become an Islamic state?

Holocaust lessons meet Muslim rebuff in France

"Filthy Jew!" schoolchildren howl at a classmate. "Jews only want money and power," they tell their teachers. "Death to the Jews" graffiti appear on school walls outside Paris and other French cities.

These are not scenes from the wartime Nazi occupation or a fictional France where the far-right has taken control. Outright anti-Semitism like this is a fact of life these days in the poor suburbs where much of France's Muslim minority lives.

The outspoken book "The Lost Territories of the Republic" opened France's eyes to classrooms where some Muslim pupils openly denounced Jews, praised Hitler and refused to listen to any non-Muslim teacher talking about the history of Islam.

Will Muslim Immigration Trigger Wars in Europe?

Yes, I’m pretty sure this immigration will trigger wars in Europe. This continent has simply lost control over its own borders, and the native population is being replaced at an astonishing rate in many of its major cities.

Europe has a rather violent history, and migrations of this magnitude have usually triggered wars between the original population and the newcomers. The situation becomes even worse when we enter another factor: Islam.

The Islamic world is at war with pretty much everybody, everywhere. Both Thailand and the Philippines, countries where the Muslim population is not much larger than it is in some Western European countries, are facing war.

That's frightening information, especially when coming in an avalanche like that.

More Evidence of
The Malevolence Of Their Hatred Of Us
New Delhi Jihad

More Islamic Jihadi murders in New Delhi, India:

NEW DELHI - Coordinated explosions in India's capital ripped through at least two markets jammed with evening shoppers ahead of an upcoming Hindu festival and a bus, killing at least 49 people.

Officials blamed terrorists for the blasts, which came as India and nuclear rival Pakistan began unprecedented talks on opening their disputed and heavily defended Kashmir frontier to bring food, shelter and medical aid to victims of the Himalayan region's massive earthquake.

Ok, so if I am not mistaken, the Jihadis were angry because the Hindu infidels of India wanted Pakistan to agree to open Kashmir so that the Hindu infidels could bring quake aid to the Pakistani Muslims.

Think about that; the level of malevolence is astounding.

A Sign Of Just How Malevolent Their Hatred Of Us Is

One of the London bombers was just buried as a saint (from Justify This, a great new British blog):

The remains of Shehzad Tanweer, 22, were flown in by his parents on Wednesday and buried on Thursday in Punjab province, Aftab Sherpao said.

More than 50 people died in the attacks on four sites in London on 7 July.

Tanweer's remains were buried near his ancestral town of Samundari after being flown from London to Lahore, Mr Sherpao said.

Residents said the burial had been arranged by Tanweer's uncle, Tahir Pervaiz.
Mr Pervaiz told Reuters: "The burial has taken place."

One resident told the agency 100 to 150 people attended a quiet funeral in the compound of a local Islamic saint's shrine.

British police say Tanweer killed seven people when he detonated a bomb at London's Aldgate underground station.

They say the other attacks were carried out by Mohammed Sidique Khan, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain.

I'm going to tell you something personal. I have a family member who met a guy while he was running from the cops. He was wanted for a murder, which he admitted that he did commit. This idiotic family member of mine, married this man, this murderer.

My wife and I do not, and will never, allow her into our home, even though she has since divorced the man. She was ok with the fact that her husband was a murderer. To me, that makes her as bad as a murderer. I would never in any way, give sanctuary, or honor to a murderer.

The fact that these family members, and friends, honored this murderer as a saint, at his funeral, tells us all we need to know about them. They are happy those 53 British people died. They celebrate those brutal murders. The people who committed them are saints to these people.

Think about that. What malevolence.

Friday, October 28, 2005

What The Hell Is Ahmadinejad Up To?

Amir Taheri discusses Iranian President Almadinejad's reason announcement that Israel must be "wiped off the map":

The new president of the Islamic Republic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has radically changed a key aspect of Iran's regional policy by committing his administration to the destruction of Israel. In a speech Wednesday, Ahmadinejad described Israel as "a stain of shame that has sullied the purity of Islam," and promised that it would be "cleansed very soon." All nations that establish ties with Israel, he warned, would burn "in the fires of our Islamic rage."

Ahmadinejad was not simply carried away by his rhetoric: He was inaugurating "A World Without Zionism" — a week of special events in thousands of mosques, schools, factories, offices and public squares, dedicated to mobilizing popular energies against the Jewish state.

Smaller versions of the exercise took place in Syria and Lebanon, countries where Iran exerts much political influence — and, more surprisingly, in Afghanistan, where a group of newly-elected members of Parliament joined the Iranian ambassador in a special "Death to Israel" ceremony.

Syrian Information Minister Mahdi Dakhl-Allah and Yasser Hurryiah, a leader of the Syrian Ba'ath Party, spoke at an Iranian-sponsored event and endorsed Tehran's new tough line on Israel. Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, head of the Lebanese branch of the Hezbollah movement, reflected Tehran's new policy in a message of his own in which, for the first time, he called for the liberation of "the whole of Palestine."

For the next week or so, special registers will remain open in thousands of schools across Iran to enable "volunteers for martyrdom" to put down their names for the coming "Holy War." The Iranian branch of Hezbollah claims it has enrolled 11,300 would-be suicide-martyrs for operations against the United States and its allies, especially Israel and Britain.

Hostility to Israel has been a key ingredient of the Islamic Republic's foreign policy since its inception in 1979. But the late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini was always careful not to promise anything on Israel that he couldn't deliver. And while his regime could make life difficult for the Jewish state (largely by recruiting, training, arming and financing Lebanese and Palestinian guerrillas), total destruction required the full participation of Israel's Arab neighbors, especially Egypt and Syria.

Khomeini's anti-Israeli stance was largely opportunistic — a means of wooing the Arabs who, being mostly Sunnis, regarded the ayatollah's Shiite revolution with suspicion.

He also knew that Israel's presence represented a kind of insurance for Iran's own security. For, had Israel not been there to become the focus of Arab rage, Iran might have gotten that role. After all, many Arab dictators, including Iraq's Saddam Hussein, often spoke of dismembering Iran and "liberating" the Iranian province of Khuzestan (which they dubbed "Arabistan").

In the 1980s, Saddam's eight-year-long war against Iran (with the support of all Arab states except Syria and Lebanon) helped further tone down the new regime's hostility toward Israel. And when it was revealed that Israel had been shipping urgently needed anti-tank missiles to Iran to stop Iraqi armored attacks in 1985-86, many in Tehran wondered whether Iran and Israel did not, after all, face the same enemies.

But with the war's end in 1988, the mullahs reverted to their original anti-Israel posture. For years, the Islamic Republic waged a proxy war against Israel via the Lebanese Hezbollah and several Tehran-financed radical Palestinian groups, including Islamic Jihad.

Yet Ahmadinejad has gone several steps further — presenting the destruction of Israel as a major goal of his government. Why?

One reason may be his desire to distance himself as far as possible from his predecessor, Muhammad Khatami, and from Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful mullah-cum-businessman who still heads a key faction within the regime.

Ahmadinejad has criticized the "softness" of Khatami and his mentor Rafsanjani, which led to "a decline in revolutionary spirit." Thus the new stand on Israel may be part of a package of measures to revive the regime's original radical message.

Another reason may be Ahmadinejad's belief that Israel is preparing to attack Iran's nuclear sites as part of a broader U.S. plan against the Islamic Republic. He may thus be trying to mobilize Iranian and Arab public opinion for the coming showdown.

But the real reason for Ahmadinejad's Jihadist outburst may well be his deep conviction that it is the historic mission of the Islamic Republic to lead the Muslim world in a "war of civilization" against the West led by the United States. One of the first battlegrounds of such a war would be Israel.

Since his election in June, Ahmadinejad and his "strategic advisers" have used a bellicose terminology as part of their program to put Iran on a war footing. In the past few weeks, the regime has been massively militarized with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ahmadinejad's main power-base, seizing control of almost all levers of power.

According to Gen. Salehi, one of Ahmadinejad's military advisers, a clash between the Islamic Republic and the United States has become inevitable. "We must be prepared," Salehi says. "The Americans will run away, leaving their illegitimate child [i.e., Israel] behind. And then Muslims would know what to do."

I know Rafsanjani's reputation was one of relative "moderation", but he could hardly be considered to be moderate on the state of Israel. Here's a quote:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world. Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world."

There's a very interesting discussion going on over at Gates of Vienna on the subject of what can, and will be done about this Iranian threat.

Ooh, That Smell

What the hell is going on in Manhatten? It smells good for once. Sounds harmless? From Breitbart:

New York City has many odors, but when the city began to smell a little too good, New Yorkers became alarmed.

Residents from the southern tip of Manhattan to the Upper West Side nearly 10 miles north called a city hot line to report a strong odor Thursday night that most compared to maple syrup, The New York Times reported Friday.

There were so many calls that the city's Office of Emergency Management coordinated efforts with the Police and Fire Departments, the Coast Guard and the City Department of Environmental Protection to find the source of the mysterious smell.

Air tests haven't turned up anything harmful, but the source was still a mystery.

"We are continuing to sample the air throughout the affected area to make sure there's nothing hazardous," said Jarrod Bernstein, an emergency management spokesman. "What the actual cause of the smell is, we really don't know."

Although many compared the smell to maple syrup, others said it reminded them of vanilla coffee or freshly-baked cake. All seemed to agree that it was a welcome change from the usual city smells.

"It's like maple syrup. With Eggos (waffles). Or pancakes," Arturo Padilla told The Times as he walked in Lower Manhattan. "It's pleasant."

Yes, sounds harmless. But, I'd be terrified. The fragrances of the various chemical weapons are often often compared to almonds, freshly-mowed grass, and sometimes "sweet apples."

It sounds like everyone is ok in Manhattan, but man, I'm sure I would have been having a panic attack. Good thing, I'm in SoCal.

Iranian President Renews Call For
Israel To Be "Wiped From The Map"

Ahmadinejad is at it again:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, cheered by thousands of supporters, signalled on Friday he stood by his call for Israel to be wiped off the map, while Iran's foreign ministry sought to defuse a diplomatic storm.

Israel said it would request an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council over the comments, which have drawn the condemnation of the West and Tehran's ally Russia.

Iranians chanting "death to Israel" and "death to America", converged from nine points in the Iranian capital for a rally attended by most of Iran's top officials. Some protesters set fire to or trampled on Israeli and U.S. flags.
Ahmadinejad took a short walk in the crowd, rallying in support of his comments that the Islamic world could not tolerate the Jewish state in its heartland. He said Western criticism carried no weight.

"My words are the Iranian nation's words," he told the official IRNA news agency, when asked if he had a message for the world.

"Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid."

Boy, he's a rather "uncompromising" leader, isn't he?

As Baron wrote at Gates of Vienna this morning:

There was a time when the Jews stood meekly on the railway platforms amid their meager belongings, boarded the freight cars, and departed docilely for their unspeakable destination. But the state of Israel is unwilling to go gentle into that not-so-good night. If necessary, the Jews will fight their enemies alone, since the alternative is national extermination.

Ahmadinejad, we hardly knew ye.

And Now ...
For ...
The Rest of the Story

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

--- Cpl Jeffrey B. Starr, USMC.

Now, go read the rest of the story.

Anti-Jihadi Website Closed Down In Austria

From Dhimmi Watch:

I (Robert Spencer) received this email this morning:

Hi,

You might remember me I run one of the very rare german languageanti-islamist blogs in Austria under http://iblis.twoday.net.

Well, I did so until this morning.

In Austria there is no such thing like the first amendment - so my blog was shut down by my internet provider in order to keep up with their perverted idea of "political correctnes".

I had some 45.000 visitors in the first 120 days - I guess this was byfar too much truth for certain people in the p.-c.-establishement...

Maybe you'd like to spread the message - maybe even in your newsletterand blog... maybe you'd like to ask my provider some questions:[address removed]

Thanks anyway & best wishes!iblismail2iblis@hotmail.com

UPDATE: Robert Spencer says the internet provider contacted him and said he is in discussions with the Austrian blogger. Hopefully, this will be resolved.

How To Wake Up
Britain Will Close Extremist Mosques

Britain continues to alternate between a deep sleep and jolting bouts of wakefulness. Today, things look a little better. The government says it will target extremist mosques for closure:

Religious leaders have expressed alarm at the Government’s new controversial proposals to give the police powers to close places of worship, which fail to comply with an order to prevent them from being used to foment extremism.

Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, has been accused of failing to listen to the advice of Muslim task forces set up in the wake of the July bombings in London in a whole raft of anti-terrorism legislation. Imam Ibrahim Mogra, Deputy Convenor of the working group on Imams and Mosques said that he was surprised by Clarke proceeding to issue a consultation paper on ‘Preventing Extremism Together – Places of Worship’ on October 5 after he rejected suggestions that mosques would be targeted when welcoming the task forces’ recommendations last month.

“Charles Clarke told us on September 22 that the Government was not intending to close down any mosques but that he wanted cooperation and assistance from the Muslim community,” Mogra told The Muslim News. “I told the Home Secretary that mosques are doing good work and we need to celebrate good practice,”he said.

The Leicester-based Imam, who chairs the Muslim Council of Britain’s Mosques and Community Affairs Committee, warned that the Government’s focus was misdirected. “Radicalisation and extremism does not take place in mosques. It takes place elsewhere. So the shift has to be to other areas where young people are vulnerable,” he said.

It seems like maybe that game isn't going to work anymore.

We Will Use Force, Blair Warns Iranians

From the Telegraph:

Tony Blair delivered his strongest warning to Iran last night, saying Teheran would not be allowed to become a "threat to our world security".

He hinted that the West might have to resort to force. The Prime Minister said western allies would meet in the next few days to decide how to react after President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

While the initial response is likely to be an intensification of diplomatic pressure, senior British officials did not rule out the possibility that they could resort to force if Iran continued on its path of radical confrontation.

Speaking at a European summit at Hampton Court, west London, a visibly angry Mr Blair said Iran would be making "a very big mistake" if it believed western leaders were too preoccupied with other issues to deliver a strong response.

Western frustration with Iran has been building up for months, particularly over Teheran's nuclear programme, its support for Palestinian radicals and suspicions that it has passed bomb-making technology to Iraqi insurgents who have killed at least eight British servicemen this year.

Mr Blair's patience finally snapped after hearing Mr Ahmadinejad's harangue at a Teheran conference entitled "The World Without Zionism", at which he declared: "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.

"As the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map' … The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

The Prime Minister said: "These sentiments are completely and totally unacceptable. I have never come across a situation where the president of a country says they want to wipe out another country - this is not acceptable. Their attitude towards terrorism, towards the nuclear weapons and towards Israel is not acceptable.

"If they continue down this path, people are going to believe that they are a real threat to our world security and stability."

Mr Blair said he felt a "real sense of revulsion" at the remarks.

Alluding to fears that after the war in Iraq the US and Britain could turn to Iran, he said: "I have been answering questions on Iran with everyone saying to me, 'Tell us you are not going to do anything about Iran'. If they carry on like this the question people will be asking is, 'When are you going to something about it?' "

Thursday, October 27, 2005

Big Ben is reflected on a wet sidewalk outside the Houses of Parliament in London. Big Ben, the world-famous clock tower, is to be stopped for maintenance work over the weekend, the House of Commons said.(AFP/File/Odd Andersen)

Astute Blogger Roundup

The Astute Blogger says Israel "put Iran on notice," when they declared that Iran is a "clear and present danger." According to the Astute Blogger that phrase is diplo-speak for "Ok then, we're going to kick your ass."

It's obvious that the Iranian President's saying that Israel will be "wiped off the map" was a direct existential threat. And, I think we can conclude that Israel will "deal" with the Iranian threat, because Israel has never been Clintonian. They always deal with threats. Think of their destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactors in 1981.

Bye bye Iranian reactors.

But the Astute Blogger doesn't stop there. He goes on to say that he is convinced that Assad will be dealt with too, and soon:

Assad is our first target - he could fall in a month or so - unless he succeeds in fomenting a regional conflict. Once Assad is gone, then Iran's nuclear program could be neutralized - perhaps as early as next summer. In which case it will be a very hot summer. the enemy knows this. So, between now and then the enemy will try to pin us down in Iraq - make it hard for us to deploy/redploy assets to Syria and/or Iran. And they will step up attacks against Israel.

Rather than slug it out with them in a war of attrition, I suggest we kill the enemy at their roots: by moving any and all assets we need to in order to take down Assad and neutralize Iran's nuke assets (and its military assets, too). When these poisonous roots are dead, then the leaves will drop and the limbs wither - all over the Middle East.

BTW: Israel is buying 500 "bunker-buster" bombs from the US that could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

This sounds reasonable. The Astute Blogger seems to be convinced the Assad regime will fall from pressure created by sanctions leveled by the UN. However, in the first place, I have my doubts sanctions would work, if deployed. And, in the second place, we know Russia has said that they do not support sanctions. So, I guess it's a moot point anyway.

Additionally, The Astute Blogger believes that incursions across the Syrian border, by the U.S. military, for the purpose of pursuing fleeing terrorists, will put pressure on the Assad regime, which may cause it to fall.

I would like to think that it would be this easy. We did all the same things to Hussein, and he stayed in power until we forceably removed him. I don't have much hope for anything different happening in Iran or Syria.

Today, the Astute Blogger is saying that Israel's incursion into Jenin is a sign that their inevitable conflict with Hizbollah and Syria is just around the corner:

... as the rate of anti-Israeli attacks increase, attacks in Jordan will begin. WHY? Because, as Iran and Syria and al Qaeda get their backs pushed up against the wall, they are responding with ever more desperate measures; now they need to start a regional war in order to fend off the encroachment of democracy and liberty (in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon). Things will get worse before they get better. But we will win; the forces of liberty always have. Stay tuned...

I asked the Astute Blogger how bad he thought things would get. His response was more predictions on the course the war will take from here on out:

the center of gravity is ... iraq.

if we kill zarqawi we can greatly diminish the attacks that front - and preclude jordan becoming a front.

failing that, i expect rate of attacks in jordan and israel to increase dramatically. the enemy hopes this will divert attention and assets. and that it will hurt abbas and sterengthen hamas and hizballah. this is happening NOW. israel is trying to preempt this. if israel succeeds, then another front is neutralized. if not, then another front erupts. the idf needs to assassinate many jihadoterrorists now.

also, the UNSC needs to pass a resolution focusing blame on the regime and punishing the regime. we need get russia to abstain. if this and a zarqawi kill happen before 11/7, then we can roll the enemy back and put iran on the ropes.

the outside date for a rollback is the next election in iraq. we need to be in a better positon then than we are in now.

Iran will try to interfere with the next iraqi election by stepping up attacks, and the iraqis need to stop them. they might - by appealing to nationalism.

i expect things to get worse between now and when an anti-assad UNSC resolution is passed.

but we will survie and defeat them at every turn.

I post all this, because I think the Astute Blogger analysis of events is, well, astute. And, he is many times correct in his predictions. I also like the ever-pragmatic, yet ever-positive tone of his analysis.

However, I think these predictions are based on a lot of ifs, and speculation.

I don't think Russia, or China will support any substantial anti-Assad resolution. And, I don't think the Iranians will allow themselves to be drawn into this war. Instead, I think they will continue to use their terrorist proxies.

Hizbollah will not attack Israel within the borders of Israel. They may reintroduce rockets fired across the border, but the Mullahs, and the terrorist organization have played it smart so far, and I think we can continue to expect them to play it smart. They know that if they attack us directly, we will have excuse to hit them with the full force of our military. They know they can't win that battle. This is a war on Islamic terrorism. It is not a war where nation states fight each other in the open.

I agree with the Astute Blogger that things are going to get worse before they get better, however. Because I expect all hell to break loose when either the United States or Israel destroys the Iranian nuclear facilities.

UPDATE: Wretchard, in discussing the Oil-for-food scandal, explains why "sanctions" and "pressure" don't work against a rogue Islamist regime:

The fundamental argument against international military action is the supposition that effective alternatives exist to containing rogue states and tyrants. But what if it does not? The Volcker Report essentially describes the history of the decade-long diplomatic battle to proscribe the movements of Saddam Hussein following the Gulf War. It is an account of the unmitigated defeat of the "international community" at the hands of Saddam; not only a defeat but a rout and a surrender. And although the surrender had already taken place, the world was told categorically by the capitulators themselves that they were fighting and winning the good fight against the forces of lawlessness.

The problem with September 11 was not that it happened, but that it happened where it could not be ignored; this fact was the virtual third aircraft that crashed into Manhattan that day, striking somewhere in the vicinity of Turtle Bay.

Yes, and that fact means that nothing less than military force can be trusted to take out the Syrian and Iranian regimes.

Iran Threatens Israel With Holocaust
Arab Leaders Snore

From Associated Press:

CAIRO, Egypt - Arab governments remained silent Thursday as international condemnation grew over a call by Iran's new president for Israel to be destroyed.

Despite the silence, analysts in the region said Tehran's Arab rivals may quietly be pleased to see the radical regime further isolated by its extremism.

Oh yeah, that's the reason for their silence. For God's sake, most of the Arab states don't even recognize Israel's existence. Who offered up this Arabist apology?

Let's read more, shall we?

However, some Palestinians — who would have the task of destroying Israel according to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — rejected the remarks.

"We have recognized the state of Israel and we are pursuing a peace process with Israel, and ... we do not accept the statements of the president of Iran," Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said. "This is unacceptable."

European governments condemned Ahmadinejad's comments, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair saying they increased concerns the clerical regime is a threat to global security and may even trigger pleas for pre-emptive action against Iran.

"I have never come across a situation (with) the president of a country saying they want to wipe out" another nation, Blair told reporters Thursday.

French President Jacques Chirac called the remarks "completely irresponsible" and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan expressed "dismay" at them, in a rare rebuke of a U.N. member state.

In contrast, newspapers across the Middle East reported Wednesday's speech by Ahmadinejad without comment, many of them on their front pages.

Egyptian Foreign Ministry and Cabinet officials said Cairo would have nothing to say on the address.

Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister Marwan Muasher also declined comment, apparently to avoid further aggravating relations with Iran, which the kingdom has accused of interfering in Iraq to strengthen the Shiite influence in the Middle East.

Ok, folks, those Egypt and Jordan are the two Middle East countries who recognize Israel, but they don't have comment. Interesting, huh?

Analysts said Ahmadinejad's uncompromising line highlighted Iran's differences with other Middle East governments and will make it easier for the international community to take a tough line against Iran for its defiant nuclear policy.

I like that word, "uncompromising."

I'm going to kill you.

Well gee, that's a very uncompromising thing to say.

Mohammed Wahby, a former diplomat and member of the Egyptian Council on Foreign Affairs, said it was a mistake to remain quiet about the speech, which he said undermined Mideast peace prospects.

"Recognizing Israel as an integral part of the Middle East is no longer in doubt," he said, saying Iran was only encouraging hard-liners on both sides.

Mustafa Hamarneh, head of the Strategic Studies Center at the University of Jordan, agreed that Ahmadinejad was out of step, especially with the Palestinians.

"He's an ideologue who shot from the cuff; it was not a studied statement," Hamarneh said.

Take note that Mustafa is not saying it was a wrong thing to say, or that it was evil. No, he's saying it wasn't a "studied" thing to say. In other words, he should have been smart enough to not have come right out and say such a thing. It's ok to think it, and even to plan it in backrooms, but for Allah's sake, don't say it.

I see nothing in this article that leads me to believe anyone in the world of Arab government feels regret over the threat to Israel. The Associated Press article is untrue. I wonder if they know what they wrote and published is untrue?

TruePeers

My blogfriend TruePeers has begun writing for a really great blog called Yet Another Really Great Blog. Yesterday TruePeers started a discussion about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map." The post and the comments section are filled with points of interest.

Go, now, read.

Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Islamism

The Turkish Premier Tayyip Erdogan defines anti-Islamism as being the equivalent of anti-Semitism:

Turkish Premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan stressed that anti-Islamism must be treated as a crime against humanity just like anti-Semitism, the Turkish daily Zaman reported on Tuesday, September 6.

Addressing the sixth meeting of the Eurasian Islamic Council meeting in Istanbul Monday, September 5, Erdogan said his government has added an article to the declaration in the European Council regarding Islamophobia stipulating that anti-Islamism be accepted as a crime against humanity.

Seeing as how Europe is strongly considering making Turkey a member of the European Union, this is a very important issue to the future of Europe.

Are anti-Semitism and anti-Islamism the same thing?

Anti-Semitism is defined as:

1. Hostility toward or prejudice against Jews or Judaism.
2. Discrimination against Jews.

Islamism is defined by Wikipedia (who generally tend to be rather friendly towards Islam) as:

Islamism refers to a set of political ideologies derived from various conservative religious views of Muslim fundamentalists, which hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state. Islamist movements seek to re-shape the state by implementing a conservative formulation of Sharia.

The Islamic legal system is called Sharia. Sharia is the system of laws which calls for homosexuals and adulterers to be stoned to death. Sharia calls for the hands of thieves to be cut off. Sharia dictates that women are second-class citizens who are not allowed to make decisions (about education, whom to marry, etc.) by themselves. In other words Sharia dictates that women live as slaves to their men.

The proper establishment of Sharia requires that it be administered by one central authority, which stands above all nations governed by Sharia. This authority is called the Caliphate. Sharia dictates that the way to establish Sharia is to wage Jihad.

In other words, to be anti-Islamist is to be against the idea of political Islam. It is to be against the Caliphate, Sharia, and Jihad.

In other words, to be anti-Islamist is to be a sane and rational member of Western Civilization.

This, apparently is another obfuscation the Islamic Jihadis are going to start trying to spread. The idea must be fought. People need to understand that their is a difference between what is meant by the word Islamism, and what is meant by the word Islam.

If there is no difference between the two concepts, as defined by Muslims, then there is no room for Muslims in Western Civilization.

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

World Without Zionism

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad attends a conference in Tehran entitled 'The World without Zionism.' Ahmadinejad openly called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map' adding that 'The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world.'(AFP/Behrouz Mehri)

Nazi Chic In Asia

Whatever spirit it is that moves them, the people of Asia are becoming obsessed with Nazis:

Swastikas and other Nazi symbols are used as decoration in a Hong Kong clothing store, as seen on Saturday, Aug. 9, 2003. Israeli and German diplomats have lashed out at a Hong Kong fashion company for using swastikas and other Nazi party symbols. The Hong Kong-based firm designed a range of T-shirts and pants with Nazi symbols and launched new decorations this past week in its 14 stores. One branch projected Nazi propaganda films on the shop's wall. (AP Photo/Anat Givon)

It's a hard phenomena to understand, considering there are no Jews in that part of the world. So, how to explain swastikas adorning metal drums in clothing stores?

Go to Little Green Footballs for more.

Front Page Mag Tag

A Front Page Magazine roundup for the last couple of days. Yesterday, they posted an article on the broadcast of an anti-Semitic miniseries on Jordanian TV, in celebration of Ramadan:

For Ramadan 2005, the new Jordanian TV channel Al-Mamnou' is airing the Syrian-produced TV series Al-Shatat ( "Diaspora" ). [1] The series, which was first aired on Hizbullah's Al-Manar TV during Ramadan 2003, purports to tell the story of Zionism from 1812 up to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, and, like the Egyptian series Knight Without a Horse [2] that was aired during Ramadan 2002, depicts a "global Jewish government" that is described in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. It also depicts the notorious blood libel - Jews slaughtering a Christian child to use his blood for Passover matzos.

In the series' opening scene, set in Romania in 1812, the dying Amschel Rothschild divides Europe amongst his five sons. To view this clip, visit http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=887.

The following is the transcript:

Amschel Rothschild: "All the nations that violate the religion of the Jews originated from the seed of a stinking and filthy ass. Rule them in secret and in public, with strength and oppression through deceit and cunning, and do not allow any nation to share your control of the world...
"God has honored us, the Jews, with the mission of ruling the world using money, using science, using politics, using murder, using sex, using any means..."

One of Amschel Rothschild's sons: "I don't understand anything. Someone must explain to me."

Amschel Rothschild: "If you listen till the end, you will understand. God has promised us that we will take revenge on those who have exiled us and that we will beat them. That is why he ordered us to establish a Jewish state in exile. He gave me the honor of being the most important man in this government. The mission of the government is to preserve the Jewish religion and to gain control over the world - the entire world - through loyal collaborators who will infiltrate the foreign governments and will impose their ideas on them."

One of Amschel Rothschild's sons: "Father, rest."

Amschel Rothschild: "My role is finished. Now it is your turn. Europe is not easy. Therefore, you must all stand together... Therefore, you must all stand together in order to destroy it (Europe) state by state, country by country. It should burn with wars and internal strife."

Now wait, wasn't it the Europeans who tried to destroy the Jews? Funny how those Islamists love to invert things like that.

Next up, Frank Gaffney penned an article discussing the Senate cancellation of hearings to look into Saudi support of terror and hate:

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee was supposed to focus long-overdue attention on the single most important factor in the future course of the War for the Free World: Which side is Saudi Arabia on? Unfortunately, the press of other business has caused this most timely of hearings to be postponed.

The reason this question deserves urgent attention should be obvious: Since November 2001, there has been a roughly three-fold increase in the price of a barrel of oil, from $18 to as much as $70. As a result, Saudi Arabia — which currently exports about 10 million barrels per day — receives an extra half billion dollars every day from oil-consuming nations.

If even a fraction of that $500 million dollars in found-money – to say nothing of the other resources of the Saudi kingdom – is being put in the service of our Islamofascist enemies, we are likely to face an even more serious problem in the future than we do today.

As today’s Judiciary Committee hearing would surely have demonstrated, it is a safe bet that a significant portion of the Saudis’ petro-windfall will be put in the hands of Islamist totalitarians bent on our destruction.

Go read the rest:

Daniel Pipes discusses how the Islamic Jihadis use accusations of "Islamophobia" to deflect attention from, well, from their Islamic Jihadism:

An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called “Stop Islamophobia,” the Sunday Times has revealed.

Stop what, you ask?

Coined in Great Britain a decade ago, the neologism Islamophobia was launched in 1996 by a self-proclaimed “Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia.” The word literally means “undue fear of Islam” but it is used to mean “prejudice against Muslims” and joins over 500 other phobias spanning virtually every aspect of life.

The term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance, to the point that the secretary-general of the United Nations presided over a December 2004 conference titled “Confronting Islamophobia,” and in May a Council of Europe summit condemned “Islamophobia.”

The term presents several problems, however. First, what exactly constitutes an “undue fear of Islam” when Muslims acting in the name of Islam today make up the premier source of worldwide aggression, both verbal and physical, versus non-Muslims and Muslims alike? What, one wonders, is the proper amount of fear?

Second, while prejudice against Muslims certainly exists, “Islamophobia” deceptively conflates two distinct phenomena: fear of Islam and fear of radical Islam.

Clearly, we have reason to be afraid of radical Islamists. They threaten to "wipe Israel off the map." They threaten "Death to America." They threaten to establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate governed by Sharia law, where women will be treated as slaves, and homosexuals and adulterers will be stoned to death.

How could it be wrong to oppose such a philosophy, unless maybe, could it be that's all there is to Islam? The answer to that question is up to Muslims. They can show us that Islam is truly a "Religion of Peace" by opposing the Jihadis right along with the rest of us.

How's that?

Moral Inversion In Rome

Monica Cirinna, a city councillor in the magnificent city of Rome, Italy, has done her best to make sure goldfish are not mistreated by citizens (From the London Times):

Rome has banned goldfish bowls and ordered the city's dog owners to take their pets on regular walks.

Under a new bylaw passed by the city council yesterday, spherical fishbowls are now banned and fairgrounds are no longer allowed to give away goldfish or other animals as prizes.

The bylaw was proposed by Monica Cirinna, a city councillor who told Il Messaggero, a newspaper in Rome: "It’s good to do whatever we can for our animals who, in exchange for a little love, fill our existence with their attention. The civilisation of a city can also be measured by this."

How much do you want to bet this woman doesn't believe that Western Civilization faces a significant threat from Islamic Jihadis, that she believes George Bush is the equivalent of Hitler, that she believes America is the greatest threat there is to world peace?

She's concerned with goldfish, and enough of her fellow city councillors agree with her concerns that a law was passed.

President Of Iran Says
Israel Will Be "Wiped Off The Map"

The President of Iran, an emerging nuclear power, has declared, Israel will be "wiped of the map":

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and said a new wave of Palestinian attacks will destroy the Jewish state, state-run media reported Wednesday.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it.

"There is no doubt that the new wave (of attacks) in Palestine will wipe off this stigma (Israel) from the face of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad told students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World without Zionism."

"Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury, any (Islamic leader) who recognizes the Zionist regime means he is acknowledging the surrender and defeat of the Islamic world," Ahmadinejad said.

Ahmadinejad also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, who came to power in August.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel.

How do you wipe a state "off the map?" Do you think those nukes Iran is building have anything to do with his proclamation?

Previously, one of the highest ruling clerics in the state of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, said the following:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world. Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world."

He means that, folks. You know how I know? It's not just because I'm some crazy neocon. It's because, in threatening Israel with nuclear annihilation, he also speaks of the consequence to his own people. In other words he's not just idly thinking about nuking Israel. He's in the planning stages.

This is why we must put an end to the Iranian regime. There are no if's, and's, or but's about this. We can not allow such a government to exist.

Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Because she and her music are beautiful.

George Galloway and Friend

Mr. Galloway Goes To Baghdad

Tariq Aziz is making sure his "friend" George Galloway finds his way up feces creek without a paddle:

... the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations ... which comes with a vast archive of supporting material, was embargoed until 10 p.m. Monday and contains the "smoking gun" evidence that Galloway, along with his wife and his chief business associate, were consistent profiteers from Saddam Hussein's regime and its criminal exploitation of the "Oil for Food" program. In particular:

1) Between 1999 and 2003, Galloway personally solicited and received eight oil "allocations" totaling 23 million barrels, which went either to him or to a politicized "charity" of his named the Mariam Appeal.

2) In connection with just one of these allocations, Galloway's wife, Amineh Abu-Zayyad, received about $150,000 directly.

3) A minimum of $446,000 was directed to the Mariam Appeal, which campaigned against the very sanctions from which it was secretly benefiting.

4) Through the connections established by the Galloway and "Mariam" allocations, the Saddam Hussein regime was enabled to reap $1,642,000 in kickbacks or "surcharge" payments.

These and other findings by the subcommittee, which appear to demonstrate beyond doubt that Galloway lied under oath, are supported by one witness in particular whose name will cause pain in the Galloway camp. This is Tariq Aziz, longtime henchman of Saddam Hussein and at different times the foreign minister and deputy prime minister of the Baathist dictatorship. Galloway has often referred in moist terms to his friend Aziz, and now this is his reward.

I do not think—in case anyone tries such an innuendo—that there is the smallest possibility that Aziz's testimony was coerced. For one thing, he was confronted by Senate investigators who already knew a great deal of the story and who possessed authenticated documents from Iraqi ministries. For another, he continues, through his lawyers, to deny what is also certainly true, namely that he personally offered a $2 million bribe to Rolf Ekeus, then the head of the U.N. weapons inspectors.

The critical person in Galloway's fetid relationship with Saddam's regime was a Jordanian "businessman" named Fawaz Zureikat, who was involved in a vast range of middleman activities in Baghdad and is the chairman of Middle East Advanced Semiconductor Inc. It was never believable, as Galloway used to claim, that he could have been so uninformed about Zureikat's activities in breaching the U.N. oil embargo.

This most probably means that what we now know is a fraction of what there is to be known. But what has been established is breathtaking enough. A member of the British Parliament was in receipt of serious money originating from a homicidal dictatorship. That money was supposed to have been used to ameliorate the suffering of Iraqis living under sanctions. It was instead diverted to the purposes of enriching Saddam's toadies and of helping them propagandize in favor of the regime whose crimes and aggressions had necessitated the sanctions and created the suffering in the first place.

This is something more than mere "corruption." It is the cynical theft of food and medicine from the desperate to pay for the palaces of a psychopath.

Heh.

"Peace" Group Spreads Anti-Semitic Libels

This Front Page Magazine article details the anti-Semitism of the "peace" and "human rights" group, the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center:

Started by Palestinian Christians in 1989, Sabeel does not promote peace or a genuine understanding of the Middle East conflict but instead musters support for punishing Israel through divestment campaigns, part of its larger goal of dismantling Israel to make way for a Palestinian-dominated one-state solution.

At a conference in Chicago earlier this month:

Palestinian activist George Rishmawi actually claimed that Israel uses a poison gas that weakens the muscles of Palestinian demonstrators so they can’t run away, and that the IDF quickly retrieves the canisters so that no one can identify the gas. This echoed of the blood libel stories that have caused Jews so much suffering in the past.

I wish people of good faith had been with me to hear the relentless litany of historical distortions and slander. Michael Tarazi, a Harvard-educated attorney and former advisor to Palestinian leaders, accused Israel of starting all the Arab-Israeli wars, saying Israel probably withdrew from Gaza because Israel has, “depleted all the usable drinking water.”

Christians who fall for these anti-Semitic libels are repeating the mistakes of their European forebears. The movement for Palestinian National Liberation is a continuation of the Holocaust by other means.

Jews Preparing To Flee Britain?

It seems, British Jews are preparing for the worst case scenario; that Europe will, once again, become a completely intolerable place for Jews to live. They are, increasingly, insuring they have a safe haven to flee to, by buying property in Israel:

We have been running to cope with the recent intensive urge of British Jews to have a place in Israel. Many have admitted to me that they are taking the opportunity to buy a property now because of the favorable currency exchange and the excellent British economy.

Clearly, there is plenty of spare cash around to invest abroad. However, there is another unsettling factor that is making British Jews passionate about buying in Israel. The growing anti-Semitism, linked to the increasingly anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, remarks and actions of some leaders in the British Muslim community, has made many Jews feel extremely nervous and insecure.

From a singularly Israeli and professional viewpoint, I can tell you that the growing anti-Semitic and anti-Israel remarks being made by Muslim leaders, and backed by advocates such as Livingstone and Galloway, is not adversely affecting the Israeli economy. On the contrary, I have seen millions of British pounds being pumped into Israel as a community under threat invest with increasing passion, and fear, in our country.

This is one of the biggest reasons the state of Israel must exist. Too often, indeed almost constantly, throughout history, we gentiles have decided our problems are caused by the Jews amongst us, and our solution has been to kill them. It is no wonder the Jews of Britain believe they see the writing on the wall. If I were a Jew living in Britain, I believe I would be making damn sure I could get safe passage to Israel.

I'll tell you how bad things are. Even as an American, currently, when I go near the border, I feel as if I am approaching the edge of a cliff. I get a sense of vertigo. I am terrified of the potential chaos of the rest of the world. Honestly, with the history, I don't trust any of you.

How's that?

Let me be clear, I do travel. Rationally, I know I am fine. But, my experience in Europe, and in Canada, and in Mexico, has not been fraught with the romantic notions, or the party dreams that other Americans bring with them. I am not enamored of quaint little villages, or gleaming spires, or traditions of service. I am an observer. I watch for the details, and the details are telling. I see the isolated immigration populations, the risible anti-Americanism, and anti-Semtisim, the predominance of extremist socialist ideas, and the veritable caste system they create. I note the hushed morgue-like tones in which most Europeans speak, as if a palpable depression has manifest itself across the continent.

I know surveys show that the people of England, Germany and France believe America is the greatest threat to the world there is. Well, that's called projection, my friends. All America has ever done is pull you back from the brink of a disaster which you were determined to bring upon youselves.

Europe is a graveyard of monsters.

Disclaimer: A good portion of my family is European. I do not hate all Europeans, and, by that, I mean they live in Europe. I just think the evidence shows that Europeans are, as a group, very dangerous. And there moral haughtiness is entirely unjustified.

Comments Bots With Reading Comprehension

I just got hit by a bot, over at my Screaming Memes site, which bypassed the Word Verification test, and even read the title of my post, and included it in it's stupid bot comment. Go here to see it.

WTF?

What next? Are they going to adopt the monikers and personalities of my favorite commenters, people like Behind the Scenes, and TruePeers? The bots will come on my site, comment in the voice of TruePeers, and then at the end, they'll say something like, "Oh yes, I almost forgot to mention, if you are interested in dildos, I've got a great dildo site for all your dildo needs."

How To Disappear Completely

Jonathan Last at the Weekly Standard tells us the history of how Britain managed the obliteration of it's empire, and how we are on the right track to follow suit. A lot of this is going to sound eerily familiar:

WHAT DOES MODERN HISTORY have to teach us about the age of American empire? The final chapters of the British Empire offer lessons and parallels aplenty. Empires don't last forever, and the combination of martial victory, popular ennui, and liberal anti-patriotism is a dangerous mix for a superpower.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the British Empire was an unopposed hyperpower (much as the United States has been since 1989). As historian Colin Cross observes: "In terms of influence it was the only world power." The British people and their leaders accepted this fact. In the early 1930s, Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin pronounced that "the British Empire stands firm, as a great force for good." Historian William Manchester argues that "most of the crown's subjects, abroad as well as at home, felt comfortable with imperialism."

But after the conclusion of the first World War, Britain's imperial psyche began to fracture. "After the survivors of the Western front came home," Manchester writes, "Britons wanted nothing more to do with war; most of them hoped never again to lay their eyes on an Englishman in uniform, and they were losing their taste for Empire." Winston Churchill despaired of this change. "The shadow of victory is disillusion," he noted. "The reaction from extreme effort is prostration. The aftermath even of successful war is long and bitter."

A deep desire to avoid conflict, even at the price of letting the Empire dissolve, permeated British society. In 1931, the House of Commons passed the Statute of Westminster, the first step toward independence for Britain's dominions. In 1932, a poll found that 10.4 million Britons supported England's unilateral disarmament, while only 870,000 opposed it. Historian Alistair Horne observes that, after World War I, it took just about 10 years for the "urge for national grandeur" to be replaced by "a deep longing simply to be left in peace."

Why did it all crumble? Several interrelated reasons - among them the grisly fact that England had lost virtually an entire generation of future leaders in the trenches of Europe. But another important cause was the waning of confidence on the part of liberal British elites, whose pacifism evolved into anti-patriotism.
In 1933, the Oxford Union - a debating society and one of the strongholds of liberal elite opinion - held a debate on the resolution "this House will in no circumstances fight for king and country." The resolution passed. Margot Asquith, one of England's leading liberal lights, wrote that same year, quite sincerely: "There is only one way of preserving peace in the world, and getting rid of your enemy, and that is to come to some sort of agreement with him. . . . The greatest enemy of mankind today is hate."

Churchill disdained the new liberalism, mocking one of his opponents as part of "that band of degenerate international intellectuals who regard the greatness of Britain and the stability and prosperity of the British Empire as a fatal obstacle. . . . " So deep was this liberal loathing of empire that even as the first shots of World War II were being fired, Churchill's private secretary, Jock Colville, witnessed at a theater "a group of bespectacled intellectuals" who, to his shock, "remain[ed] firmly seated while 'God Save the King' was played."

These elites could see evil only at home.

The French intellectual Simone de Beauvoir did not believe that Germany was a "threat to peace," but instead worried that the "panic that the Right was spreading" would drag France, Britain, and the rest of Europe into war.
Stafford Cripps, a liberal Labor member of Parliament, feared not Hitler, but Churchill.
Cripps wrote that after Churchill became prime minister he would "then introduce fascist measures and there will be no more general elections."

In an important sense, the British Empire's strength failed because its elite liberal citizens stopped believing in it.

The parallels with 21st-century America are striking. In little more than 10 years, England went from victory in World War I to serious discussions about completely disarming herself. Talk of a "peace dividend" began with the fall of the Berlin Wall and culminated 10 years later with a major draw-down of forces and the abandonment of the two-war doctrine.

Where the Great War robbed England of a generation of its best and brightest, in America the baby boom generation was lost in Vietnam or, perhaps worse, in Canada, in the Air National Guard, and in the universities, where they learned to hide and not lead. This has taken its toll. Our two baby boom presidents have been exceedingly imperfect.

The American left, too, eerily echoes its British counterparts. Consider the "Peace is Patriotic" bumper stickers; the howls of protest against the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations, for fear that he might be too assertive of American values; the comparison - by Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.) - of American soldiers at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis and Guantanamo Bay to the Soviet gulag; the protest cries of "No blood for oil" and the left-wing fringe speculation that the endgame of George W. Bush's 9/11 fear-mongering would be to cancel elections and establish a fascist police state.

The liberal opponents of the British Empire were proved wrong, but their misplaced disillusionment was enough to sap the vitality of imperial confidence. After rising one last time to fight Nazism, the sun set on the British Empire.

Likewise, it is pleasant to believe that the crisis of confidence in today's liberal elites won't affect the outcome of our war with Islamist extremism. The greater worry concerns what happens next. Will protestations of liberal elites become mainstream diffidence about America's place in the world? Will we, too, stop believing that America stands firm, as a great force for good - and then see our place in the world diminish?

The Price of Peace

Here is a great piece by William Shawcross...enjoy.

Peace is not the answer:
Calls to end Iraq's bloodshed are hardly noble when those who would triumph slaughter teachers as children weep.

By William ShawcrossWilliam Shawcross' book, "Allies: Why the West had to Remove Saddam," has just been updated and republished in paperback by PublicAffairs Press.October 9, 2005

IT SEEMS UNLIKELY that many of the so-called peace marchers who trooped through Washington and London two weekends back listened on Thursday — at least not with an open mind or sympathy — to George Bush's cogent explanation of why coalition troops are fighting and dying in Iraq.

You did not see in those demonstrations, after all, many banners reading, "Support Iraq's New Constitution," "No to Jihad" or "Stop Suicide Bombers." The crimes committed daily against the Iraqi people by other Arabs who wish to re-enslave them seem to be of little interest to Michael Moore, Jane Fonda and their followers. Rage against the daily assaults on children, women, anyone, by Islamo-fascists and ordinary national fascists is not fashionable. Only alleged American crimes are cool to decry.

It's hard to think of a more graphic illustration of the horror the U.S.-led coalition is fighting in Iraq than the mass murder on Sept. 26, in which terrorists disguised as policemen (a New York Times headline called these butchers "fighters") burst into a primary school in Iskandaria, south of Baghdad, seized five teachers (all Shiites) and shot them dead. Children stood weeping through this atrocity.

Why do crimes like this make so little impression on those Americans and Europeans who want the coalition to abandon Iraq? The demonstrators think of themselves as moral, but it is hard to think of any policy more amoral than abandoning Iraq to such an enemy.

Iraqis are dismayed by the mistakes made by the coalition. They don't like the continued presence of foreign troops. But they like the prospect of being abandoned prematurely to the terrorists even less.

One of the most publicized new icons of the U.S. peace movement, grieving mother Cindy Sheehan, has attracted attention in the vibrant new media that have grown in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. All the Iraqis I know totally disagree with her public declarations that her son died for nothing. Those fighting the coalition approve and exploit her words.

"Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," as the Islamo-fascists in Iraq call themselves, understands Western doubt and self-criticism. Its members are trying to create an impression of a country submerged in bloody chaos. They want to convince a world where understanding comes only from brief television images that Iraq has gone to hell. That is a lie.

Iraq was always complex — it is now vibrantly so. Despite the terrorist campaign to kill it, the country has become a school for free expression and for government elected by the people. The dread silence of half a century has given way to millions of opinions — as in the U.S., or any society that sees itself as free.

Sunni negotiators have refused to accept the draft constitution. That is certainly a setback. Now Sunnis' grievances — many of which are valid — need to be addressed peacefully. Fortunately, political discussion never stops. Three hundred conferences on the constitution have been held throughout the country, allowing 50,000 people to express their views. The 150 new, uncensored newspapers, the scores of radio stations and half a dozen TV channels that have been set up are all talking about this and other matters of political progress.

The constitution may not be perfect. But, as the commentator Amir Taheri points out: "This is still the most democratic constitution offered to any Muslim nation so far."

That is thanks to the sacrifice of Casey Sheehan and others. It should be a source of pride in the United States. Thanks to the coalition Iraqis have more confidence in their future than we do. Iraqi refugees are not fleeing abroad in vast numbers, as happened during previous crises. The Iraqi dinar has strengthened, not weakened, against the currencies of other oil-producing nations. The mistakes that have been made in Iraq since its liberation do not alter the fact that the overthrow of Hussein has given Iraqis a chance they never had before and has shaken the ramshackle, corrupt and dictatorial foundations of the Middle East.

That, of course, is why there is such bloody resistance. U.S. soldiers are being killed not by romantic nationalist insurgents (as some liberal journalists and marchers like to pretend) but by an unholy grouping of Saddamite gangsters furious at losing power, Syrian and Iranian agents intent on creating mayhem and then theocracy, and Islamo-fascists who want to enslave the world and whose local Pol Pot, Abu Musab Zarqawi, boasts of seeking to murder as many of Iraq's majority Shiite population as he can.

Zarqawi has also declared that if he is victorious, he will use Iraq as a base to drag down other regional governments and to mount attacks on the United States. Osama bin Laden has said that "the Third World War is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war." All of which makes the antiwar opposition in the U.S. and Europe remarkably shortsighted and self-indulgent. We in the West have a vital stake in delivering on our promises and ensuring that terrorism does not move on to other victims, with even greater bloodlust.

The sacrifice of U.S. soldiers, of their coalition allies and of Iraqis is horrifically painful. But if we can stay long enough to enable the Iraqis to lay the firm foundation of civil society, their deaths will not be in vain. We should leave when the elected Iraqi government asks us to do so. It is the promise of freedom that the fascists who murdered the Iraqi teachers last month want to destroy.

It is astonishing and discouraging that those who think they were taking the high ground in marching though Washington do not understand this.

Danish Prime Minister Articulates
The Principles Of Western Civilization

Yes, it appears these days we need a headline when one of our leaders makes a stand for the principles of Western Civ, rather than caving in to the Jihadi Muslims. The Prime Minister of Denmark gave the right answer in respsonse to Muslim pressure to punish Jyllands-Posten for publishing cartoons poking fun at Mohammed:

The prime minister had been encouraged by the opposition to meet with the group as a way to increase understanding in an increasingly controversial public debate. In recent weeks, both the minister of culture and a Copenhagen mayoral candidate have retracted statements they made about Muslims and Islamic culture.

Most recently, national daily Jyllands-Posten has invoked international ire by publishing twelve caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, some of which characterised him as a terrorist. Pictorial depictions of Mohammed are frowned upon by Islam.

'This is a matter of principle. I won't meet with them because it is so crystal clear what principles Danish democracy is built upon that there is no reason to do so,' said Rasmussen.

Rasmussen reiterated his message that individuals who felt offended by the tone of the public debate should bring their grievances to the courts.

'As prime minister, I have no power whatsoever to limit the press - nor do I want such a power,' he said. 'It is a basic principle of our democracy that a prime minister cannot control the press.'

Yes, that's Western Civilization. If you don't like it, leave.

Monday, October 24, 2005

Under Pressure

Pressure pushing down on me
Pressing down on you
no man ask for
Under pressure - that burns a building down
Splits a family in two
Puts people on streets

It’s the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming let me out
Pray tomorrow - gets me higher

Turned away from it all like a blind man
Sat on a fence but it don’t work
Keep coming up with love
but it’s so slashed and torn

Why - why - why

Love
Insanity laughs under pressure
We’re cracking

Can’t we give ourselves one more chance
Why can’t we give love that one more chance
Why can’t we give love

Cause love’s such an old fashioned word
And love dares you to care for
The people on the edge of the night
And love dares you to change our way of
Caring about ourselves

This is our last dance
This is our last dance
This is ourselves
Under pressure
Under pressure

Pressure

--- Lyrics by David Bowie and Freddie Mercury

How To Disappear Completely

That there, that's not me
I go where I please
I walk through walls
I float down the Liffey

I'm not here
This isn't happening
I'm not here, I'm not here

In a little while
I'll be gone
The moment's already passed
Yeah, it's gone

I'm not here
This isn't happening
I'm not here, I'm not here

--- Lyrics by Radiohead

The Muslims Rise, and The Infidels Fall
Vanity, Vanity, All Is Vanity

Hugh Fitzgerald says victory is not inevitable in the War on Islamic Terror:

There is nothing inevitable about the defeat of the worldwide Jihad. In fact, if one looks at the emptying out of non-Muslim populations within the last half-century or century, one finds that the non-Muslim population of North Africa, the Middle East, Turkey, and Iran, consisting of Christians and Jews, has gone steadily down.

And the non-Muslim population of Pakistan and Bangladesh, consisting mainly of Hindus (and some Sikhs and Christians) has gone steadily down. And the non-Muslim population in Malaysia and Indonesia has gone steadily down. In every case, forced expulsion, steady persecution, mass murder, and even genocide, as in Turkey, has helped to explain such a change.

Meanwhile, everywhere in the Lands of the Infidels, millions of Muslims have been allowed to settle. And in India and Lebanon, where they have long been present as a minority, they have been steadily outbreeding the non-Muslims. The percentage of Muslims in the population has steadily, almost it seems inexorably, risen.

If demography is destiny, and if nothing is done to halt Muslim in-migration, and Muslim overbreeding that astounds -- in France the non-Muslims increase by .5% a year, while Muslims increase by 5% per year -- 10 times the rate. In Italy (with a negative birth-rate), in Spain, in England, in Germany, the same kind of results. Anyone can do the simple calculation.

It can already be seen that Western politicians, having no sense of their own civilizations or what needs to be retained at all costs, more and more willingly appease Muslim voters. A few years ago a prominent leader of the Socialist Party sent out word to his underlings that they should forget entirely about "the Jews" and Israel, and concentrate entirely on winning the Muslim vote, which can only be won by adopting Muslim demands in foreign policy and meeting Muslim demands for changes in the laws, customs, and manners to be observed within the Infidel land in which they happen to have settled.

Much the same kind of cravenness by politicians can be observed in Great Britain, where in local elections, and not only in London with Ken Livingstone, the politicians vie in their desire to appease and please Muslim voters.

Those who would like to register their fear and dismay, and their desire to make their country less welcoming to Muslims who do not wish the resident Infidels well, have only the beyond-the-pale (as many of them see it) BNP in England or Le Pen in France. Thus they are without an articulate, respectable figure to lead, to warn, to instruct, and to help rescue those who did nothing to deserve this except to be insufficiently attentive -- for they trusted their own leaders -- to the immutable nature, and menace, of Islam and its adherents, both those who are clearly "immoderate" and those who claim, and for the moment may be, that slippery thing, a "moderate" Muslim.

Go read the rest.

Hizb ut-Tahrir Come Calling

Funny little story from the British paper, The Observer, about how Hizb ut-Tahrir visited the offices of a Member of Parliament for a little chat:

A few weeks ago, Harriet Harman was holding a surgery for her Peckham constituents. As always, it was an open house, and every variety of south Londoner was coming to her office. She had dealt with the usual run of complaints and appeals when the door opened and for the first time in her life Harman confronted authentic anti-democrats.

If she had been less startled, she might have seen the funny side. The members of Hizb ut-Tahrir hated democracy and all that went with it - secularism, the separation of church and state, the emancipation of women. It's not just that they would establish a dictatorship if they came to power, the successor parties to the communists and the fascists would do that. The Islamists regarded it as sinful to stand in elections or even vote.

Yet here were totalitarians and misogynists going to a woman democratic politician and begging her to persuade Tony Blair not to take authoritarian measures against their authoritarian sect. The scene could have been bettered only if Harman had been a Jewish lesbian.

In fact, she is a courteous and patient politician. She listened politely to what they had to say and the more she heard the more despairing she became. As they were leaving, she said, 'you're British citizens. Shouldn't you try to play a part in British society?'

'We're not a part of British society,' they told her. 'We stay here like guests in a hotel.'

Yes, I would say they've overstayed their welcome. It's checkout time, don't you think?

Oh d-d-Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?

Banks in Britain have banned Piggy Banks for fear of offending Muslims:

British banks are banning piggy banks because they may offend some Muslims.

Halifax and NatWest banks have led the move to scrap the time-honoured symbol of saving from being given to children or used in their advertising, the Daily Express/Daily Star group reports here.

Muslims do not eat pork, as Islamic culture deems the pig to be an impure animal.

Salim Mulla, secretary of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, backed the bank move.

“This is a sensitive issue and I think the banks are simply being courteous to their customers,” he said.

Oh yes, it's a very sensitive issue. Who can blame Muslims for being offended?

Can Porky Pig be far behind?

Ba-deep, Ba-deep, that's all folks!

The Protocols Rise Again In Deutschland

Zombie has photos from the Frankfurt Book Fair in Germany where an Iranian bookseller featured anti-Semitic literature, such as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, at his booth.

Such hate literature is illegal in Germany, but, of course, the Germans did nothing to put a stop to it. I guess they were only following orders.

London Times Says UN Hariri Report Was "Doctored"

The London Times is now coming right out and saying it; the UN report on the assassination of Rafik Hariri was doctored:

THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.

The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.

The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.

The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, described the report’s findings as “deeply troubling”. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: “It is an unpleasant story which the international community will take very seriously indeed.”

But the furore over the doctoring of the report threatened to overshadow its damaging findings. It raised questions about political interference by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General, who had promised not to make any changes in the report.

One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.

The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.

The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.

General Shawkat, also among the deleted names, is married to President al-Assad’s headstrong sister, Bushra, and was appointed commander of Syrian military intelligence on February 14 this year, the day Mr Hariri was murdered. Gen- eral Shawkat’s predecessor at Military Intelligence was General Hassan Khalil, the third name on the deleted list.

General Bahjat Suleyman, the fourth Syrian on the list, was until June the head of the internal affairs section of the powerful General Security Department, the main civilian intelligence service.

The only Lebanese on the deleted list is General Jamal al-Sayyed, the former head of the General Security Department in Lebanon. General al-Sayyed features prominently in the report and is alleged to be one of the ringleaders plotting Mr Hariri’s assassination.

Mr Annan had pledged repeatedly through his chief spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, that he would not change a word of the report by Detlev Mehlis, a German prosecutor. But computer tracking showed that the final edit began at about 11.38am on Thursday — a minute after Herr Mehlis began a meeting with Mr Annan to present his report. The names of Maher al-Assad, General Shawkat and the others were apparently removed at 11.55am, after the meeting ended.

At a press conference yesterday Herr Mehlis insisted that Mr Annan had not pressurised him into making changes. “No one outside of the report team influenced these changes and no changes whatsoever were suggested by the Secretary-General,” he said.

The most stunning thing about this is that I can not think of a political situation, over the past couple of years, that the UN has been involved in, in which the organization has not behaved scandolously.

Have there been any?

One Man's Free Speech Is Another Man's Terrorism

The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published cartoons depicting Mohammed in a humorous light, so the Muslims of Denmark are angry, angry, angry. So, they are calling for the government to crack down on "hate" speech:

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen rejected on Friday Muslim ambassadors' request that he get personally involved to tone down the current debate about Muslims. Ambassadors from eleven Muslim countries sent a letter to Rasmussen on Wednesday, requesting that he step in to stop 'the current smear campaign being carried out by the public and the media against Islam and Muslims'.

On Friday, Fogh rejected their call, saying that 'freedom of expression is the very foundation of Denmark's democratic tradition'. 'Freedom of expression has wide boundaries, and the Danish government has no means to influence the press,' said Rasmussen in his reply. 'Danish laws do forbid blasphemous statements or discriminating acts, and the offended party can bring such statements or acts before the court.'

Let me just step in here and say, isn't it great to hear the values of Western Civilization articulated so clearly? Good job, Fogh. Thank you very much. You are a hero.

Unfortunately, that's not quite the end of the story. There's a requisite bit of Dhimmi apologizing to follow:

Despite refusing to steer the tone of the debate, Rasmussen agreed with the ambassadors' opinion that dialogue between cultures and religions should be based on mutual respect and understanding.

The ambassadors' request comes after heated debate over newspaper Jyllands-Posten's decision to run drawings of the prophet Mohammed, which is frowned upon by Islam. In addition, some of the drawings depicted Mohammed in a negative light, which only added to Muslims' ire.

The ambassadors said, however, that the cartoon incident was just the latest of a number of unfortunate critiques of Islam, including critical comments by the Minister of Culture, a Copenhagen City Council candidate, as well as a local radio station that had been found guilty of broadcasting racist programming.

'We distance ourselves from these statements and publications, and we request that you prosecute those responsible as a way to create religious harmony, better integration, and improve Denmark's relations with the Muslim world in general,' the ambassadors said in their letter.

In other words, free speech is fine, as long as there isn't too much of it, I guess.

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Autumn Leaf

Married Hindu women pray during the Hindu festival of Karva Chauth in the northern Indian city of Chandigarh October 20, 2005.

It's The Great Pumpkin,
I Swear, I Can See Him, I Can See Him

Islamic Jihadi Revolution In Caucasus

The worldwide Islamic Jihad seem to be gathering strength with increasing speed. Earlier today, I reported on the Phillipines ceding the island of Mindanao to the Jihadis. Tonight comes further word from the LA Times that the Jihadis are emerging as a revolutionary force in the Caucasas:

GHIMRI, Russia — A dripping and cavernous tunnel, three miles through the belly of the mountain and lighted only by a spindly strand of dim bulbs, marks the entrance to the land of deep gorges and outlaw villages of the Caucasus range.

Emerging in the bright daylight on the other side is like entering another world, a Russia that is not Russia. Road signs every few feet are bright green with Arabic script: "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet." Several dozen signs bear the words of a legendary Caucasian warrior: "He who thinks about consequences is not a hero."

Since the 19th century, Russia has tried to tame the 650 miles of snowy peaks and fertile lowland slopes between the Caspian and Black seas. Today, the Caucasus wars seeping out of Chechnya through the surrounding, predominantly Muslim republics are increasingly being waged under a banner of militant Islam.

This creeping Islamic revolution, analysts suggest, is the latest outcome of the Kremlin's failure to adopt a coherent policy for combating religious extremism in a nation with 23 million Muslims.

In areas like this mountainous region of Russia's Dagestan republic, the battle for hearts and minds may be lost. Ghimri, a tiny village of terraced gardens on the slope of a 5,000-foot abyss, is known as a lair of insurgency that outside police rarely enter except in force.

Islamic militancy is no stranger to Ghimri, from which 19th century warrior Imam Shamil fought under the banner of Islam against Russian troops until his surrender in 1859.

Today, women and even young girls wear head scarves, and some cover their faces.

Arabic, the language of the Koran, is taught to all students.

The local imam moved last year to establish separate schools for girls and boys and was thwarted only when no second building could be found.

The village of 3,800 has also imposed many aspects of Islamic Sharia law as a supplement to Russian law.

Wth the same news hitting us from every corner of the globe, day after day, it will gradually become evident to more and more people that this is a worldwide, and organized attack by Islamic Jihadis against the foundations of modern civilization. Eventually, I believe we are going to see a call for the UN to put a permanent ban on the establishment of any new Islamist state.

A New Islamic State
Phillipines Cedes Mindanao To Muslims

Well, this is a disaster:

MANILA, October 13, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The Philippine government has agreed in principle to allow Muslims in the South to draft their own constitution, impose their won tax system, form and maintain legal and financial institutions, according to a local paper Thursday, October 13.

Delegations of the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) reached an initial agreement during informal talks in September in Kuala Lumpur to give Mindanao Muslims revenue-raising powers, the right to draft their own charter and to build their own institutions, the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper said.

A government's peace delegation member confirmed the initial deal on the Muslim Mindanao."We're optimistic a deal may be signed within the year or in early 2006," the official told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The official, however, stressed that changes could be introduced to the reached agreement."What we have right now is a working draft. There may be revisions to the consensus points that we had agreed last month."

MILF spokesperson, Eid Kabalu, also confirmed the accord.

"There was indeed a consensus," the spokesman said.

"Since these are only exploratory talks, I suppose the agreement is on a principle level and it has to be approved.

The MILF has demanded independence for Muslim majority areas in the south and favors an East Timor-style referendum to allow residents to decide.

Security experts cautiously welcomed reports on reaching the initial agreement on the Mindanao Muslims to solve the decades-long conflict in the area, Reuters said.

They, however, warned that the deal could just mark the beginning of a new struggle over how the agreement is implemented.

They maintained that creating the new entity would require changes to the constitution at a time when Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is struggling to impose her agenda amid allegations that she cheated her way to election victory last year.

"It all depends on the political will of the national leadership," said Abhoud Lingga, executive director of the Institute of Bangsamoro Studies in Mindanao's Cotabato City.

"If they have the political will, it is all possible."

You can be sure that, as soon as they have their agreement finalized, the Jihadis will begin agitating for the rest of the Phillipines.

Members of my family were driven out of the Phillipines by the Islamic Jihadis. They were pulling the same crap there, that they pull all over the world.

The Phillipines was where the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center was planned. It is also where the Jihadis formulated the initial plan for 9/11. The island of Mindanao has been a major planning base for the Jihadis, and a major front in the War on Terror, since before we were aware we were under attack.

The Phillipines has just legitimized that Jihadi base. Congratulation, Phillipines. You really made the world a better place, didn't you Phillipines?

And now, as Jihad Watch points out, the Saudi dollars are pouring in. Gee, what do you think the Jihadis are going to do with that money?

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

The Director of the Institute for Islamic Political Thought, Azzam Tamimi, says The Guardian are his friends (hat tip Justify This):

Al-Jazeera Video Transcript (click here for the video link)

"This journalist (Rory Carroll) represents one of the newspapers which are most supportive Arab rights, and of human causes. We are saddened when any journalist is victim to such an action, but we even more saddened when this journalist is a friend, like this journalist."

"Today I contacted my colleagues in the Muslim Association of Britain and the leaders of the Islamic community. They are all worried, because The Guardian is especially supportive of our causes and strongly apposed the invasions of Iraq and of Afghanistan. Link...

Like I always say, you just gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth. Thanks Azzam.

As Justify This notes, what we see here is the Director of Islamic Political Thought appealing to terrorists by saying, "This journalist is a friend." A friend of terrorism that is.

The Guardian is a wonderful paper.

Isn't It Ironic, Part 3
19 Muslim Men Rape a Fourteen Year Old Girl

This is an update of Part 2. In the post below, I reported that Muslims had rioted after a peace meeting. Well, it seems the peace meeting was to reassure black people in the Birmingham neighborhood they meant no harm, after 19 Pakistani men raped a fourteen year old girl:

Community outrage is growing into calls for a national boycott of Asian businesses after the alleged sexual assault on a 14 year old African child by a gang of up to nineteen Asian men.
It is alleged that an Asian shop owner and eighteen other Asian men have gang raped a fourteen year old African girl at the back of their hair & beauty shop in the Perry Barr area, Birmingham.

The incident is said to have occurred when the Asian shop keeper locked her in the store after catching her attempting to steal a weave/wig. The teenager who is said to have pleaded for the shopkeeper not to call the Police is said to be an unofficial immigrant from Jamaica who was fearful of forced deportation by the British Authorities.

Speculative reports from several Birmingham community radio stations are stating there are claims that the fourteen year old offered herself to the shop keeper to prevent arrest and it was at this point he locked her up in the shop and called for his friends to participate in her rape before releasing her the next day. However due to the fact that the teenage victim hasn’t come forward to make an official police complaint the whole story remains unconfirmed.

Mass community protests with up to 300 African men and women were held outside stores in Perry Bar on Tuesday evening, 18 October 2005 blocking all traffic in the area. An emergency community meeting was also held at the African Caribbean Self-Help Organisation in Heathfield Road, Handsworth on the same night where a decision was made to economically close down all Asian owned hair shops in the area.

See, the Muslim men gang-raped a little girl, then held a peace meeting, after which they rioted. Irony piled on top of irony.

Whose Blood?
Vampire Author, Anne Rice, Finds Christ

Anne Rice has found Christ:

Oct. 31, 2005 issue - Sometimes Anne Rice won't leave her bedroom for days on end—and neither would you. Glass doors open onto a terrace that looks over the red-tiled roofs of La Jolla, Calif., to the Pacific Ocean. A live-in staffer brings meals to the table at the foot of her ornately carved wooden bed, which faces an ornately carved stone fireplace. She exercises in a huge bike-in closet. She's got two computers and enough books to last her a year. Splendid isolation? Splendid, sure. But she's often got family visiting in a downstairs guest suite, she reads The New York Times every morning—"Nicholas Kristof is a hero to me"—watches news "till I can't stand it anymore," and spends up to an hour and a half a day e-mailing with her extraordinarily faithful readers.

They've been worried about her. After 25 novels in 25 years, Rice, 64, hasn't published a book since 2003's "Blood Chronicle," the tenth volume of her best-selling vampire series. They may have heard she came close to death last year, when she had surgery for an intestinal blockage, and also back in 1998, when she went into a sudden diabetic coma; that same year she returned to the Roman Catholic Church, which she'd left at 18. They surely knew that Stan Rice, her husband of 41 years, died of a brain tumor in 2002. And though she'd moved out of their longtime home in New Orleans more than a year before Hurricane Katrina, she still has property there—and the deep emotional connection that led her to make the city the setting for such novels as "Interview With the Vampire."

What's up with her?

"For the last six months," she says, "people have been sending e-mails saying, 'What are you doing next?' And I've told them, 'You may not want what I'm doing next'." We'll know soon. In two weeks, Anne Rice, the chronicler of vampires, witches and—under the pseudonym A. N. Roquelaure—of soft-core S&M encounters, will publish "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt," a novel about the 7-year-old Jesus, narrated by Christ himself. "I promised," she says, "that from now on I would write only for the Lord." It's the most startling public turnaround since Bob Dylan's "Slow Train Coming" announced that he'd been born again.

Meeting the still youthful-looking Rice, you'd never suspect she'd been ill—except that on a warm October afternoon she's chilly enough to have a fire blazing. And if you were expecting Morticia Addams with a strange new light in her eyes, forget it. "We make good coffee," she says, beckoning you to where a silver pot sits on the white tablecloth. "We're from New Orleans." Rice knows "Out of Egypt" and its projected sequels—three, she thinks—could alienate her following; as she writes in the afterword, "I was ready to do violence to my career." But she sees a continuity with her old books, whose compulsive, conscience-stricken evildoers reflect her long spiritual unease. "I mean, I was in despair." In that afterword she calls Christ "the ultimate supernatural hero ... the ultimate immortal of them all."

To render such a hero and his world believable, she immersed herself not only in Scripture, but in first-century histories and New Testament scholarship—some of which she found disturbingly skeptical. "Even Hitler scholarship usually allows Hitler a certain amount of power and mystery." She also watched every Biblical movie she could find, from "The Robe" to "The Passion of the Christ" ("I loved it"). And she dipped into previous novels, from "Quo Vadis" to Norman Mailer's "The Gospel According to the Son" to Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins's apocalyptic Left Behind series. ("I was intrigued. But their vision is not my vision.")

She can cite scholarly authority for giving her Christ a birth date of 11 B.C., and for making James, his disciple, the son of Joseph by a previous marriage. But she's also taken liberties where they don't explicitly conflict with Scripture. No one reports that the young Jesus studied with the historian Philo of Alexandria, as the novel has it—or that Jesus' family was in Alexandria at all. And she's used legends of the boy Messiah's miracles from the noncanonical Apocrypha: bringing clay birds to life, striking a bully dead and resurrecting him.

Rice's most daring move, though, is to try to get inside the head of a 7-year-old kid who's intermittently aware that he's also God Almighty. "There were times when I thought I couldn't do it," she admits. The advance notices say she's pulled it off: Kirkus Reviews' starred rave pronounces her Jesus "fully believable." But it's hard to imagine all readers will be convinced when he delivers such lines as "And there came in a flash to me a feeling of understanding everything, everything!"

The attempt to render a child's point of view can read like a Sunday-school text crossed with Hemingway: "It was time for the blessing. The first prayer we all said together in Jerusalem ... The words were a little different to me. But it was still very good." Yet in the novel's best scene, a dream in which Jesus meets a bewitchingly handsome Satan—smiling, then weeping, then raging—Rice shows she still has her great gift: to imbue Gothic chills with moral complexity and heartfelt sorrow.

Rice already has much of the next volume written. ("Of course I've been advised not to talk about it.") But what's she going to do with herself once her hero ascends to Heaven? "If I really complete the life of Christ the way I want to do it," she says, "then I might go on and write a new type of fiction. It won't be like the other. It'll be in a world that includes redemption."

A few years back, Anne Rice wrote a book called Memnoch the Devil which a kind of rethinking of Milton's Paradise Lost. In it, she told the story of the history of God, man, and the angels from the early origins of man on Earth, onward to the Life of Christ. It was a brilliant book, in my opinion. I've recommended it to Christian friends of mine, as among the finest works of literature I have ever read.

Why don't I list my favorite books, so you don't think that I always read "trashy" novels:

1) Moby Dick (Herman Melville)
2) Paradise Lost (John Milton)
3) The Sheltering Sky (Paul Bowles)
4) The Garden of Eden (Ernest Hemingway)
5) Beloved (Toni Morrison)

Anyway, I must say, Memnoch the Devil helped me feel, or understand God's sacrifice on the cross with much more reality and power. That's kind of a strange sentence, but I think you might understand what I mean.

The one problem with Memnoch the Devil was Rice was unable to get herself to honestly confront the Fall. The concept of sin never entered into the discussion. Clearly, now, Anne Rice has recognized that we are all drenched in sin, and she has chosen to be drenched in the blood of Christ, washed clean, to start anew.

I look forward to reading her new book.

Isn't It Ironic, Part 2
Muslims Riot In Birmingham

In an echo of the ironic rioting in Egypt (see below), Muslims in Birmingham appear to be rioting, after a peace rally, because they were accused of a rape that one of their ranks, apparently, did commit:

A man was stabbed to death and several other people, including a police officer, were hurt when days of tension in England's second city over the alleged rape of a black girl by South Asians erupted into riots.

In an echo of violence in the same Lozells Road area of Birmingham 20 years ago, mobs pelted police with bricks, stones and bottles or smashed shop and car windows with baseball bats and sticks. At least one car was torched.

The riots erupted after members of the Afro-Caribbean and South Asian communities held what police and media said was a peaceful meeting designed to reassure the black community and encourage the girl to come forward.

The Sunday Times newspaper said a gang of up to 30 Asian youths began throwing stones at some of the 300 people attending the meeting in the church.

Meanwhile, a woman, who asked not to be named, said she saw South Asians attacking blacks and heard later that a 20-year-old black man was stabbed to death. The woman, quoted by Britain's domestic Press Association, said she had seen around 100 Asian men congregating outside an Asian shop, put on hoods and masks and heard them say they would get weapons.

"We thought they were joking. Afterwards, we heard they had stabbed a black guy down here," she said. "Black guys up here on Lozells Road heard about the stabbing and got very angry. I saw Asian guys chasing black guys down this road. They had batons and everything else they could think of. They were angry and cussing," she said.

A reporter for the Press Association said her car was attacked by a gang of youths wielding baseball bats as she drove through the Lozells area.

Irony is no joking matter.

The Crusades

With much thanks to Robert Spencer's indispensible site, Dhimmi Watch, today is Muslims-Persecuting-Christians day, here at CUANAS.

First stop, Bethlehem, where families are increasingly sending their daughters to live abroad, for fear of what Muslim men will do to them:

The same gunmen are also responsible for the rape and murder of two Christian teenage sisters from the Amr family. The assailants then claimed that the sisters had been murdered because they were "prostitutes" and had been "collaborating" with Israeli security forces - a claim that has been strongly denied by the victims' relatives and many residents of the town.

"The gangsters murdered the two sisters so that they would not tell anyone about the rape," says a family member. "Some of the murderers were later killed by the Israeli army, but others are now living in Europe after they had sought refuge in the Church of Nativity. It's absurd that Muslim men who rape and murder Christian girls are given political asylum in Christian countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy."

Last week Beit Jala was once again the scene of religious tensions after a Christian woman complained that she had been harassed by Muslim men from the village of Beit Awwa in the Hebron area. "Such incidents have become a daily phenomenon," says Mary, who runs a small grocery in the town. "Many Christian families have sent their daughters abroad for fear they would come under attack by Muslim men."

In Qatar the Christians want to build a church, but the Muslims won't let them:

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — Qatar may be best known as the home of Al-Jazeera television, but an Anglican congregation now plans to build the country's first Christian church since Islam's arrival in the seventh century, a step that risks angering local Muslims.

Clive Handford, the Nicosia-based Anglican bishop in Cyprus and the Gulf, says construction will start in the Qatari capital of Doha in early 2006 on the $7 million Church of the Epiphany, along with a conference center and meeting rooms....

While some see the construction as a sign of increasing religious diversity throughout the world, Qatar's close-knit Muslim community may become angered if public approval is not sought, said Najeeb al-Nauimi, a prominent lawyer in Doha.

"People will be insulted," al-Nauimi said. "They respect other religions. But to impose this on them is to say that you are no longer a Muslim state. That will hurt."...

Christianity disappeared in most Gulf Arab states within a few centuries after Islam's arrival in the seventh century. But Christian expatriates have migrated to the region over the last hundred years, especially after the discovery of oil.

Got that? Somehow, just building a Christian church is "to say you are no longer a Muslim state." And, gosh, "that will hurt."

What hurts is how Christianity has been systematically wiped out of Qatar:

Qatar now counts some 70,000 Christians, including some 7,000 Anglicans and 50,000 Roman Catholics, largely from the Philippines, according to the World Christian Database. Qatar's Anglican community is its oldest, dating to 1916, the database says....

Energy-rich Qatar has had no purpose-built church since pre-Islamic times, when a chain of churches and monasteries stretched along the western shore of the Gulf from the fourth to the seventh century, Handford said.

Many Qataris, who follow a conservative brand of Islam, were "not enthusiastic" about the return of churches to the tiny country, Handford acknowledged.

The congregation will take security precautions and will not be decorated overtly with Christian crosses, he said, although the walkways and grounds will have crosses and flower motifs resembling those used in early Christian churches....

Heaven forbid, the Christians be too overt.

Meanwhile, Holland's number one entertainment store has begun selling the Bible and the Koran packaged together with a message from an Imam, and a "Protestant":

Holland's number one entertainment store, Free Record Shop, has started selling the Qu'ran and the Bible in one package along with a brochure written by an imam and a protestant.

"There's a lot going on in the world today," commercial director Juan da Silva says. "Maybe if we showed some more interesr in one another we would understand each other better."

To help build a bridge between the Qu'ran and the Bible, Da Silva asked imam Abdulwahid van Bommel and reverend Adri van Buuren to write a brochure about Christianity and Islam. According to both clergymen, Christians and Muslims share the same God.

Van Buuren calls the Qu'ran 'some kind of third Testament' and calls on Christians and Muslims to pray together and combine forces. "In service of world peace."

I think it's interesting to note that the Imam and the "Protestant" have the exact same initials. Do you think it's possible the Imam's name is simply the Islamic version of the "Protestant" name?

Robert Spencer's thinks it's interesting to note that the Koran (Sura 9:30) "calls down the curse of Allah on those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God":

YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

Truth is, I never said Christ was the Son of Allah. So, there.

Isn't It Ironic, Don't You Think?

Never let anyone tell you the Jihadis aren't big on irony. From AFP:

CAIRO (AFP) - One Muslim protestor was killed and dozens more wounded in violent clashes with police in Alexandria amid mounting tensions in the Egyptian Mediterranean city over a Christian video, the interior ministry said.

Following an earlier demonstration that had gathered at least 5,000 people, Muslims angered by release of a DVD by the Saint Girgis Church grouped outside the building again in the evening after breaking their Ramadan fast.

Twenty policemen and sixty protestors were wounded, an interior ministry spokesman told AFP. One wounded protestor, named as Mohammed Zakariya, later succumbed to his injuries in hospital.

One police car and six other vehicles were burned in the clashes, which were still ongoing. Fifty-three protestors had been arrested, the ministry said.

The Muslim protestors had earlier attacked the church and injured a passer-by, as they vented anger over the DVD release of a play produced by Saint Girgis two years ago they consider to be anti-Muslim.

The protests came three days after a man lightly wounded a nun with a knife at the entrance to the same church, and a man who came to her aid was stabbed in the back.

The play, performed by amateur actors, tells the story of a young Christian who converts to Islam and is exhorted by a sheikh to kill priests and destroy churches, according to the independent Al-Dustur paper.

Got that? They were killing and rioting in front of a church, because in the church they played a DVD about how Muslims were told by a sheikh to riot, kill, and destroy churches.

They say true modern intelligence is demonstrated by the ability to hold two contradictory things in one's mind at the same time. Seems to me, these Jihadi Muslims passed that test with flying colors. Maybe they are moving out of the medievalism I'm always accusing them of, huh?

Now, check this out, from a CNN story:

The riot was sparked by the distribution of a DVD of a play that was performed at the church two years ago. The play, "I Was Blind But Now I Can See," tells the story of a young Christian who converts to Islam and becomes disillusioned.

The church's director, the Rev. Augustinous, said it was difficult to explain the reaction to a one-time performance that took place two years ago.

"There are so many questions on what is behind all of that," he told the AP in a telephone interview.

He denied the play was offensive to Islam because its Christian hero is ultimately saved by a Muslim friend.

Egyptian security officials accused Islamic militants of distributing the DVDs to stoke sectarian tensions ahead of legislative elections Nov. 9.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the country's largest Islamic group, denied any involvement in Friday's demonstration.

The play was performed two years ago, but the riots happened two days ago. Clearly, these weren't spontaneous demonstrations of emotion. This riot was fomented by some organized force, though, of course, it couldn't be the Muslim Brotherhood, because they have denied it.

Wretchard has some important information on the Coptic Christians:

The first Christians in Egypt were mainly Alexandrian Jews such as Theophilus, whom Saint Luke the Evangelist addresses in the introductory chapter of his gospel. When the church was founded by Mark during the reign of the Roman emperor Nero, a great multitude of native Egyptians (as opposed to Greeks or Jews) embraced the Christian faith. ... In the second century Christianity began to spread to the rural areas, and scriptures were translated into the local language, namely Coptic.

The Arab conquest of Egypt took place in AD 641. Although the Imperial forces resisted the Arab army under Amr ibn al-As, the majority of the civilian population, having suffered persecution for the differing Christian beliefs [following one of the schismatic conflicts within Christianity] were less hostile; in some cases they welcomed their new masters. Considered "People of the Book", Christians were allowed to practice their religion, under the restrictions of the Islamic Shari'a law.

Despite the political upheaval, Egypt remained a mainly Christian land, although gradual conversions to Islam over the centuries had the effect of changing Egypt from a mainly Christian to a mainly Muslim country by the end of the 12th century. This process was sped along by persecutions during and following the reign of the mad Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ...
There is a tendency, especially among Leftists, to view Christianity as a 'colonial' or 'Western' religion now being challenged by Islam. From this starting point it follows that conflicts between Christians and Muslims are the story of an 'oppressive' ideology being rolled back by an 'authentic' Third World faith.

But in fact, Christianity was born in the Middle East and arrived belatedly in the West. When Arab conquerors were marching into a Christian Egypt much of Britain had not yet converted to Christianity. Large sections of what are now the Scandinavian countries did not convert to Christianity until the 11th century.

The historical record conclusively shows that many of the 'Green Lines' -- lines which along which Islam is contending with other faiths, in places like Lebanon, India and Russia -- predate the rise of the West and Western expansion that the Left finds so distasteful.

As the US Copts Association points out, Egyptian Christianity is no less authentic and indigenous than Islam and has a right to struggle for its existence.

Islamists would deny these historical facts, because Islam steals people's histories, as well as their land.

Islamists deny the historical fact that Jerusalem is a Jewish city.

Islamists deny that Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac.

Islamists deny that Christ died on the cross.

You see, the Jihadi mindset is supremely ironic (a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs.). They set themselves in opposition to the human race, historical fact, truth, and ultimately - in the sense that they are willing to kill and riot, for being accused of killing and rioting - themselves.

I Say "Tomato," You Say "I'll Kill You"
Tomato, I'll Kill You,
I'll Kill You, Tomato
Let's Call The Whole Thing Off

The other day, my friend Always on Watch put up an excellent post on the differing defintions Westerners and Jihadis use for the same words. The problem, for instance, is when they use the word "peace" it means something completely different to them, than it does to us.

This is, in my opinion, one of the most important articles on Jihadism that I have seen in quite some time. I will excerpt a portion, but I recommend going to her site and reading the whole thing:

We often hear what we want to hear when another person speaks. Specifically, in the Fatwah Against Terror, we hear the condemnation of targeting innocent civilians. But what does innocent mean?Al-Zarqawi has provided a definition in Islam permits killing of “infidel" civilians, Zarqawi tape, (AFP)8 October 2005:

"DUBAI - Al Qaeda frontman in Iraq Abu Musab Al Zarqawi has said Islam permits the killing of 'infidel' civilians, according to an audiotape broadcast on the Internet early Saturday.“

'In Islam, making the difference is not based on civilians and military, but on the basis of Muslims and infidels,' said the voice attributed to the fugitive leader who has a 25-million-dollar price on his head.“

'The Muslim’s blood cannot be spilled whatever his work or place, while spilling the blood of the infidel, whatever his work or place, is authorized if he is not trustworthy,' said the tape, whose veracity could not be determined.

"The recording comes a day after US officials claimed to have seized a letter allegedly sent to Zarqawi by Al Qaeda number two Ayman Zawahiri, in which he raised concerns over the impact on Arab opinion of videotaped executions.

"Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born Islamist extremist, is Iraq’s most wanted man.

"His Al Qaeda Group of Jihad in the Land of Two Rivers has claimed responsibility for some of the most gruesome attacks in Iraq, including the beheadings of foreign hostages and Iraqis.

"Zarqawi's words indicate a definition which differs from a Western one and help to explain why after 9/11 many Muslims literally danced for joy. Those who died here on 9/11--the men, women, and children we perceived to be innocent victims, were not innocent in the eyes of Islam.

Certainly, Islamic extremists define innocent in the same way as Zarqawi. According to Ali Hussain, investigative reporter for London's Sunday Times, as reported by Daniel Pipes:

"Ali joined the Saviour Sect in June, a few weeks before the 7/7 bombings and took along his tape recorder. What he heard is hair-raising – it is imperative for Muslims to 'instil terror into the hearts of the kuffar [infidels],'

'I am a terrorist. As a Muslim, of course I am a terrorist,'

'They will build tall buildings and we will bring them down,' the bombings were 'a good start' and Allah should 'bless those involved.'

"He also heard two speakers discuss whom they consider to be innocent."Zachariah, referring to the London passengers:

'They're kuffar [infidels]. They're not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state.'

Like I said, go read the whole thing.

Saturday, October 22, 2005

Zarqawi's Rise Is An Opportunity

From Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence officials say Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has expanded his terrorism campaign in Iraq to extremists in two dozen terror groups scattered across almost 40 countries, creating a network that rivals Osama bin Laden's.

This could be a good thing. In fact, it might be in our interest to encourage him for a little while. Then, he will get greedy, and try to overthrow Osama, which could very well lead to a war within the terror ranks.

The director of the National Counterterrorism Center considers bin Laden a strategic plotter who is deep in hiding and out of regular contact with his followers, while al-Zarqawi is involved broadly in planning of scores of brutal attacks in Iraq.

"He is very much a daily, operational threat," said Scott Redd, who is in charge of the government's counterterrorism strategy and analysis.

In figures not made public before, counterterrorism officials say that Zarqawi's network of contacts has grown dramatically since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 and now includes associates in nearly 40 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and Europe.

Those Muslim extremists are members of at least 24 groups, from Hezbollah in Lebanon to much smaller organizations in Indonesia.

This is a significant piece of information. It probably wouldn't surprise any CUANAS readers, but to those who are educated by the MSM this might come as a shock. The accepted wisdom of the MSM is that the terrorist attacks around the world are committed by "separatists," and "rebels," and are unrelated to each other.

His network remains somewhat of a puzzle. The U.S. officials say precise figures on its size are hard to come by, as are details about how his associates coordinate with the native Iraqi insurgency, largely made up of Sunnis.

One U.S. intelligence official said just 2 percent to 5 percent of attacks, generally those involving suicide bombers, can be directly blamed on al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi has 2,000 to 5,000 hard-core fighters, while the larger Iraqi insurgency easily numbers over 20,000, with over 100,000 broadly defined supporters.

The persistence of their attacks and subsequent media exposure have made al-Zarqawi the public face of al-Qaida and the broader insurgency. He has become so central to al-Qaida's operations that some evidence suggests he is providing money to bin Laden.

See, that's the kind of thing that will become a problem as time passes. Zarqawi will start to question what he is getting for his money. He will wonder instead, if Bin Laden ought to be the one paying him money.

This all sounds very threatening, but I think Zarqawi's rise could be an opportunity for America to create a fission which could lead to the eventual shattering of the various terrorist networks.

Too Amazing

Someone at the UN made changes to the report on the Hariri Assassination, taking out bits which came even closer to directly fingering Syrian President Bashar Assad. Funny thing about it is they released a version of the document with "Track Changes" enabled.

Heh:

THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.

The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.

The mistaken release of the unedited report added further support to the published conclusion that Syria was behind Mr Hariri’s assassination in a bomb blast on Valentine’s Day in Beirut. The murder of Mr Hariri touched off an international outcry and hastened Syria’s departure from Lebanon in April after a 29-year pervasive military presence.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, described the report’s findings as “deeply troubling”. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, said: “It is an unpleasant story which the international community will take very seriously indeed.”

But the furore over the doctoring of the report threatened to overshadow its damaging findings. It raised questions about political interference by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary- General, who had promised not to make any changes in the report.

One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.

The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.

The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.

Don't these people know what a PDF file is?

Al-Aqsa Leader:
Jerusalem Not Built By Jews

WND interviews Sheik Kamal Hatib, vice-chairman of the Islamic Movement, the Muslim group in Israel most identified with Temple Mount militancy.

WND: Who should have sovereignty over the Temple Mount – Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Or should it be shared?

HATIB: We absolutely believe that Al Aqsa, all its different parts, all its walls, all its courts, and everything down the mosque or up it, all these fully belong to the Muslims. Only to them. No one other than the Muslims has any right over Al Aqsa, or even over any grain of its sand. We, the Muslims, insist and emphasize that the only sovereignty over Al Aqsa must be for the Muslims. We will not accept or recognize any other sovereignty, including shared control.

WND: But what about the previous Jewish Temples? Do you believe they existed? Do Jews have any historic claims to the Temple Mount whatsoever?

HATIB: We the Muslims believe that Al Aqsa was built since the time of Adam – God bless him. It was built 40 years after the construction of the Al Haram Mosque in Mecca which was built thousands of years ago. Al Aqsa was built by the angels as it is mentioned in a verse of the Quran. The mosque is mentioned in the Quran, which speaks about the raising of the prophet.

We believe that the Jewish Temples existed, but we deny they were built near Al Aqsa. When the First Temple was built by Solomon – God bless him – Al Aqsa was already built. We don't believe that a prophet like Solomon would have built the Temple at a place where a mosque existed.

WND: What you are saying contradicts reality. There is no serious scholar or archeologist in the world who argues Al Aqsa was built before the Jewish Temples. And if the Temples didn't exist on the Mount, what then do you say is the Western Wall? What do you make of all the archeological findings?

HATIB: About the Kotel (the Western Wall), we deny any relation between the Temple and the Al Aqsa Mosque. We believe that the Western Wall is part of the mosque and not the Wall of Lamentation, as the Jews say. ... The Western wall is an inseparable part of the mosque.

And all the historical and archeological facts deny any relation between the Temples and the location of Al Aqsa. We must know that Jerusalem was occupied and that people left many things, coins and other things everywhere. This does not mean in any way that there is a link between the people who left these things and the place where these things were left.

WND: You have been calling repeatedly for Muslims to protect Al Aqsa from Jewish attack. Which Jews exactly are trying to attack Al Aqsa?

HATIB: We believe the danger over Al Aqsa existed and continues. As long as Jewish groups have ambitions to reconstruct their Temple at the same place of Al Aqsa, the danger of an attack will still exist. Some of these Jewish extremist groups even believe the years between 2005-2007 is the period in which the Temple must be built, and not building it by then means the Lord's anger will be directed towards them, as they argue. Therefore, this is a very sensitive period and we call in a very loud voice to all who are concerned that the mosque is a redline for us, and any harm caused to it will bring a great catastrophe and a great disaster. The Israelis and the Jewish people will have to face one and a half billion Muslims from all over the world.

WND: It seems you and the Islamic Movement are using Al Aqsa as a political tool to incite Muslims against Israel.

HATIB: Our relation with Al Aqsa is not a political question. Far from that, it is a question of religion and faith. We have the honor to fill this role in favor of Al Aqsa. If the Israelis thought that the Arabs in Israel would not have strong relations and feelings towards Al Aqsa, then they were mistaken. This mosque will always be part of our faith. Our demand from the Israelis and the world is not to desecrate it.

WND: What if a Jew did attack the mosque?

HATIB: We suggest to the Jews and Israelis not to be dazzled from the weakness of our nation at this period. [Israeli Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon's provocative visit five years ago caused an intifada for the last five years and caused the killing of more than 4,000 Palestinians and more than 1,300 Israelis. Therefore we say that any attack against Al Aqsa means the deluge.

WND: You were talking about Al Aqsa being mentioned in the Quran. But I understand it is never directly mentioned. And the city of Jerusalem is not mentioned once. Commentators later concluded a verse about Muhammad descending to the furthest mosque referred to Al Aqsa. Meanwhile, Jerusalem is mentioned thousands of times throughout the Torah. Half the Torah is about Temple worship. Explain why you feel the Mount is not holy to Jews?

HATIB: The fact that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Torah does not in any way mean that the city was populated or built by the Jews. Everyone knows that when the prophet Abraham came from Arik in 1850 before Christ he was given by the Arab King Melchizedek the land where he and his wife lived in Hebron, and it was 600 years before Moses' message, which also proves that Abraham was not a Jew.

And your saying that our faith is based on this interpretation of the verse [about Al Aqsa] is a totally wrong analysis. The Al Aqsa of the Quran is the same Al Aqsa of our days, not any other mosque. That is what our Sharia says. As for what you say that Jerusalem is mentioned thousands of times in the Torah; it is not a matter of numbers and quantity. There is a very clear historical event mentioned in the Quran concerning the mosque that was built by Adam and where all our prophets prayed.

Ah, the braided logic of Islam. Who is it that twisted up the truth into such pretty little knots?

Tax, Lies, and Internet Rapes

From No Pasaran:

Larry Elder takes a dinner companion up on the casual nature of discarded lies.

«"Assume this is a pie," I said, cupping my hands in a circle. "The top 1 percent contributes what size slice -- by percentage -- of that pie?"

"Oh, I see," she said.

"Virtually nothing."

"Nothing?"

"Maybe 1 percent, maybe 2 percent."

[]since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent -- the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 -- paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues.

The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent.

The bottom half?

They paid 3.46 percent.

And then there's Noam Chomsky, the biggest critic of American Capitalism, the most quoted living author, and the "World's Top Intellectual":

« One of the most persistent themes in Chomsky’s work has been class warfare. He has frequently lashed out against the “massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich” and criticized the concentration of wealth in “trusts” by the wealthiest one percent.

The American tax code is rigged with “complicated devices for ensuring that the poor — like eighty percent of the population — pay off the rich.”

But trusts can’t be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of $2,000,000, decided to create one for himself.

Chomsky’s business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at $12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year. Can’t go and hear him in person? No problem: you can go online and download clips from earlier speeches-for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about “Property Rights”; it will cost you seventy-nine cents.»

Seventy-nine cents a minute to listen to his blather? That's almost $50 an hour. That is a rape. Hope he uses some lotion, or something.

British Muslim Group Declares New Jihad On England

From Ynet:

A declaration of war on Britain and the West is continuing to be issued by British Muslims in the United Kingdom, as the pro-jihad message of Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, recently banned from Britain, is echoed by his followers who have remained behind.

Bakri, who is now based in Beirut, once headed the al-Muhajiroun group, linked to the 2003 terror attack on the Mike’s Place Bar in Tel Aviv. The suicide bomber behind that attack was a British Muslim.

Using internet sermons, recordings, videos and documents, followers of Bakri, who say they are in touch with the Lebanon-based preacher, call on British Muslims to join al-Qaeda and to carry out acts of terrorism.

Mizaan, who told listeners “that is my real name,” said: “There is the camp of Islam and the camp of Kuffar (non-Muslim). Today we still have these two camps. And today there is the camp of Islam behind Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, the emir (leader) of jihad today, and we have the camp of kuffar led by George Bush with his cross. So yes we are two distinct groups, and we should never stand with the kuffar.”

“Islam is better than everything and it will rule over the whole world, whether the kuffar likes it or not,” declared Mizaan.

“We should, all of us, glorify the terrorism. And we should incite religious hatred. Don’t worry… it’s not illegal for us to say that mujahadin (jihad fighters) on 9/11, were the magnificent 19, and it’s not illegal for us to say that Mohammad Sidique Khan (the suicide bomber who blew himself up in London) and the four on 7/7 (London attacks), that they were the fantastic four – now we can say so without any worry.”

“We will always glorify killing the kuffar in the name of Allah. To raid the kuffar in the name of Allah. Even if some women and children are caught in the raid by accident. They are part of them, it is not your fault,” said Mizaan.

“The kuffar wants to force their own homosexuality on the Muslims. The mujahadin have every right to hit back. So don’t be surprised if the mujahadin do another 7/7, and another 9/11,” he said.

A user in the room, “veiled flower,” eerily asked what a fiancé of a “mujahadin” should do if he was preparing to martyr himself. She was told by the speaker to encourage him as much as possible in order to assure herself “a place in jenna (heaven).”

Al Qaeda Wages Genocide Against Shi'ites
Arab World Snores

From Memri, via Front Page Magazine:

In an article on the liberal website www.elaph.com, 'Omran Salman, a Bahraini journalist living in the U.S., criticizes the Sunni silence over the extermination of the Shi'ites in Iraq.
The following are excerpts:

"When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke, there was not a single Arab who did not express the opinion that it was a despicable, mean [act] contrary to humanist values. They are right about this. But these people swiftly forgot their humanism and sealed their lips when the Jordanian terrorist Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi declared war against the Shi'ites in Iraq, and began to dispatch his booby-trapped soldiers to blow themselves up among children, women, and the elderly.

None of those [who denounced the Abu Ghraib scandal] uttered a word and none shed a tear for the hundreds and thousands of Iraqis being murdered and whose bodies are being mutilated.

"The first to denounce [the Abu Ghraib scandal] were the Americans themselves, who thought that the acts of some of their soldiers distorted the image of the U.S. and served as a mark of shame...

"But don't the Arabs feel an even greater sense of shame when some of them kill and massacre Iraqi citizens? Don't the rest [of the people] feel pangs of conscience when they try to come up with excuses and justifications for the murderers and criminals whom they call the 'resistance?'

How can someone outraged at the torture of or disrespect for another person be silent and ignore [Al-Zarqawi's] declaration of the [program of] extermination of millions of people because of their sectarian affiliation?

"How is one to [describe] the Arab silence [in general] and the Sunni [silence] in particular in light of the murder of Shi'ite Iraqis and their intimidation in the most despicable and base of ways?... After all, the murderers declare their positions publicly, brag about them, and consider them Jihad for the sake of Allah. [Even] if what has happened does not stir up the regular Arab citizen – who has been brainwashed, and whose will has been totally eroded – how is one to explain [this same position when it is adopted by] politicians and members of the media?"

Al-Qaeda is Waging a War of Collective Extermination Against the Shi'ites in Iraq

"The war being waged by the Al-Qaeda organization and the terrorists against the Shi'ites in Iraq is among the acts of collective extermination, which is rare in modern history. There has been no case in the past in which somebody has declared a similar war against a race or a group as a whole, except [for the case of] Nazi Germany against the Jews...

"The Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq and similar [bodies] in Arab countries have issued dozens of fatwas about current political issues, but have not issued even a single fatwa declaring bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, or Al-Zarqawi to be infidels because of their killing of the Shiites.

"The entire world is witness to [the fact] that the Arabs and the Sunnis are [remaining] silent and standing idly by – and some are even welcoming – the cold-blooded murder of the Shi'ites in Iraq. They will bear this mark of shame for all eternity..."

Let's give the Sunnis credit for the fact that they are at the negotiation table helping to hammer out the Iraqi Constitution, and for the fact that they voted in the latest election. However, at the same time, all these things Omram Salman says are true.

Friday, October 21, 2005

The Battle of The Big-Boobed Burqa-Wearing Bimbo

According to the Danish Newspaper The Copenhagen Post, the editors at Jyllands Posten decided to publish cartoons, depicting Mohammed in a humorous manner, as a way to test whether religious freedom was being threatened by Islamic extremism:

The front page of Jyllands-Posten featured prominently on many of the four collages. The newspaper has been criticised by Muslims for printing the cartoons, and was forced to hire security guards after receiving hate mail and death threats over the telephone.

The newspaper asked illustrators to make the cartoons after reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. The daily's editors said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.

This has got me to thinking of possible ways in which this "War on Terror" can be clarified for people as time passes. For quite a while, here on CUANAS, I've been saying that if we don't wake up and fight, one day we will be hit with a terrorist attack so large that we will be forced to wake up. However, the editors at Jyllands-Posten have just shown us a possible way to avoid such an inevitability.

Constant and strategic agitation against the Jihadi mindset will expose the weaknesses of their philosophy. We may be fighting the first war where humor is as important a weapon as guns and bombs.

The more we shell the Jihadis with derisive humor, the more angry they will get. Eventually, their anger will spill over into public displays of idiocy, or even violence. This is exactly what is happening in response to the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons:

Daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the internet collages, posted in the name of an unknown organisation calling itself 'The Glory Brigades in Northern Europe', showed pictures of various tourist attractions in Denmark and stated that 'The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark - very soon you all will regret this', amongst other things. Another picture showed soldiers, armed with bombs, over a map of Denmark, with blood spattered over parts of the country.

In addition, the embassies of Muslim countries are demanding apologies:

Daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten's decision to print twelve cartoons featuring Muslim prophet Mohammed has caused a stir among Muslim countries, daily newspaper Politiken reported on Thursday. A number of Muslim countries with embassies in Denmark have sent a protest to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs about the caricatures.

'We are hoping for understanding about Muslims' feelings about Mohammed. And we're hoping for an apology from Jyllands-Posten,' said Mascud Effendy Hutasuhut, minister counsellor at the Indonesian Embassy. In addition to Indonesia, a number of Arab states, Pakistan, Iran, and Bosnia-Herzegovina have complained about the cartoons, which they see as a hate campaign against Muslims in Denmark.

Such behavior on the part of Islamic government officials displays frightening lack of respect, or even understanding for free speech among Muslims in general. This may be the first time, since the "War on Terror" began that Islamic disrespect for free speech has been brought home so clearly to Europeans. It, apparently, is such a shock that even the Archbishop of Canterbury has been moved to make a particularly unDhimmi-like statement:

Muslims and members of other religions should get used to being mocked, the former Archbishop of Canterbury said yesterday. Lord Carey of Clifton said he passionately believed it was good for members of a religion to have their faith criticised on certain occasions.

Speaking as a member of an all-party group of peers opposing the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, Lord Carey said he wanted to live in a society where people were sensitive to the feelings of others. "But in being sensitive, what we mustn't do is create a society in which certain stories are not told," Lord Carey told a news conference.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, in case you don't remember, is a fierce opponent of the war, and of George Bush.

Now, here's the thing, if the relatively minor uproar of Islamic threats and protestations, which have thus far occurred, can lead to such positive results, imagine what could be done with some seriously surreal and Dadaistic mockery.

Truth is, we already have seen what happens when we desecrate the Koran. The Jihadis turned into a pack of wild animals over that, and the Western media worked with them to create the impression that something bad had actually occurred.

But, what we can learn from that is our technique needs to be a little more creative, and a little less bludgeonly obnoxious. Actually, I think it would suffice to simply turn any mockery into an event. Send out Press Releases, invite crowds, and mock, mock, mock.

I see women in burkas carrying big veiny, caucasian-skinned sex toys. I see men with bomb belts strapped on which explode in flowers and gay pride songs. I see Korans used as coasters for bottles of Budweiser.

I'm open to suggestions.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

"Oh, d-d-Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?"
Muslims Who Work At Disneyland
Demand Special Prayer Rooms

The Middle East Times says Islamist influence is a growing threat to French business (From LGF):

PARIS -- The influence of radical Islamist groups is a growing threat to French business, a leading intelligence expert warned on Tuesday, citing the discovery of secret prayer-rooms at the Disneyland theme-park outside Paris.

In a report commissioned by several retail and courier companies, Eric Denece - director of the French Center for Research and Intelligence - said that the Islamists' strategy is to "take control of Muslims within the workforce" and then "challenge the rules in order to impose Islamic values.

"There are numerous instances, even if few businesses are willing to speak openly about them," Denece said in the report, which was based on interviews with police, intelligence officials and company staff. "For example, around 10 prayer-rooms have been discovered at EuroDisney," he said.

The claim was originally made in a report by the police intelligence service RG in mid-2004. Spokesman Pieter Boterman said: "We are a multicultural and non-discriminatory company with more than 100 nationalities and all the main religions represented. But we do not think the company is the place for people to express private religious convictions."

Denece also quoted the head of a freight company employing 3,000 people at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport outside Paris who complained to the RG of "the presence of a small group of Muslims bent on imposing their work methods under the threat of repeated strikes".

"The growth in power of radical Islamism is a new menace, which can threaten the integrity of a business," Denece said. Supermarkets and other large stores are a prime target, according to the 30-page report.

"Hypermarkets have noted that employees who are heavily involved in proselytizing systematically seek out jobs as telephone operators, delivery-men, cashiers and security officers - positions which allow easy exchanges of information, money and goods," the report said.

Muslim women working at supermarket cash registers are also being placed under pressure to wear the headscarf, it said. According to Denece, the primary threat of Islamism to business is "sectarian", because it can undermine the loyalty of employees and destroy morale.

It should therefore be "treated in the same way as the threat from scientology and other sects", he advised. But he also said that there are increasing instances of patent illegality - including theft, embezzlement and the supply of inside information to criminal gangs.

"These practices have two goals: petty delinquency using Islam as a pretext and local financing of terrorism," the report said.

You know, maybe if the French just crawled under a rock and played dead, the Muslims would leave them alone.

UN Says Syria Was Involved
In Hariri Assassination

From Associated Press:

UNITED NATIONS - A U.N. investigation concluded that high-ranking Syrian and Lebanese security officials were involved in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, according to a report released Thursday.

The report by chief investigator Detlev Mehlis said Hariri's Feb. 14 assassination was so complex that it would be difficult to imagine that the Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services didn't know about it.

The decision to assassinate Hariri "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security official and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security services," the report said.

Mehlis wrote that the two nations' intelligence services kept tabs on Hariri by wiretapping his phone constantly.

The 53-page report said that the investigation is not complete and must be continued with Lebanese judicial and security authorities in the lead.

Several lines of investigation still need to be pursued, he said. They include jamming devices in Hariri's convoy that were functioning at the time of the bombing. It appears there was interference with a telecommunication antenna at the crime scene at the time Hariri was killed in a massive car bomb, Mehlis wrote.

In Lebanon, authorities had increased security ahead of the report's findings. Many there blame Syria for the Feb. 14 assassination of Hariri, a former prime minister whose motorcade was bombed on a Beirut street, killing him and 20 others. Syria has denied involvement.

Hariri's death led to demonstrations against Syria and magnified the international pressure on Damascus to withdraw its troops, which it eventually did. The Security Council approved a probe into Hariri's assassination on April 8.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan gave the probe a three-month mandate when it began its work on June 16 but said it could be extended for three more months if necessary. In August, Mehlis received an extension beyond the original Sept. 15 deadline.

It is said that France and the United States will work together to close ranks against the Syrian government. Many believe this will be the end of the Assad regime. I don't buy it. Iran supports Assad. I think it will take war to get him out.

The next few months should be interesting.

Will Denmark Become An Islamic Country?

You've got to admire the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They wanted to test the waters and see if religious freedom was really being impeded by the Islamic extremists in their midst, so they published a bunch of cartoons about Mohammed.

Well, they've got their answer:

Bombs exploding over pictures of Danish daily Jyllands-Posten and blood flowing over the national flag and a map of Denmark are among the images circulating on the internet after the newspaper printed twelve cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed last month.

Daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported that the internet collages, posted in the name of an unknown organisation calling itself 'The Glory Brigades in Northern Europe', showed pictures of various tourist attractions in Denmark and stated that 'The Mujahedeen have numerous targets in Denmark - very soon you all will regret this', amongst other things.

Another picture showed soldiers, armed with bombs, over a map of Denmark, with blood spattered over parts of the country.

The front page of Jyllands-Posten featured prominently on many of the four collages. The newspaper has been criticised by Muslims for printing the cartoons, and was forced to hire security guards after receiving hate mail and death threats over the telephone.

The newspaper asked illustrators to make the cartoons after reports that artists were reluctant to illustrate a book on Mohammed for fear of Muslim retribution. The daily's editors said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark.

The Glory Brigades have similarities with another internet group calling itself 'Al-Queda's Chapter in Northern Europe', which has also posted threats against Northern European countries and praised the London bombings in July.

From here, it's up to the Danish. Will they preserve Western Civilization and continue on in the face of death threats, or will they be bow to the pressure of the Islamic Jihadis? If they do, then their country has become an Islamic country.

UPDATE: Thanks to Rune for pointing out that I confused Holland and Denmark. Pretty stupid of me to be voicing my despair about Western Civilization, when I can't even keep it's various countries straight in my head.

Ugh.

Wednesday, October 19, 2005

The Adoption

Statesmanship, or Musical Theater?

Jacques Chirac and Hugo Chavez met and affirmed their "common vision" and pledged to forge even deeper ties:

PARIS (AFP) - Presidents Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Jacques Chirac of France met in Paris and agreed to further develop their already close ties.

The meeting, which officials of both countries hailed, was expected to raise hackles in Washington, which is particularly at odds with the leader of oil-rich Venezuela.

During their hour-long meeting "the two presidents examined bilateral economic relations and in particular looked at issues concerning, oil, energy, infrastructure and tourism," Chirac's spokesman Jerome Bonnafont said.

"They decided to set up an organised mechanism for dialogue to further develop economic and industrial cooperation between the two countries," he added.

It was the third time the two had met this year.

French oil giant Total has a strong presence in Venezuela and could double its output from 200,000 to 400,000 barrels a day after several billion dollars were invested, Chavez said in Paris in March.

Venezuela currently produces 3.1 million barrels of oil a day. It is the world's fifth largest exporter and the only country in Latin America to be a member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel.

Half of its production goes to the US, providing 15 percent of that country's consumption.

We get 15% of our oil from Venezuela, and yet, we have all but ghettoized Hugo Chavez with our relentless foreign policy assaults on his brutal administration.

And there, in a nutshell, is the difference between the United States and France. France sucks the ass of it's enemies, while the U.S. dares to anger those who it needs.

"Am I Anti-Muslim?"

From Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch:

I was recently invited to speak about Islam and terrorism to a group in the Northeast. This afternoon, however, I received a call from a leader of the group; it seems that someone (he wouldn't tell me who) had told the group that I was "anti-Muslim," and therefore should not address his organization. He asked me what I would say if I did speak to the group. I told him that in my work I exposed how jihad terrorists used core Islamic texts to justify their actions and recruit more terrorists, and it was the great challenge for those who identified themselves as peaceful or moderate Muslims to confront the elements of these texts that give rise to violence and repudiate them, not to deny that these elements exist as so many do today. Both Muslims and non-Muslims, I told him, had to confront these elements of Islam and come up with constructive ways to deal with them, or jihad violence will only continue and increase.

I was disinvited to speak to the group.

This got me thinking, however, about the larger question: am I indeed, and is the entire Jihad Watch enterprise, "anti-Muslim"? Of course the jihadists and their allies would say yes: charges like these have become an oft-used tool in the arsenal of American Muslim advocacy groups ...

A key problem here is the fuzziness of the term itself. What does it mean, in the first place, to be "anti-Muslim"? Does it mean to hate all Muslims, and wish them ill? Then I am most emphatically not anti-Muslim. But for many in the American public sphere, some of whom I have tangled with publicly but most of whom are content with behind-the-scenes backbiting (I recently received a misdirected email from a somewhat prominent writer consigning me and another author on these topics to the "fringe," and I have heard other dire stories), one can earn the "anti-Muslim" tag simply by daring to speak about the roots of Islam violence in the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic jurisprudence.

But in reality, these are matters of fact. The facts are not really "pro-" or "anti-" anything; they are just the facts. If it is anti-Muslim to speak of them, so be it; but I don't really think it is. If jihadists use the Qur'an, Sunnah, and Islamic law to justify their violence, and I explain how they do it, I do not become anti-Muslim, any more than a scholar of the Hitler period becomes a Nazi if he writes about how the Nazis appealed to ordinary Germans. Contrary to the belief of many analysts today, it does the genuine moderate Muslims whom they profess to support no favors to gloss over or ignore these facts -- the Qur'an's statements on making war on non-Muslims, or Muhammad's words and actions confirming and expanding upon them. Instead, any sincere Muslim reformers must be encouraged to speak openly about those elements of Islam, and to reject them as having any applicability in the modern world. No reform can come when everyone is pretending that no reform is necessary. You cannot fix what you will not admit is broken.

Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam, who signed his name "Yusuf Smith Indigo Jo)." I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? Yusuf Smith thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion.

I've been accused, by friends and family, of being anti-Muslim, so I relate to this column.

There's more to it. Go read the rest.

37% Of Turks Support Honor Killings

And the European Union wants to have Turkey as a member state?

From Dhimmi Watch:

A survey by a university in Turkey has shown almost 40% support for the practice of "honour killing".

The results come days after a court in Istanbul gave a life sentence for the murder of a girl by her brothers for giving birth to a child out of wedlock.

Turkish law, which used to be lenient on "honour crimes", was heavily revised as part of the country's preparation for EU accession proceedings.

Turkey has started talks with the EU but is not expected to join for years.

The survey was conducted in the conservative south-eastern city of Diyarbakir.

It questioned 430 people, most of them men. When asked the appropriate punishment for a woman who has committed adultery, 37% replied she should be killed.

Twenty-five percent said that she deserved divorce, and 21% that her nose or ears should be cut off.

The survey group was small but the results are a reminder that "honour killing" - a practice where women are murdered for allegedly bringing shame on their family - still has significant support in parts of Turkey.

The Islamic world continues to amaze me daily. When I read about their antics, I feel as if someone stuck me in a time machine and sent me back to the 7th century. If I were Islamic, I would be ashamed.

This is one of the most pathetic things I have ever heard. As I understand it, Turkey is considered the model of Islamic democracy. It is considered the most enlightened of Islamic countries.

I am disgusted.

Oklahoma University Suicide Bomber

Gates of Vienna has a very important post up this morning, with new information about the suicide bomber from OU.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

Al Qaeda has announced the reason for the insurgency in Iraq in a message on their website:

Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the terror group led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has released a new statement in which it explains the reasons for its terror campaign and states that they are not fighting the US occupation of Iraq, but to create "an Islamic state which is part of the caliphate and the Muslim territory."

The terror group then goes on to reveal its real objectives, saying: "We are not fighting to chase out the occupier or to save national unity and keep the borders outlined by the infidels intact," the statement continues. "We are fighting because it is a religious duty to do it, just as it is a duty to take the Sharia [Islamic law] to the government and create an Islamic state."

I'm telling you, you just gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth.

Thanks, Abu Musab.

"Whatever Is Built On Something False
Is Itself False"
--- Saddam Hussein - 2005

Saddam Hussein's trial began yesterday, so we got a little glimpse into the strategy of the defense:

"When the judge asked him first to identify himself and describe his profession, he basically said that he did not recognize the jurisdiction of the court. He said, 'this was false, whatever is built on something false is itself false.'"

He said: 'I'm still the president of Iraq.'

He again, as he did back in July 2004, when he had his first hearing, he kept referring back to the Iraqi people, saying I cannot disrespect the will of the Iraqi people who made me president.

"The judge could not get his name or profession out of him, but then he, the judge read for the record, Saddam Hussein's name.

"He read his name and he said that he was the former president of Iraq, the former leader of the Revolutionary Command Council and the former head of the Iraqi armed forces.

"Saddam Hussein interrupted him several times and he said that 'no, I am the president of the Iraqi republic,' he said to the judge, 'you are saying just what you want. I did not say what you're saying,' and then he said, ' I am not a collaborator.'

"His main point of defense is that he does not recognize this tribunal. His lawyers have told us that they do not recognize it and that will be his main point of defense, that he is being tried essentially illegally.

"Nonetheless, the judge proceeded. He read out the charges against Saddam and the other seven defendants in connection with the massacre after an attempted ambush on his motorcade in Dujail in 1982.

"The charges are, broadly, killing and murder, forced expulsion, the imprisonment of people as well as torture and the failure to comply with international law.

"He then read from other parts of the Iraqi legal charter and said that the death penalty would go to anyone found guilty of killing intentionally.

Did I ever tell you what my real name is, by the way? I am Napoleon.

Oh yes, and I must add, that anyone who opposed the Iraq war essentially agrees with Saddam Hussein. If you oppose the Iraq war, then the court trying Saddam has no jurisdiction, and he is still President.

You must agree with me, for I am Napoleon.

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Birds fly above a sea of fog, that covers most parts of Switzerland, seen from the Saentis mountain, eastern Switzerland on Monday, Oct. 17, 2005.

The Wonder of Birds

We keep our hands above the water
We know that, someday, we will fly away
With all the wonder of birds
With all the wonder of birds

We keep our voices as guarded secrets
Wait for awhile
And we will surely sing
With all the wonder of birds
With all the wonder of birds

We make a sky where we may be
We build a home with windows to fly through
Windows to fly through
We learn to dance with broomstick partners
Grace will be oursWhen we will grow our wings

With all the wonders of birds
With all the wonders of birds

(Lyrics by Karen Perris of The Innocence Mission)

Spermatozoa Galactinus
They Don't Call It The Milky Way For Nothin'

From Space.com:

The idea that comets and meteorites seeded an early Earth with the tools to make life has gained momentum from recent observations of some of these building blocks floating throughout the cosmos.

Scientists scanning a galaxy 12 million light-years away with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope detected copious amounts of nitrogen containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), molecules critical to all known forms of life.

PAHs carry information for DNA and RNA and are an important component of hemoglobin, the molecule that transports oxygen through the body. They also make chlorophyll, the main molecule responsible for photosynthesis in plants, and – perhaps most importantly – they're the main ingredient in caffeine and chocolate.

"There once was a time that the assumption was that the origin of life, everything from building simple compounds up to complex life, had to happen here on Earth," said study leader Doug Hudgins of Ames Research Center. "We've discovered that some very biologically interesting molecules can be formed outside our earthly environment and delivered here."
Wherever there's a planet ...

While organic compounds have been discovered in meteorites that have landed on Earth, this is the first direct evidence for the presence of complex, important biogenic compounds in space. So far evidence suggests that PAHs are formed in the winds of dying stars and spread all over interstellar space.

"This stuff contains the building blocks of life, and now we can say they're abundant in space," Hudgins said. "And wherever there's a planet out there, we know that these things are going to be raining down on it. It did here and it does elsewhere."

I think I need a shower.

Instructing a Palestinian suicide bomber how to kill Jews. Scene from a film co-financed by German authorities.

"Paradise Now" Is Paradise To Germans

German blog Medienkritik reviews the movie Paradise Now, a putrid rumination on the life of a suicide bomber:

“Paradise Now” is the first openly anti-Semitic film I’ve seen in the German cinema. Joseph Goebbels would have been proud of the numerous Germans who collaborated in its production (the film is distributed by Constantin Film/Munich). He would have praised in glowing terms the fact that the German taxpayer ponied up an essential contribution to the production costs. The materials for discussion of the film in German schools authored by a federal authority from the Central Office for Political Education (BPB) would have met with his grinning approval.

Our first posting dealt with the plot. In summary, young Palestinian men gratefully accept a command from a Palestinian terror group (my interpretation, not the film’s) to assassinate Israelis in Tel Aviv. After a few false starts one of the men carries out the assassination – a suicide attack in a bus.

The film’s action, especially the dialogs and discussions between the main characters, portrays the conflict between two positions. First position:

The Israelis are criminal occupiers who oppress the Palestinians. They must be combated with assassination and force.
Second position:

The Israelis are criminal occupiers who oppress the Palestinians. They must be combated with peace activists’ non-violent demonstrations.

The film leaves open which of the two positions is the right one. The only thing certain in the film is the guilt and malice of the Israelis, the “occupiers”. It’s not worth going into detail about the film’s striking polemics against the Israelis. No attempt is undertaken anywhere in the film to explain the Israelis’ position. Almost all of the Israelis appear in the film as soldiers - intimidating, menacing, anonymous, occasionally with sadistic impulses.

While the Palestinians, without exception in the German version, speak at length in flawless German, there’s only one place in the whole film where an Israeli speaks a sentence - German, but with an unpleasant accent.

Of all things, this one Israeli with at least a minimal script presence had to inveigh against his fellow citizens’ wealth – a character quirk from the Nazis’ anti-Semitic films with which older Germans will be quite familiar.

The film expresses no moral criticism of the Palestinian suicide attackers’ practice of murdering Israeli civilians. The only thing under dispute is whether suicide attacks actually weaken the “occupiers”. In one of the film’s most ridiculously revisionist scenes, the main character shrinks from the bomb attack

at the last moment, because there’s a little kid on the bus – as though the history of Palestinian suicide attacks weren’t synonymous with a history of murdering countless innocent women, children and other civilians. At the film’s conclusion, the screenplay replaces the suicide attack with one on a bus full of Israeli soldiers. The suicide enjoys the mitigating aura of a quasi-military action.

The material from the Central Office for Political Education accompanying this film is a scandal all it’s own. The Central Office for Political Education is a federally directed and financed institution. Matthias Küntzel writes in the Transatlantic Intelligencer regarding this material:

"With this brochure, (this) public agency is acting as a Central Office for Middle East Disinformation and Terror Acceptance. While one could give the movie itself the innocuous label of an “artwork”, the brochure falls into another category: that of a state-sponsored political and educational initiative. These materials do not call into question empathy with anti-Jewish mass-murderers, but rather expect it. Here the history of the Middle East conflict is not set straight, but rather distorted in such a way as to encourage an uncritical reception of “Paradise Now”. The brochure is politically and morally unacceptable. (…)

Instead of encouraging students to maintain a critical distance from “Paradise Now”, the BPB reproduces the movie’s anti-Zionist fury in its own “worksheet” for instructional use. In the presentation for the students, the policy of dialog and negotiation with Israel is not even mentioned as an option. Instead, Assignment 1 offers the following three statements for discussion: “Whoever fears death is already dead”, “No freedom without struggle”, and “Resistance can take many different forms”. Students are supposed to work in small groups to gather arguments that "either support or refute" these statements and to illustrate their arguments with examples. Resistance against Israel, struggle against Israel, killing yourself against Israel – just as in the movie, no other form of conflict resolution makes an appearance in this lesson plan. (…)

A critical guide to the film would not only have deciphered the anti-Semitic code words. It would also have had to draw attention to Palestinian anti-Semitism, such as comes to light in its most radical form in the Hamas Charter and the Hizbollah TV channel Al-Manar. But the concept of anti-Semitism does not appear anywhere in the entire brochure. Even Hizbollah is presented innocuously as an “organization with an anti-Zionist orientation.” (…)

Just as in the film, also in its brochure, the few critical objections that one can find against suicide attacks are tactically motivated and subordinated to the broad anti-Israeli lines of the presentation.“

For the sensitive souls of the German left, the distributor placed a quote from Bill Clinton on the film poster! But his unequivocal condemnation of terror finds no echo in the film.

One of the many scandals surrounding the film is the financial support that “Paradise Now” received from the “Nordrhein-Westfalen Film Fund” (Filmförderung Nordrhein-Westfalen). One of its members – along with public and private TV institutions – is the state of Nordrhein-Westfalen, represented by the newly elected (conservative) minister president Jürgen Rüttgers. Maybe you’d like to send him an e-mail with your opinion of “Paradise Now”.

(I seriously recommend that you read the whole article of Matthias Küntzel, of which only excerpts are presented here, in the Transatlantic Intelligencer. Also worth reading, albeit in German, is the report from a public discussion with the film’s co-producers).

Two things to think about:

1) Have the Germans simply found someone else to do the dirty work of killing Jews?

2) Is the movement for Palestinian statehood simply an attempt to enact another Holocaust?

There's Something Happening Here
And You Don't Know What It Is
Do You, Mr. Sparks?

Supernatural Blogs lets loose on one Mr. Sparks, who wrote an article claiming the only possible solution to the Middle-East Conflict is a One-State Solution:

The basis of Mr Spark’s article is that the Jewish communities that have been established in Judea and Samaria (West Bank) over the last 30 years have made the prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state impossible and thus the 2 state solution is by Israel’s hand dead.

The only other alternative he concludes would be a secular democratic state with an almost equal Jewish and Arab majority between the Jordan river and the Mediterranean sea. This is truly a ridiculous argument for the following reasons:

• Firstly, as Steve has so eloquently pointed out, Israel is committed to removing settlements as part of a final status agreement to end the conflict. Their removable nature makes them no threat to Palestinian contiguity.

• Secondly, in a final status agreement those settlements and their Jewish inhabitants could become equal citizens of a democratic Palestinian State. It seems almost supernatural to me that the whole world supports the idea of ethnically cleansing the biblical heartland of Israel (Judea and Samaria) of its Jewish inhabitants. Over a million Arabs are equal citizens of Israel, why could it not be the same for Jews in a future Palestine? It is most inconsistent of Mr Sparks to believe that Jews should be a minority in a Palestinian state from the Jordan to the Med but not in a Palestinian state east of the Green Line.

• Thirdly, Mr Sparks’ article shows a real lack of understanding of the issues in the Israeli-Arab conflict. It is a struggle between two peoples to establish a national homeland on the same piece of real estate. In all polls done on the subject the majority of Israelis and Palestinians want to live in their own states. The idea that after a century of a dead struggle to live apart they will now accept to live together is beyond naive. The South African conflict from which Mr Sparks obviously draws his ideas does not serve as a suitable comparison for the Middle East conflict. One need only compare the ANC’s freedom charter to that of the PLO. While the freedom charter calls for an inclusive multiracial democracy, the PLO charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the establishment of exclusively Arab state. (Granted the Palestinians under Arafat made undertakings to change the charter, the changes have still not been made.)

• Fourthly, Mr Sparks fails to realise that his one state solution is in fact in violation of international law. Security Council resolution 242 and 338 require Israel to return some the territory it captured in the 6 day War in a negotiated settlement. It would thus be illegal for Israel to annex the West bank and declare a secular democratic state between the Jordan and the Med.

• Fifthly, bi-nationalism is not a novel concept in the Middle East. It was tried in Lebanon. The result was not peaceful co-existence but civil war. So even empirical evidence proves Mr Spark’s idea is a mistake.

The truth is Mr sparks takes an ideological position against the notion of an ethno-religious state. While I do not support this position it is certainly a legitimate one. What is not legitimate about Mr Sparks’ article is that he levels his rejection of ethno-religious states only against Israel. Why does he not pick on the 22 ethno-Arab states? What about the Islamic republic of Iran? I cannot recall him objecting to the international sanctioned break up of the former Yugoslavia into Ethno-Religious enclaves. And I certainly do not see him calling for the reunification of the recently divided Czech Republic and Slovakia. This selective criticism of Jewish nationalism alone is what opens Mr Sparks to the claim of Anti-Semitism.

Perhaps it is his affinity for the Palestinian people that fuels his biased criticism against only Jewish nationalism. If this is the case I would then advise him to focus his attention on the political structure of another Middle Eastern country -- the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. Jordan was originally part of British mandate Palestine. It was illegally separated in contravention of the League of Nations mandate and the British governments' own Balfour Declaration and given to the Hashemite dynasty of Arabia. Today although it has a Palestinian population in excess of 60%, the minority Hashemites dominate. So if Mr Sparks really cared about the Palestinian people surely he would call for a more representative governing system in Jordan? But alas it is only Israel that is called on to commit national suicide.

The Nine Danger Signs Of Militant Islam

An organization called the United American Committee has compiled a list of the Nine Warning Signs of Militant Islam:

To help facilitate solutions in confronting the Islamic extremist threat, the United American Committee releases the Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam. A guide to help discern signs of extremism among members of the Islamic faith.

LOS ANGELES - In a move to battle Islamic extremism, the United American Committee today released a list of the Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam. Written with assistance from members of the Islamic faith, the list, primarily addressed to the Muslim community, gives signs that can be used to discern whether any given Muslim spokesman may be a sympathizer with Islamic militancy.

Blatant signs of extremism include "Supporting or refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorists or terrorist organizations by name." or "Justification of any Islamic Terrorism, Palestinian or otherwise." Other danger signs listed reflect disorderly subversive acts such as a "Refusal to cooperate with or inciting others not to cooperate with authorities or standard security procedures."

Dave Holly, a UAC spokesperson, gives the following rationale for the list: "Peace-loving Muslims everywhere would agree on the need to be alert for any incitement to hate, violence, religious intolerance, or the use of outright lying. Those who do not hold extremist views should have no problem with helping to distribute fliers of the Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam."

Requests for comment were not immediately returned from the leading American Islamic organization CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. However, all communication with CAIR regarding the signs has indicated their objection to it for unknown reasons.

"We don't know why anyone would object to these signs. Each sign is a logical indication of extremist behavior," remarks Jesse Petrilla, Founder & Chairman of the United American Committee, the primary organization responsible for drafting the nine signs.

"We've even included input from American Muslims while writing the list of danger signs," says Petrilla.

A large fear of more moderate Muslims is reflected by the danger sign of "Branding progressive Muslims or Muslims of different opinions as apostates." as was suggested by one Muslim-American contributor to the Nine Signs.

All Nine Danger Signs of Militant Islam are available on the United American Committee's website at http://www.UnitedAmericanCommittee.org

About the United American Committee:

A U.S.-based organization, UAC is regarded as a growing political movement and has expanded exponentially. The UAC platform states a goal of the unity of all Americans against the threats of Islamic extremism.

Another UAC goal is ensuring a secure future for America. Partnered with such well-read names in security issues related to the War on Terror as author Robert Spencer of JihadWatch, Christopher Holton,VP of the Center for Security Policy, and Front Page Magazine contributing editor Lee Kaplan, just to name a few, UAC is moving forward with a strong legislative agenda. The UAC is composed of many patriotic American volunteers who are committed to our nation’s future.

---

NINE DANGER SIGNS OF MILITANT ISLAM

1. Justification of any Islamic Terrorism, Palestinian or otherwise

2. Supporting or refusing to condemn Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, Hamas, or other terrorists or terrorist organizations by name

3. Promoting jihad for Muslims to fight against what they determine is "injustice" or "aggression"

4. Demands for Sharia law in the West, or denying that Sharia forbids equal rights for women and members of religions other than Islam

5. Demanding that Americans accommodate the public expression of Islamic laws, customs, and practices that conflict with, or are harmful to American laws, customs, and practices

6. Denying that Muslims were involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and other attacks around the world

7. Refusal to cooperate with or inciting others not to cooperate with authorities or standard security procedures

8. Branding progressive Muslims or Muslims of different opinions as apostates.

9. Refusal to interact, converse, or socialize with non-Muslims

Say It Loud
I'm An Infidel And I'm Proud!

Atlas Shrugs posts a portion of a column today from one Mark Shields, who seems to think George Bush has invented this nifty little piece of strategery called "Islamo-fascism":

In what the White House promoted as "a major speech," President George W. Bush compared the struggle against terrorism to the Cold War, "Islamo-fascism" to communism and the fugitive cave-dweller Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler.

Compare that with the understanding Salim Mansur brings to his column for the Toronto Sun:

In Bali the infidels are Hindus; in Iraq the infidels are Shiites and misguided Kurds; for Palestinians, the infidels are Jews. Americans, Europeans, Russians, Chinese, and Hindu Indians are all infidels who are present inside, or inhabit the bordering lands of Muslims, particularly the Middle East. As enemies of radical Islamists, they are to be terrorized indiscriminately, as was the objective of the London bombers this past July, with the aim that they will be compelled to withdraw from lands considered Islamic.

The internal war within the Muslim world, which is as old as Islam itself, went savagely global in the final decades of the last century. On 9/11 this internal conflict among Muslims erupted inside the United States, awakening America to the international menace of radical Islam in much the same way as Japanese militarism did 60 years earlier at Pearl Harbor.

But there are legions of Americans and Europeans, with supporters elsewhere in other continents, who are wilfully blind and deaf to the reality of radical Islam that Bush has sought to make plain in his public remarks. (Pastorius note: We know who he's talking about.)

They continue to insist that the violence of Muslim terrorists, despite being despicable, must yet be explained by reference to some “root causes” linked with the history of Western colonial imperialism.

Hence, these “useful idiots” (in Lenin’s memorable phrase) give pause to the vast majority of Muslims — in particular those in North America and Europe — whose silence in the face of evil feeds the bloodlust of Muslim terrorists.

My name is Pastorius, and I am an infidel.

Pax UN (Americana)

Peace is breaking out all over, and the UN is taking credit.

Let's not forget, though, that some of the major accomplishments which have led to this unprecedented peace are,

1) the fall of the Soviet Union (whose idea was that, again?)

2) the destruction of the Taliban, and the return of the Afghani refugees,

3) the establishment of a burgeoning Democracy in Iraq,

I think the UN deserves some of the credit. Who can deny that the UN does what it is intended to do; negotiate.

Like my man, Vito Corleone, says,

"You can get far with kind words, but you can get much further with kind words, and a gun."

Who holds the gun?

Monday, October 17, 2005

"Oh, d-d-Dear, Why Do They Hate Me So?"
Because You Made Toilets Face Mecca, Dhimmi
Brits Come To Terms With Toilet Jihad

The British have built a housing community specially designed to not offend Muslims. Yes, that's right, the toilets face away from Mecca:

Bristol: An Asian housing association in Britain has built a block of flats especially designed not to offend Muslims - the toilets do not face Makkah.

The 16 flats in the St Paul's area here have been built by Bristol-based Aashyana Housing Association, an Asian-led organisation. The toilets in the apartments have been built in such a way that they do not face southeast.

Farooq Siddique, from the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society, said he welcomed developments that took into consideration the cultural diversity of tenants.

He said: "I think it is a good thing that the flats are designed in this way. We do live in a multi-cultural society and rather than just paying lip service to that, it is important that there are policies in place that address it.

"Having toilets facing the right way is an issue that comes up, as Muslims do not like using them if they are facing in that direction."...

Bristol City Council spokeswoman Kate Hartas said:...

"With all our allocations, we apply the normal criteria.

"But where there are two households of equal priority who qualify for an Aashyana home, we would offer to the household who would most benefit from the culturally- sensitive services that Aashyana provides."

Oh, by the way, the word "Asians" means Muslims in Dhimmi-Britain. They can't bring themselves to say Muslims, for fear of offending the Muslims by singling them out.

I remember a few years ago, my wife (who is Asian, you know, like with the slanted eyes, etc.) and I were watching CNN, and a report came on from Britain about how "Asians" were rioting in the streets. I was incredulous.

"What do they mean, the Asians are rioting?" I asked. "What's going on? Did the government tighten the restrictions on Liquor Store licences, or something?"

So, we watched for a few minutes before we figured out that, by "Asian," they meant Muslims.

Now honestly, it didn't surprise me that Muslims were rioting - although, they've never rioted in America - because, as I have said, I have relatives in England, and I hear about the problems.

To hear my relatives tell it (and remember, my relatives are abjectly against "Bushitler's War on Islam"), the Muslims in Britain want to live by their own rules, not by the Queen's rules.

Well, imagine that. Who woulda thunk it, right?

Is Worldwide Jihad All There Is To Islam?

The Pedestrian Infidel has a very important post up today about how Muslims in Indonesia are attempting to systematically wipe out all Christian worship within their country:

They are praying. They have gathered for spiritual purposes in a private house. Then all of a sudden they are attacked by Muslims. These Islamic zealots are armed. They break through the door into the room where prayers are being offered heavenward.

They not only threaten the Catholics. They also say they are going to set fire to the house. If petitions continue toward God, the home will be burnt out cinders in short order.

This is all in keeping with the Koran dictates from Allah that non-Muslims be annihilated. Only Islamics must remain alive in order to set up Islam as world rule. It is what their deity has demanded since the killing cult began. The paragraphs in the Koran are numerous. They are bloody. They detail how to torture and kill Christians and Jews in particular.

The Indonesian armed males state that they are members of the Islamic Defender Front. In other words, they are not working at random. They are a part of a network to kill. They are programmed. They have a prescribed agenda. They know what their final goal is.

According to AsiaNews, "The attack took place on 11 October in a private house. Armed men broke in and threatened to burn the place down if the prayer went ahead. Fears are rising about further violence against Indonesian believers."

Islamics entering the home, then ordered the persons involved in a spiritual exercise to halt such petitions immediately. If prayers continued, fires would be lighted. They particularly targeted the spiritual leader of the group. He had to put his name to a declaration stating that such prayers would never be held again in that house or anywhere in that area.

Why is it that Islamic mosque clerics worldwide don’t castigate the Indonesian attackers?

Why doesn’t the Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) post discipline measures on its site and satellite offices throughout the United States?

Why don’t CAIR representatives send out news releases declaring their opposition to such threats as those in Indonesia? Why don’t CAIR leaders go to media microphones to speak out against their devotees who slaughter?

Why don’t Muslim national leaders in other countries go to the global press stating their abhorrence of such activists in their own killing cult?

Go read the rest over at Pedestrian Infidel.

These questions need to asked and answered. We're coming to the point where if Muslims do not begin to stand up and take serious measures to put a stop to this killing - this worldwide Jihad, which is being waged in the name of their religion - then the masses of non-Muslims will start to believe that this Jihad is, indeed, the Muslim religion itself.

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Is Ibrahim Hooper Starting To Sweat?

Is CAIR's facada of wanting to promote positive "American-Islamic Relations" beginning to crumble? Bill Petersen at Faith Freedom International thinks so:

For anyone that had the misfortune of witnessing the Tucker Carlson “interview” with CAIR mouthpiece Ibrahim Hooper on MSNBC Tuesday night, several things were readily apparent. To the uninformed, naïve middle-American, it should now be obvious not to expect any mercy from the proponents of the “most merciful Allah”. But to those of us burdened with greater insight into the Islamic hate machine, this exposition served as yet another reminder that CAIR’s vision of “American-Islamic Relations” amounts to nothing more than unconditional dhimmitude here in the USA.

The CAIR-free days of years past are indeed a distant memory.

Carlson’s brief segment dealt with CAIR’s recent uproar over a recent Boeing print ad featuring their Osprey aircraft “attacking” a fictitious mosque. Pathetically, Boeing has apologized and retracted the ad in response to the deafening Muslim whining. Hooper’s unbridled arrogance in suggesting that Boeing must now investigate and find introspection regarding its motives had Carlson’s (and my) blood well beyond the boiling point.

Over and over again, Carlson demanded that Hooper answer one simple question: What is the bigger crime, Boeing’s ad or the fact that Muslim insurgents are using mosques as military strongholds? Yet time after time, Hooper dodged, weaved and denied that any such practice exists, even in the face of hard evidence delivered by the increasingly agitated host.

Class, you have just completed a crash course in “Islamic Deceit and Arrogance 101” delivered to your television in a bite-sized 5-minute package.

From the moment he opened his mouth, Hooper’s “likeability factor” plummeted to somewhere between that of Adolf Hitler and Howard Dean. It seems as if CAIR is actually trying to wake the sleeping giant of American wrath towards Islam by repeatedly poking it with sharp sticks. Let’s sit back and watch CAIR continue their ongoing string of public relations blunders - it can’t be too long before that bad boy finally wakes up.

As the blogosphere begins to become a news source for more and more people, and members of the media become educated in the not-so-subtleties of Islamic Jihadism, CAIR's thin veil of civility will explode into thousands of shards of anger. It is likely that we soon will see the spectre of Ibrahim Hooper shrieking with rage in front of the camera for the slight of having been asked the racist question that broke the, um, camel's back.

By the way, I am waiting for the Muslim community to reach out to the Christians, Jews, Mormons, Buddhists, and Hindus of America, and invite us down to your mosques for a good Saturday of clearing out the hate literature and hauling it down to the local recycling plant.

Should America Give Up
Control Of The Internet

... it would be a disater for the whole world.

A very important article from a blog called EU Referendum:

As my colleague has pointed out, the EU Commissar for Information Society and the Media, who has been speculating for some time whether the internet can be controlled, though, of course, she would not want to, has announced that America will be isolated if it does not hand the internet over to be run by a motley crew of tranzi regulators and tyrants of various hues.

The BBC, of course, joyously picked up the theme, thus proving that they do not understand the internet any more than the Commissar does. What if all these other countries build their own internet, smirked the Commissar? Well, what? Can Brazil really build an internet? Can Iran or China? Anyway, why bother?

It seems, however, that there is a split among the tranzis. Carl Bildt (above), former Swedish Prime Minister, former UN Secretary General's Special Envoy for the Balkans, a tranzi extraordinaire, has come out against the insane notion of handing the internet over to the UN.

In an article entitled Keep the Internet Free in yesterday’s International Herald Tribune Mr Bildt did not mince his words.

“On the one side is the United States, which wants to retain supervision of the Internet and has managed to get the reluctant support of most of the global Internet community, which sees America as the least bad of the possible ultimate guardians of the system.

On the other side is a collection of states keen on getting as much as control as possible in order to curtail the Internet's power to undermine their regimes. With the theocracy of Iran as the standard-bearer, this group brings together Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Venezuela. North Korea is probably keen to join in as well.

The European Union seems to be in the middle, wavering back and forth - and in its wavering it has recently come down with a position that has brought it enthusiastic applause from Tehran, Beijing and Havana.”

Allowing for the necessary anti-Americanism required from a man of Bildt’s standing (nothing reluctant about that support, I suspect), this is a fair analysis of the situation.

Of course, Bildt cannot hit out against the UN and tear to shreds the idea that the people who have brought us oil-for-food among other scams, should be handed something as important as the internet. He concentrates on the indubitable fact that the movers of this notion are some of the world’s worst dictators who want to exert control over the one uncontrollable form of information and communication.

Bildt shows himself properly horrified that the EU should come down on the side of the tyrants, though this does not seem out of character to those of us who have watched the shenanigans that passes for attempts to build a common foreign policy. There is only one enemy that policy acknowledges and that is the United States against whom the EU will side with China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, anyone and everyone.

This is what Bildt says about the European involvement in this debate:

“This is not where Europe should be on these issues. The Internet is vital to our future, and we Europeans should be as keen as anyone to preserve the essence of a system that has worked amazingly well. If that entails leaving some ultimate safeguard powers in the hands of the United States, that's certainly better than having theocrats or autocrats around the world getting their hands on the levers of control.

There is time for Europe to reconsider its proposal. I refuse to believe that José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, or Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, which currently holds the EU presidency, know what has been done in their name. But if the issue isn't high on their agenda, I can assure them that it is likely to be very high on Washington's agenda if things go wrong.

It's time for Blair and Barroso to take charge. Otherwise they might endanger one of the most powerful instruments of freedom and prosperity in our time.”

Luckily for the rest of us, we do not have to rely on either Mr Blair or Commission President Barroso to preserve the freedom of the internet. But if more people like Mr Bildt come out on that side, it may well be the Commission and its propaganda machine, the BBC, who will find themselves isolated.

Let Me Get This Straight
She Went To Jail
To Protect A Source She Doesn't Remember?

Apparently, Judith Miller is braver and more willing to take a stand on sheer principle than any of us realized. From Drudge:

In a notebook belonging to Judith Miller, a reporter for The New York Times, amid notations about Iraq and nuclear weapons, appear two small words: "Valerie Flame."

Ms. Miller should have written Valerie Plame. That name is at the core of a federal grand jury investigation that has reached deep into the White House. At issue is whether Bush administration officials leaked the identity of Ms. Plame, an undercover C.I.A. operative, to reporters as part of an effort to blunt criticism of the president's justification for the war in Iraq.

Ms. Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify and reveal her confidential source, then relented. On Sept. 30, she told the grand jury that her source was I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. But she said he did not reveal Ms. Plame's name.

And when the prosecutor in the case asked her to explain how "Valerie Flame" appeared in the same notebook she used in interviewing Mr. Libby, Ms. Miller said she "didn't think" she heard it from him. "I said I believed the information came from another source, whom I could not recall," she wrote on Friday, recounting her testimony for an article that appears today.

(Conking myself on the head) Am I missing something here? Wasn't this whole thing about who revealed the name of Valerie Plame?

Islamic Jihad Spreads In Russia
Media Snores

The Times of London recognizes what much of Western media was unable to bring themselves to admit; that the coordinated attack in Russia last week, which left over 100 people dead, was conducted by Islamic Jihadis.

And, it is even worse than we all originally thought. Initially, it had been reported that these Jihadis were Chechens. The Chechen Jihad is old news. But, these were not Chechens:

Russia’s Islamic Revolt is Spreading

THE diehard gang of Muslim extremists responsible for last week’s attack on the southern Russian city of Nalchik consisted mainly of local militants intent on creating a strict Islamic state independent of Moscow, according to security sources in the region.

The disclosure that the gunmen were not sent from the war-torn republic of Chechnya but belonged to a group from Kabardino-Balkaria, the Russian republic of which Nalchik is the capital, will be of great concern to the Kremlin.

It provides alarming evidence that far from dying down — as claimed by President Vladimir Putin — the bloody Chechen conflict is spreading.

“Most of the militants who were killed and those caught alive are local,” said an officer with the Nalchik anti-terrorism police unit. “ The ferocity of the attacks has shocked the city.”

The onslaught, which turned the town of 280,000 into a war zone, was the most daring raid by pro-Chechen Islamic militants since last year’s Beslan school siege in which 330 hostages were killed. It came less than a month before parliamentary elections in Chechnya, hailed by Putin as evidence that the region is becoming stable.

The 24 hours of gun battles in which several police stations and other security forces buildings were attacked left at least 108 dead, including more than 60 militants. Nearly 30 others were detained.

Most of the gunmen were thought to be members of Yarmuk, a homegrown fundamentalist group that the local authorities twice claimed to have destroyed.

Composed mainly of young extremists from the region’s two main ethnic groups, the Kabardins and the Balkars, Yarmuk has close ties with Shamil Basayev, Russia’s most wanted terrorist, who was behind the Beslan attack and appears to be extending his influence in an attempt to open up a new front in his war with Moscow.

Meanwhile, Mark Steyn has some thoughts on our multiculturalist media's inability to deal with the implications of the Islamic Jihad:

I underestimated multiculturalism. After 9/11, I assumed the internal contradictions of the rainbow coalition would be made plain: that a cult of “tolerance” would in the end founder against a demographic so cheerfully upfront in their intolerance.

Instead, Islamic “militants” have become the highest repository of multicultural pieties. So you’re nice about gays and Native Americans? Big deal. Anyone can be tolerant of the tolerant, but tolerance of intolerance gives an even more intense frisson of pleasure to the multiculti- masochists.

And so Islamists who murder non-Muslims in pursuit of explicitly Islamic goals are airbrushed into vague, generic “rebel forces.” You can’t tell the players without a scorecard, and that’s just the way the Western media intend to keep it.

If you wake up one morning and switch on the TV to see the Empire State Building crumbling to dust, don’t be surprised if the announcer goes, “Insurging rebel militant forces today attacked key targets in New York. In other news, the president’s annual Ramadan banquet saw celebrities dancing into the small hours to Mullah Omar And His All-Girl Orchestra.”

Does Juan Cole Fellate Zarqawi?

From The Eminent Idiot Juan Cole, via The Iraq War Was Wrong Blog:

Zawahiri Letter

The other thing that struck me as odd about the Zawahiri letter was that at the end he raises the question of whether a non Iraqi should be leading the insurgency.

This is odd for several reasons. Al Qaeda does not think in terms of nationality but of the umma or Muslim community. It reads to me like an attempt to undermine Zarqawi. And it is an insult.

What a dumb piece of pseudo-intellectual feces this guy is.

Yes, Mr. Cole, Al Qaeda thinks in terms of the Umma, when they are thinking in religious terms, but not when they are thinking in political terms. They understand that the war against the West, and against Iraqi Democracy is, in part, a P.R. war. They know that it doesn't help them win the P.R. war if the, supposedly, homegrown "insurgency" ends up being nothing but Saudis killing Iraqis.

Is that really so hard to understand Mr. Cole? God, what an idiot you are.

And, to top it all off, you are worried that we have undermined and insulted Zarqawi? Well then, we know where your allegiances lie, don't we?

UPDATE: Reader Dustin writes in to say he thinks that Juan Cole was saying that he believes this letter was written by someone other than Zarqawi, as an attempt to undermine Zarqawi. Therefore, the insult is to people like Juan Cole, who are far too intelligent to be fooled by such a fake.

Whether the letter was a fake or not (it very well may be) that doesn't discount what I said. Juan Cole's point, about Al Qaeda only being concerned with the Umma, is lame.

No Islam
No Peace

The Muslims are mad in Copenhagen:

Several thousand Muslims demonstrated in Copenhagen Friday against the treatment of Muslims in general and the images of Muhammad published by the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in particular.

"We fear that this could lead to violence and extremism, and that young people can decide to carry out extremist acts. We call upon the government to ban degradation of religions and hope that Jyllands-Posten will respond to just criticism," said Danish Muslim Katja Hansen on behalf of imam Fouad Al-Barazi from the Hejrevej mosque.

Fjordman's comment: "Remember, Islam is peace, or someone might get hurt."

Really, Fjordman's comment is just a witty way of saying what they consider to be the truth. The word Islam, after all, doesn't mean peace, it's specific meaning is submission. So, it only means peace in the sense that there would be peace after submission.

The problem is, we don't want to submit to Islam, because we don't like the way it asks us to live. And yes, I am taking the liberty to speak for all of Western Civilization here.

We don't want to eclipse our women in burqa's.

We don't want to institute Dhimmi laws, enforcing second-class citizenship on those who don't want to follow Allah.

We don't want to eliminate wine, or sexual content in art, from our culture.

We don't want to eliminate criticism of religion from our societal discourse.

We don't want to have a caste of Imam's with more authority than our elected politicians.

We don't want Islam to be the religion of our civilization, because Islam demands all of the above, and more.

Ban The Burqa?
Kill The Politician

In Holland, recently, legislation was proposed to ban the burqa. Well, apparently, it may not happen, because the Dutch are afraid:

HOLLAND’S Muslims have responded with outrage to government proposals to ban the burqa, and there are fears that Rita Verdonk, the minister behind the move, will be added to a list of “enemies of Islam” targeted for assassination.

The country was on high alert yesterday after talk of a burqa ban coincided with the arrest of a group suspected of planning to murder two politicians.

You can't blame them for being afraid. But, it has to be done. The burqa is completely a complete eclipse of a woman's humanity. She is allowed no expression of the face, of the eyes. She is in the room, but not there. It is the equivalent of the chains around the neck of a slave.

In addition to the dehumanizing aspect of the burqa, there are the security concerns which arise from having a population of hostile people who are allowed, even expected, to walk around in public completely shrouded.

The Dutch can't afford to allow Jihadis to win through fear. If they do, then the Jihadis are in charge.

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Leaf in a puddle : A passer-by jumps over a puddle reflecting the Cathedral of Our Savior in St. Peterburg. (AFP/INTERPRESS/Sergei Kulikov)

Under Saddam They Were Being Gassed,
Now, They Are Voting

A Kurdish woman wearing a traditional outfit casts here vote in Iraq's referendum on the new constitution in Kirkuk, Iraq, Saturday Oct. 15 2005.Iraqis vote Saturday to give a 'yes' or 'no' to a constitution that would define democracy in Iraq, a country once ruled by Saddam Hussein and now sharply divided among its Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities.(AP Photo/Yahya Ahmed)

Three Views Of A Secret

Today Iraqi's are voting on whether to adopt their new Constitution. The Constitution, and Iraqi Democracy remains a work in progress. It is a secret as to how events shall unfold. Will Iraq become a real constitutional republic, which protects real human rights, or will it descend into a Sharia-dominated hell?

Nina Shea on Iraq's Constitution:

On Saturday, Iraq is expected to adopt a new constitution in a national referendum. It will be a significant milestone in the establishment of an electoral democracy in the Arab Middle East. It is the only place in that part of the world where leaders of disparate and hostile groups have engaged in political give and take resulting in a social compact for their nation that is put before all Iraqi citizens in an inclusive and transparent vote.

The Bush administration, particularly the president himself, deserves credit, for this is no small achievement. While Freedom House now counts 119 electoral democracies in the world, not one is an Arab nation; come December 15, when elections are to held for a new government, Iraq will take another major step towards becoming the only one.

Still, those of us who work to defend religious freedom internationally are deeply troubled by the soon-to-be adopted constitution. We are concerned that it may be the first step in creating what is called an “illiberal democracy,” or even in undermining democracy altogether. We fear the powerful role given to Islam in the constitution — a role that is likely to negate the positive language on religious freedom and other individual human rights.

The new constitution fails to guarantee the fundamental human rights and freedoms contained in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that are consistent with America’s core values and President Bush’s articulated foreign-policy goals.

Instead, it sets forth two competing and diametrically opposed visions of society: one based on individual rights and principles of equality, and the other grounded in a sharia (Islamic law) regime of group rights, in which rights are conditioned on a person’s membership in a discriminatory hierarchy of groups (male or female, Muslim or non-Muslim, etc.), and where the basic rights of all individuals are subordinated to the group.

The provisions of the bill of rights are subject to ambiguities and contradictions contained elsewhere in the constitution. For example, the carefully crafted provisions asserting rights to religious freedom and equality before the law are placed in doubt by the repugnancy clause of Article 2,which states that “no law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established” ...

Meanwhile, former political adviser to U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, Ramon Martinez, touts the flexibility of the document:

The final version of the document was only completed this past Wednesday, as Shia and Kurdish negotiators scrambled to make concessions to their Sunni counterparts in an effort to win backing for the charter.

Among the changes is a new provision that would make the constitution easier to amend in the first year after it passes. According to the deal, a commission drawn from the next Iraqi parliament — which will be elected in a national vote on December 15 — will be authorized to offer amendments to the constitution. If approved by a majority vote in the legislature, such changes will be presented to the Iraqi people in a new national referendum next summer.

The impact of this compromise on the outcome of Saturday's vote is not yet clear. Since the deal was announced, some influential Sunni groups have announced their support for the document. Others are still opposing the charter. Whichever way Sunnis vote, the constitution retains overwhelming support from Shia and Kurds, and is likely to be approved nationwide.

In any case, the real significance of the deal is not its potential effect on the referendum, but rather its positive implications for Iraq's political development down the line. By making the constitution easier to amend, the deal will strengthen the political incentives leading Sunnis away from the insurgency and toward peaceful participation in the democratic process.

In this regard, the agreement is the latest and most visible step in a yearlong effort to promote Sunni engagement in Iraq's emerging political institutions. Last January, Sunnis largely boycotted Iraq's first set of democratic elections. Ever since then, leaders within the community have sought to reverse the effects of this historic mistake, most notably by participating in the constitutional drafting committee set up by the Iraqi parliament this summer.

Despite their efforts, the Sunni drafters complained loudly of being marginalized in the negotiations. They have sharply criticized the constitution that emerged from the talks, objecting in particular to its embrace of federalism. Sunnis are especially concerned about the proposal of some Shia groups to unite nine provinces in southern Iraq into a single, Shia-dominated federal region.

In truth, the constitution is not nearly as one-sided as the Sunnis have claimed. The Iraqi drafters deliberately chose to make the charter extraordinarily flexible over time. On a host of divisive, hot-button political issues, therefore — including those responsible for Sunni discontent — the constitution defers tough decisions for Iraqi parliaments to decide in the future.

This is especially true in its treatment of federalism. Far from establishing a unified Shia mega-region, the constitution merely recognizes a right of individual provinces to form new regions in the future — but only under "terms and conditions" to be set by future law, and only with the approval of local citizens by referendum. The charter takes a similar flexible approach to other issues, including Supreme Court appointments, the development policy for Iraq's commonly owned oil resources, the powers of the presidency, and the role of a second legislative chamber.

To help their chances (for the next election) in December, Sunnis will need to organize parties and build strong coalitions that cut across sectarian divisions. Ideally, these alliances will reach out to Shia leaders who share Sunni concerns on key issues such as federalism. Over time, such cross-sectarian partnerships will foster the emergence of an Iraqi political system based more on issues and ideas, and less on identity.

Not everyone agrees that constitutional flexibility is a good thing. Ever since the initial draft was made public, critics have argued that by deferring difficult questions to the future, the charter fails to fully meet Iraq's political needs. No doubt these complaints will intensify with this week's deal, which leaves the constitution even more open to amendment than before.

In fact, Iraq's status as a fragile, emerging democracy makes a flexible approach especially worthwhile. The new charter can promote stability and order, yet without setting every decision permanently into stone. Constitutional flexibility will actually strengthen democracy, by allowing internal debate to ripen and reflect the broadest diversity of views. Most importantly, of course, it will speed along the Sunni community's gradual integration into Iraq's new democratic order.

For all its historic significance, then, Saturday's referendum will not mark the last word in Iraq's political evolution. Once the new constitution passes, the Iraqi political debate will only just be starting to heat up.

Mohammed at Iraq The Model says:

It’s only a beginning since there will be more steps to go but it’s the right beginning because it’s a transition from temporary laws to a permanent-though amendable-constitution on which the people will assume control through their elected representatives and through their own direct votes.

It is really amazing how things have changed in Iraq; three years ago Saddam “won” 100% of the votes in a pathetic referendum that he designed in order to give legitimacy to his reign while yesterday even security detainees were allowed to express their opinion on the constitution through voting and the government and parliament are almost begging the 15 million plus voters to say ‘yes’!

And although many signs indicate that the document is on its way to be ratified, no one can say it is until the people decide which checkbox to tic tomorrow.

Some people would say “Is that all you won, after more than two years of war and violence? That’s only one basic right” well, that is the point; we’ve secured one key right that can help us secure the rest.

Approving this draft is not the end goal, it’s a step among others in this process of evolution in Iraq and it’s going to be the gate to more steps until we reach the day when we have a constitution that satisfies and serves the greatest majority of the people.

Now let me take you in a short journey in Baghdad; I woke up this morning and decided to take a tour to see Baghdad preparing for the referendum, first thing I saw and surprised me was a leaflet thrown in front of our door. It was calling for a ‘NO’ stating 10 reasons for doing that. I read the leaflet that had the Ba’athist tone with five out of 10 of the points said that approving this draft constitution is a Zionist goal. I tried hard to find a connection and of course there wasn’t any and it looked like a desperate attempt to use conspiracy theories.

To give you an example of the points in that paper I’ll tell you what one point was “what if an Iraqi woman married an Israeli man? Should we grant their children the Iraqi nationality!!!???” and yes, they used way too many exclamation points and question marks.

I walked away feeling more willing to vote with ‘yes’.

So, we see that the democratic process of individual decision-making is breaking down old, tired, illusions in the Arab world. That is a definite good. Let's us pray that as time passes more good will come, and the secret will be freedom spreading like wildfire through the Islamic world.

What Do The Iraqi People
Think Of the "Occupation?"

One of the best blogs on the net is No Pasaran. It is run by a guy named Erik, who is an ex-pat living in Paris. He is, however, not very enamored of the French, and uses his blog to expose the French for the unethical, unethical pussois they truly are.

The other day, Erik wrote a longer article which I think is a must-read, so here it is. His subject is the constant barrage of negativity and lies which the media spew about the good work that is being done in Iraq, which he contrasts with the actual opinions of real Iraqis:

There are three kinds of lies, said Mark Twain: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I. The Dog That Didn't Bark

After brushing aside a key article (one of great consequence in that it refutes completely the msm's hand-wringing view of the war) due to the fact that it is not recent and that it allegedly stands alone and in spite (or because, rather) of the (very) strong and near-unanimous opinions of Iraqis expressed therein (Il est presque impossible, hormis chez les responsables baasistes déchus, de trouver quelqu'un qui soutienne la position de Paris dans la crise; La politique de la France reste très vivement critiquée par les Irakiens), suggestions arise that instead, a typical msm article written in the usual hand-wringing fashion is an irrefutable indicator of Iraqi opinion, as is a single question-answer in a poll that is… 15 months old.

The strongly-expressed opinions of Iraqis clearly spelled out in excruciating detail are brushed aside; the single questions — to which respondents usually have no more than three (yes, no, no opinion) to five (strongly agree to strongly disagree, less safe to more safe) choices — is supposed to be taken as gospel, ignoring the context (the poll was taken right after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke out).

Ignored also is the fact that poll questions are posed without necessary links between each other. But what may be most interesting are the questions not asked. Ergo:

None of the following questions seem to have been asked: "Was life better before the invasion?" or "Do/did you have more confidence in the Ba'ath party?" Furthermore, "Are you content with the disappearance of the Ba'ath party" (assuming that question had been asked, which it was not) and "Do you approve of the foreigners' presence in Iraq" is not the same as "Do you approve of the presence of the army which brought an end to the reign of a repressive dictator and his fascist régime?"

II. The MSM Seems to Choose Only Anniversaries to Present Viewpoints That Don't Coincide With Its' Heralded Opinions

Some might use this issue to accuse me of extrapolating and putting words in the Iraqis' mouths, but this is not simply an intellectual exercise: if there has been a poll that did not invariably indicate that a majority of Iraqis (usually, an overwhelming one) are better off than they used to be and that they feel more optimistic about their future than they ever had in the past, I have not heard of it.

Indeed, it is precisely because I seek out the Iraqis in their own words why I turn to the article in which, exceptionally, Le Monde decided to have its Baghdad correspondant ask the inhabitants about their views about the war.

Still, we are told that the Iraqis' near-unanimous support of the war is not good enough and we are asked, therefore, have there been any more recent articles allowing the Iraqis to speak their minds.

Well, as a matter of a fact, there have.

Just like Le Monde used the first anniversary of the war to ask Iraqis their opinion, the BBC used the second anniversary of the war to do the same. Here is its report on Iraqis facing new lives.

Although a few voices complained of the security situation, not one voiced regret for the overthrow of the previous regime.

Listen to Saad:

"Let me describe our situation before the fall of the previous regime. We were like a sick, weak prisoner under the thumb of a cruel jailer.

Then, suddenly and without warning, the gates of our prison were flung open. We were told: "Come on, you are free!"

… the moment of salvation came. Perhaps I shouldn't use the phrase "moment of salvation", for to do so implies we were expecting such a moment when in truth we were feeling hopeless.
Call it what you will, it happened and it was a magnificent thing. "

How can you react to this?

Well, you can say that the report is six months old (instead of 18, in the case of Le Monde), and ask if there are any reports that are more recent than that one?

But hold on a minute. Think about it: what would you be doing, in this case and in that of Le Monde?

In both, you just happen to be putting into doubt information that happen to favor Bush and/or the United States.

In both, you just happen to be refraining from putting into doubt the msm commentators' that the situation in Iraq is "chaos", that it is full of "terror" and "massacres". (In fact, we were treated to a reader linking us to an msm article saying just that.)

And so, I suggest that we should ask ourselves not "Are there more articles of the sort (and what do they indicate)?" but rather, "Why aren't there more articles of the sort (and what does that indicate)?"

Because when you think about it, there isn't no reason there should not be more articles of the type; there is no reason msm reporters couldn't file mass interviews with common Iraqis every six months (instead of every year), every three months, or every three weeks, or every week…
Is there, now?

Except, of course, that the expressions of (relative) satisfaction contradict the overarching judgments of the editors in their Western city offices — you know, the ones using emotionally-charged words of the superlative kind (words like "chaos", "massacres", "terror") ad infinitum and the ones constantly referring to polls — but only when they oppose the war and America (or Bush).

So who has to give? The America- (or Bush-) bashers (including the MSM)? Or the Iraqi people For the America- (or Bush-) bashing msm, the questions seems to be a no-brainer. That is why we see so few msm articles devoted to the opinions of common Iraqi citizens. (That is, unless you happen to be a Pole born in communist Poland and raised on a diet of bad news about America and good news about anybody opposed to Uncle Sam.)

It is a sell-out attitude that spreads to the rest of the population, notably those… putting the information in this article into doubt.

III. The "But" Response on Automatic

Of course, this is missing the true meaning of the article; or, rather, the true meaning of the response I get from people I show the article to.

The people who usually castigate Bush and/or America show no interest in the article. Like the flight attendant, they brush off the evidence immediately. The little interest some show is to dismiss it, castigate it, or otherwise dispose of it (among other ways, by focusing on the date).

And in this respect, they join the company of the web browsers asking for more recent articles, n'est-ce pas?

Do you know when was the first time I heard doubt expressed about this article? It was not 18 months after it appeared. It was not 12 months after it appeared, it was not six months after it appeared, or 12 weeks, or six weeks.

It was when it appeared.

I was then asked, or told, rather, that we shall see how long the Iraqis cling to this opinion.
And when I pointed out that a Baghdad boy born in June 2003 had been given the first name George Bush, what response did I get? I was asked: "oh, is that still his name today?"

Now, choosing the name of one's child and the type of viewpoint expressed by nearly every Iraqi in Rémy Ourdan's article are pretty strong indicators of opinion, and yet the opinions are put into question.

This, of course, is a game that can go on forever. Do the Iraqis feel the same as 18 months ago can become, will they feel the same 18 months from now, and, will they feel the same in the next 18 years.

I think it is safe to assume that the same people's response to the above-mentioned Iraqi is, "Oh well, but how does Saad feel today?" And if we could produce him here now, the response would be, "Well, sure, but how will he feel in six (12) months' / six (12) years' / six (12) decades' time?"

In 2053, when George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein is 50 years old, they can ask, will he still be wearing that name.

So what does all this tell us? It tells us nothing about Iraqis' opinions. It tells us nothing about the war in Iraq or the country itself. It tells us only about the doubters.

Any opinion, and any fact, and every opinion, and every fact, must always be placed into doubt when it happens to, or seems to, favor the United States.

When polls castigate America (or Bush), you will notice that nobody asks, well how will the French feel about this 18 months later. (Of course, it is true that there is little chance that they will feel any different, given how used they have become to putting into doubt any positive information from Iraq that puts Uncle Sam in a good light.)

Often, when the positive information seemed irrefutable, I get this laconic comment:

Well, it's such a complicated story, we can't judge now, we will have to wait a few years before we can really know. Of course, this is falling back on the BUT argument, and it is more evidence of double standards. They did not bring up the complicated-story-impossible-to-judge canard when it came to praising the UN and Villepin and the crowds marching against America in the streets while castigating Bush and the "massacres" and the "chaos" in Iraq.

Needless to say, this is not an isolated case, far from it. Notice how very little was/is made of elections in which pro-war governments win the vote, and how polls, such as the Danish one, where a majority of people support the war are totally ignored (in marked contrast to those in which populations — often whose countries have no ties to the war at all — are opposed to the war).

In the same vein, American polls where Bush's numbers are up are commented on laconically, but when the president's rate of approval goes down, this is commented on excitedly as evidence that the American people are coming to their senses. Not unsimilarly. Fox is castigated throughout the year, but when a news report calls the government's response to hurricane Katrina "shameful", every news outlet and every French blogger in America is sure to quote it.

This does not show interest in polls, or even in the news. Worse, this shows an absence of intellectual curiosity and a total lack of willingness for honest inquiry. What this shows is interest in the news only when it seems to favor their viewpoint and validate the (self-serving) opinion that (average or conservative) Americans (and their allies) are dumb, treacherous, and clueless while "we" humanistic souls are wise, tolerant, solidaristic, visionary, and (last but not least) lucide.

Articles in which Iraqi opinions are freely expressed do not reflect that, and so they are suppressed. (At least, until that time when their opinions will match those of the avant-garde left.)

The Only People In The Whole World
Who Don't Know Who Madonna Is

... are her kids. Via Budge, via Drudge:

Madonna’s parenting practices:

The woman who made her name as a mass media idol, continues: “My kids don’t watch TV. We have televisions but they’re not hooked up to anything but movies.

“TV is trash. I was raised without it. We don’t have magazines or newspapers in the house either.”

Now there’s some good parenting for ya. Keep ‘em ignorant. Oy!

No TV, no videos, no print media. Well, how do they know who their Mom is?

Hey, You Wanta Get Back Here And
Answer Some Questions, Sweetie Pie?!?

Condi Shows Us Why She Is The Next President of The United States

Condoleeza Rice manhandled Kazakhstan President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, the other day, at a press conference they jointly attended:

After Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made stops in Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and later to Tajikistan, she was not about to put up with any silliness from the Ex-Soviet Autocratic President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, on Thursday!

After their opening remarks, the Kazakh Leader left his podium. That is when Condi chased him down and brought him back to the podium to answer reporter's questions!

Heh! What a leader she is. Now, check this out. Look at how the line of questions and answers went:

QUESTION: Andrea Koppel with CNN. I have a question for both of you. Mr. President, one of your daughters controls the media. The other controls the main bank here. The opposition, the political opposition, is routinely harassed, arrested. What evidence is there that you are anything more than a dictator?

PRESIDENT NAZARBAYEV: (Via interpreter.) What I said about the freedom of speech, I said I underlined that it should not be a freedom of misinformation. So I think that our opposition has provided you with some...(blah, blah,...)

SECRETARY RICE: Andrea, I think if we were interested only in oil and the war on terrorism we would not be speaking in the way that we are about democracy here or in Saudi Arabia or throughout the Middle East.

And so quite clearly, while we do have interests in terms of resources and in terms of the struggle for terrorism, we have in no way allowed those interests to get in the way of our open and clear defense of freedom.

We have talked about that in any number of circumstances. I think that, for instance, in Uzbekistan it's been very clear that we do not see a conflict between our strategic interests and in our interests in democracy. In fact, we've spoken up clearly in that case.

I'm here talking, on camera, with the President about the need for Kazakhstan to have free and fair elections; to have international observation of those elections; to have access to media for the opposition.

I met, after the speech, with two people who will be a part of the campaign. And I will take their concerns with me to Washington and we will press for free and fair elections here, just as we pressed for free and fair elections everywhere else in the world.

And so our position is consistent around the world. The need for democratic change and the need for opposition to be able to express themselves freely and we expect the same of Kazakhstan.

Condi just took that guys pants, and underwear, off in front of his subjects, and exposed him for the pathetic little mouse of a man he truly is.

And she wasn't even wearing her knee-high black leather boots.

Friday, October 14, 2005

The Practical Application
of Universal Healthcare

From Julia Gorin in the Opinion Journal:

I recently came face to face with a level of Western ignorance that I hadn't encountered since the 1980s, when Russian immigrants were still a novelty to Americans. A British-American asked my father a question that could only come from someone who has known freedom his whole life: "Why did you leave Russia? Your family was there, you had a job, you had free health care. Why did you leave?" The questioner, a former editor with the New York Times, then proceeded to assert that today's Britain and U.S. are no longer free.

The exchange reminded me just how out of touch many who live in the free world are with the reality of life under tyranny--and why, therefore, so many Americans and Brits think nothing is scarier than war. On the subject even of that oft-cited "perk" of Soviet life, universal health care, a picture of the system in practice on its happiest occasion would shock Americans and Western Europeans alike.

For her second delivery, Mom never went into labor. She was two weeks overdue and the baby had stopped moving. Fearing the worst, she took the metro to the hospital.

"Are you in labor?"

"No."

Again Mom thought she'd done something wrong because people were yelling at her as soon as she walked in: "Then why did you come? You like hanging around hospitals, do you?"
"I don't feel anything moving."

"Oh. OK, wait for the doctor."

Fortunately, a younger nurse overheard the conversation. "What--it's not moving? How long? Since last night? OK, go over there and get undressed."

People stopped yelling at my mother then, and she got more attention.

"I don't hear the baby," said the old doctor who was on duty. "Is this your first child?"

"No."

"Did the first one live?"

"Yes."

"Good. Because the prognosis here isn't good."

Since there was no labor activity, labor was induced. In Russia this was called "stimulating labor," and it required one to drink castor oil. My mother has its taste on her tongue to this day, she told me. Her body contorted inexplicably, and she became catatonic, unable to move her arms or legs.

She could hear the yelling at the others as it continued in the background: "Stop screaming!" "You're not the first to give birth; you won't be the last!" "Shut your mouth!"

After some time, Mom's catatonia relaxed and the contractions started. A few hours later the baby was born, and my mother heard the doctor call to an orderly: "Quick! You with the water--the baby is in asphyxia!"

My mother lay emotionless, able only to hear spanking for what she believes to be nearly half an hour as the doctor tried to revive me. Finally, she heard crying.

Had my mother been a party boss's relative, her birthing experiences would have looked a lot more like the common woman's in America. But such was delivery for 99% of the Russian female population.

In America, women often remember abortion as traumatic. My mother barely remembers her two abortions (Russian birth control), but she can't forget a single traumatic detail of her children's births.

Today the Soviet Union is gone, but the communist system lives on in a few places. The glimpse we have into North Korea's delivery rooms is into those at detention centers for political prisoners, as described to Marie Claire magazine in 2002 by Lee Young Suk, a 65-year-old grandmother who was deported back to North Korea after she defected to China. At a detention center in South Sinuiju province, Lee Young was assigned to help deliver babies of other prisoners.

When she delivered the baby of the first woman under her care and reached for a blanket, a guard stopped her: "You crazy hag, are you out of your mind? What are you doing with the baby? Just put it in the box!" He grabbed the baby by a leg and dumped him into a wooden box that was sitting on the floor. He hit Lee Young's arm with a leather strap.

"North Korea is short of food already," the chief medical officer explained. "Why do we have to feed the offspring of foreign fathers? Since China is an open country, they could even be babies of American sperm, so then we'd be feeding Americans."

The procedure was as follows: Once the box was filled with infants, it would be taken to the mountains and buried. Most of the babies would die within four days, but Lee Young recalled two particularly healthy ones who took longer, moving their heads left to right, opening and closing their eyes and making froglike croaks. Their skin turned yellow and their lips blue until the medical officer finally stabbed them through the skull. Lee Young was reassigned when her heart weakened from what she was witnessing. She eventually bribed her way out of prison and into South Korea.

We share the planet with North Korea and its ilk. As many intellectuals, academics and literary and Hollywood luminaries commented soon after 9/11--with some vindication in their tone--we do not live in a vacuum. Yet for the most part they, along with the isolationist right, seem indifferent to the suffering of tyranny's victims. They blithely champion the status quo, or in the case of Iraq the status quo ante, repeating only that Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat to us.

Thursday, October 13, 2005

The Tangled Web We Weave

Burn Your Burkhas, Baby

It looks like the Dutch will institute a ban on the burkha:

THE Netherlands is likely to become the first country in Europe to ban the burka, under government proposals that would bring in some of the toughest curbs on Muslim clothing in the world.

The country’s hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman’s face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.

Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the “time of cosy tea-drinking” with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other. She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman.

The proposals are likely to win the support of Parliament because of the expected backing by right-wing parties. But they have caused outrage among Muslim and human rights groups, who say that the Government is pandering to the far Right.

Mrs Verdonk admitted that a complete ban on the garment would be legally tricky because of freedom of religion legislation. However, she said that she would prohibit the garments “in specific situations” on grounds of public safety. The ban is likely to be enforced in shops, public buildings, cinemas, train and bus stations and airports, as well as on trains and buses.

The Netherlands has become preoccupied by Islamic terrorism after the investigation into the murder of the film-maker Theo van Gogh uncovered a network of Muslim extremists dedicated to destroying the country. Attention has turned to the burka because police authorities have become concerned that a terrorist could use one for concealment.

A government spokesman said: “We want to investigate when, how, in which places the burka should be banned. It is a safety measure — you don’t see who is in it.”

Yes, that's true, but the burkha is also a menace to society because it completely dehumanizes women.

Good for the Dutch. They were the society which most protected the Jews during Hitler's reign, and now they are leading the way in dealing with the Islamic Jihadis.

They Suck. We Rule.

Click on photo to enlarge. Or, just go to TVD's site to see it. It looks much better over there.

"Chechen Rebels" Wage Jihad In Russia
More Than Sixty Dead

Yep, that's right, Islamic Jihadis kill people and AP calls them "rebels" in the headline:

NALCHIK, Russia - Scores of Islamic militants launched simultaneous attacks on police and government buildings in this city in Russia's turbulent Caucasus region Thursday, sparking battles that killed at least 49 people.

Chechen rebels claimed responsibility for the attacks, which forced the evacuation of schools and left corpses littering the streets of Nalchik, the capital of the republic of Kabardino-Balkariya.

The Chechen rebels' decade-long struggle against Russia, originally a separatist movement, has melded increasingly with Islamic extremism in the past decade and spread far beyond Chechnya's borders to encompass the whole turbulent Russian Caucasus region.

President Vladimir Putin ordered a total blockade of Nalchik, a city of 235,000, to prevent militants from slipping out, and he said armed resisters would be shot, according to Russian Deputy Interior Minister Alexander Chekalin.

Estimates of the number of militants involved ranged from 60 to 300. The attacks began with heavy arms fire and explosions, and sporadic shooting continued for four hours afterward.
Officials gave conflicting casualty figures, ranging from 49 to as many as 63.

Fyodor Shcherbakov, a spokesman for presidential envoy Dmitry Kozak, said 49 were killed — 25 rebels were killed, 12 police officers and 12 civilians. He said the number was constantly rising as bodies were being discovered.

Hours earlier, officials said 63 people had been killed. Chekalin said that figure included 50 militants and at least 10 police officers. Local Health Ministry spokesman Stepan Kuskov said at least three civilians were among the dead, and 84 people were wounded. The ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Dr. Asker Zhigunov as saying 15 civilians' bodies had been brought in to a city hospital.

Dmitry Kozak, Putin's envoy to the southern region, said Thursday's attackers were holding hostages at a police station, but he did not specify whether they were civilians or officers. A spokeswoman for the republic's Interior Ministry, Marina Kyasova, said police on the upper floors of the building were battling attackers on the ground floor, and denied that hostages had been taken.

Deputy Russian Prosecutor General Vladimir Kolesnikov told the Interfax news agency that 12 militants had been detained. His estimate for the number of militants involved was 80 to 100, the news agency reported.

CNN calls them "Militants" and doesn't even put the story on their front page.

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Islamic Democracy

I know many are doubting that the synthesis can be created, but I say it's possible. That doesn't mean it will happen, but things are looking good today:

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraqi lawmakers approved a set of last-minute amendments to the constitution without a vote on Wednesday, sealing a compromise designed to win Sunni support and boost chances for the charter’s approval in a referendum just three days away.

The deal came as insurgents pressed their campaign to wreck the vote. A suicide bomber killed 30 Iraqis at an army recruitment center in a northern town that was struck by another bomber just a day earlier.

At least one major Sunni Arab party, the Iraqi Islamic Party, said it will now support the draft at the polls. But some other Sunni parties rejected the amendments and said they would still campaign for a “no” vote.

Iraq’s most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani also weighed in, ordering Shiites to vote “yes” in the referendum, one of his aides, Faisal Thbub, said. It was the most direct show of support for the charter by al-Sistani, whose call brought out huge numbers of voters to back Shiite parties in January elections.

The most significant change is the introduction of a mechanism allowing Sunni Arabs to try to make more substantive changes in the constitution later, after a new parliament is elected in December.

The amendments made some key concessions to Sunnis, starting with the first article underlining that Iraq will be a single nation with its unity guaranteed — a nod to fears among the disaffected minority that the draft as it stands will fragment the country.

Other changes open the door to Sunni Arabs to try to make more dramatic substantive changes in the constitution later, after a new parliament is elected in December.

Sunnis likely to face oppositionSunnis want to weaken the considerable autonomous powers the Shiite and Kurdish mini-states would have under the constitution. But there’s no guarantee they will succeed: They will still likely face strong opposition from majority Shiites and Kurds in the new parliament.

Iraqi leaders, including the Kurdish president, Sunni Arab vice president and Shiite prime minister, lined up on a stage before the National Assembly, lauding the deal as a show of unity between the country’s often divided factions and communities.

“We have the right to be proud in saying that today was a day of national consensus,” President Jalal Talabani said. “So congratulations to our people for their constitution.”

Earlier in the day, Iraq’s president, prime minister and other leaders praised the compromise, reached after marathon talks between Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators.

“The new amendments on the draft open wide horizons and give everyone another chance to have a proportional role to participate in the political process to build the new Iraqi government,” Parliament Speaker Hajim al-Hassani told the lawmakers.

“The political process in Iraq in spite of all its many complications is going forward.”

America's Mexican Immigrants
"Seem Wealthier Than I Am!"
The European Visitor Exclaimed

Yeah, no kidding.

Victor Davis Hanson had a European visitor recently who noted that America's first generation Mexican immigrants seem to be doing better than the average European:

The differences between American and European material wealth are now marked and growing — Americans increasingly enjoy larger homes, more cars, more appliances, cheaper food and energy, more advanced health care, and more disposable income ...

A recent European visitor to my farm, a member of the professional and affluent class, was stunned when I showed him the new suburban houses and multiple cars of first generation immigrants from Mexico living nearby — in the poorest section of one of the poorest inland counties of rural California. “They seem wealthier than I am!” he exclaimed. In a global sense they really are, even without the subsidized train tickets, day care payments, and a government-guaranteed six-week vacation.

Some transatlanticists will grant these endemic problems, but assure us that Europe’s problems will be self correcting, that more conservative reformers will eventually retake power and mimic the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions to prune back government largesse and encourage renewed self-reliance — noting in addition that we have the same enemy in Islamic fascism. Nothing in Europe’s history, however, suggests that a moderate response to the current maladies is likely.

Popular frustration over Islamic terrorism and unassimilated minorities may grow, and Europeans could become tired of appeasing extremist mullahs and terrorists and begin looking for principled opposition based on real military power. A few politicians may warn of the dangers of a future Europe with only one worker for one pensioner, of a self absorbed society where children, religious fraternity, and hard work are seen as retrograde, or caricatured as American.

But it is just as likely that any European counter-reaction will be unproductive. Instead of calling for more American-style assimilation and intermarriage, critics could prescribe strict isolation of Islamic minorities. Re-arming could make Europe even more hostile, rather than promoting Western unity. The longer work hours, reduced welfare subsidies, increased transparency, and economic flexibility needed by Europe might be received by the masses not as necessary medicine, but as foul concoctions forced down their throats by the hated American competition.

U.N. Says Sudanese Blood for Oil Is Fine

John Bolton is fed up with all the U.N. talk, talk, talk about the genocide in the Sudan. So, his solution was to use his veto to block anymore talk. (I'm a Dhimmi to Pamela at Atlas Shrugs today):

NEW YORK: U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has blocked a UN envoy from briefing the Security Council on grave human rights breaches taking place in Darfur, saying the council should take "stronger action" against the atrocities and not just talk about them.

The Security Council met for a briefing on the latest developments in Darfur after rebels in the western Sudanese region abducted a number of African Union peacekeeping troops and killed some of them.

Bolton, joined by the ambassadors of Algeria, China and Russia, prevented Juan Mendez, Secretary General Kofi Annan's special adviser for the prevention of genocide, from briefing the council on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur, despite a request by Annan and the other 11 council members states to hear what Mendez had to say.

Bolton said: "How many officials of the secretariat does it take to have a briefing?"

He added that council members already know that the situation in the Darfur region continues to deteriorate, and added "real action needs to be taken."

According to media reports, The U.S. is demanding tougher measures against Sudan and not just condemning statements by the UN.

But, you know why stronger action is not taken? Because two of France, Germany, China, and Russia have massive investments in the Sudan oil industry.

But, there is nothing to worry about, I guess, because France is pulling out the big guns now:

France calls for peace in Darfur
ArabicNews.comWed, 12 Oct 2005 France has persistently urged all sides in Darfur to halt attacks on the soldiers of the mission of the African Union for peace keeping and to honor cease fire in the district.

How To Win The Victory For Islam

Atlas Shrugs notes that Zawahiri wrote a letter to Zarqawi the other day which laid out Al Qaeda's plan for how to win in Iraq, and eventually establish the worldwide Caliphate. Here are the important points:

al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam — and how they ran and left their agents — is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now." ( more thank the left for)
"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world,"
The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria
The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, will be the destruction of Israel which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."
"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media,"

Go to Atlas Shrugs to read the whole letter.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Grapes of Bounty

Help Wanted

I live in Southern California. Recently, I have been having some work done to my house. I had some of the eaves replaced, I had a very large tree removed from my back yard, and I had the outside of the house repainted. All's well.

The nest step on my home improvement list was to put in a new lawn and sprinkler system. A gardener I met, who did not speak English and who is, presumably, an illegal alien, came by and asked me to allow him to do this project. So, I asked him for a quote.

He came back to me the next day with a quote for $7,500.00.

I thought he was out of his mind. So, I asked another gardener, who also didn't speak English, for a quote. He said he would have to come over and measure my yard, etc., etc. Ok, I said, and he did. He made a big show with his tape measure and scattered words in English about sod and pvc pipe. Now, I thought, we're getting somewhere. This guy knows what he's doing.

The quote came back at $7,500.00.

Now, let's put this in perspective. The materials, and the cost of renting a roto-tiller, are approximatley $600-$800. Let's say $800.00, just to make it fun. I asked the gardener how long it would take to do the job, and he said he and his partner would be at my house for a total of four days.

Two guys, four days of work, adds up to 64 man-hours.

$7,500.00 minus $800.00 for materials is $6,700.00.

$6,700.00 divided by 64 man-hours is $104.68 per hour for each illegal alien.

If these illegal aliens were able to stack up jobs like this on a constant basis, then $104 an hour adds up to an annual income of approximately $208,000.00.

Them's some pretty good eats, for someone who isn't even a citizen.

Why am I writing this? Well, let me tell you, I am not writing this to bag on illegal aliens, and I am not writing this because I resent them earning a living. The fact that there are so many illegal aliens in our state, earning enormous amounts of money, and sucking our healthcare system dry, is not the fault of the people of California, but is instead the fault of the federal government.

We, the people of California, voted into law a Proposition a few years ago, which was intended to discourage illegal aliens from invading our state. But, the Proposition was killed by the California State Supreme Court. They didn't say which provision of the Law was unconstitutional, but instead, just killed the whole thing. Yes, that's right, we were told that the will of the people of the state of California did not stand against the will of the judicial system.

Our borders have been breached. It is the federal governments responsibility to guard the borders. They do not make a credible effort to do so. The citizenry of California have done our duty, but the government has thwarted us. Therefore, they are in violation of their agreement with their electorate.

I would say we should vote them out of office, but the truth is, we have found that no matter who we vote into office, on the left or on the right, the results are the same. Presumably, big business has all politicians in their pocket. Therefore, since big business demands cheap labor, big business gets cheap labor.

I also want to make it clear that I am a capitalist. If a man can make $104 an hour, then all the power to him. If that's the going rate, then that's the going rate, and he ought to get it.

Now, here's the reason I am writing this. If gardeners can ask for, and receive, a wage of $104 an hour in the state of California, then I have to say that any American citizen who is unemployed, or marginally employed - in states which are not enjoying the post-9/11 recovery, as we are here in California - ought to seriously consider moving out here, and doing this kind of work.

I would almost go so far as to say, you owe it to your families.

While I do not blame Mexicans and South Americans for coming here to the United States to make a living, and while I do not hate them, at the same time, I would prefer that American citizens earn the money.

So, I'm hanging out a "Help Wanted" sign. We need your help here in California. Come on out. Apparently, there is a lot of work to be had.

It's Ok To Call For Death To The Jews In Sweden
But Don't Say Criminals Are Named "Mohammed"

Fjordman has an important post today which starts off talking about how a police man was arrested and put in jail for writing a "hate" email:

The 43 year old Malmö police officer who sent an e-mail containing racist statements to council leader Ilmar Reepalu was freed on Tuesday by Malmö district court. According to the court, the policeman was not guilty of persecution of a minority group.

In his email to Reepalu he referred to "criminals called Mohammed from Rosengård" and urged the council leader to withdraw the "massive subsidies to all the bloody foreigners in Malmö". The prosecutor had demanded a prison sentence or fine for the policeman.

The personnel department of the National Police Board had already decided that he would be dismissed if he was found guilty of a serious offence. The court stated that the contents of the e-mail were offensive and degrading, but said that the police officer had had no intention of spreading his views more widely - despite the fact that the message became public when he sent it to the council leader.

Fjordman notes that the treatment of the policeman here is in direct contradition to the way Muslims are handled with kid gloves, when they display far more anti-social behavior:

At the same time in Sweden, Muslims openly flaunt their support for terror attacks aginst their own country, and Radio Islam has put Nazi literature such as Adolf Hitler's autobiography "Mein Kampf" online in several languages. They also say Jews are evil and should be "crushed".

Apparently, if you are a Muslim, this is "freedom of speech":

Head of "Radio Islam" in Sweden: The Muslims' War is with the Jews

"Sweden's greatest author, Jan Myrdal, said to me: 'You Muslims may need our support, but we need your Jihad. Otherwise, whom will we support?' If there is no Jihad and resistance, who will the free people in the West support?

There are free people in the West. The Zionist control of the media imposes a kind of media terrorism and hypocrisy, in such a way that many Swedes have a public opinion which they express on radio and TV. If [a Swede] wants to live a normal life and have work, he must claim to be Israel's friend and the enemy of Israel's enemies. But when you talk to regular Swedes, and even authors, privately, they are all against Israel and against the Zionist occupation.

Nevertheless, if Israel finds itself in danger and if we become stronger than it, no Westerner will come to its defense.

The Jews in the West – and this has become a tradition – have 100% complete control of the media, of the political parties, of the trade unions, and of the publishing houses. They politically control all the parties, from Right to Left.

I am a Muslim. I am not a Communist or a Marxist. I oppose both Marxism and Communism. This analysis of yours is a Marxist-Communist analysis, because the Koran says that our battle is with the Jews. Zionism is not mentioned in the Koran.

Our war is against the Jews."

Let's look at this, shall we? The truth is, what the policeman said is a fair and accurate assessment of the situation in the city of Malmo. There are criminals named "Mohammed" in Rosengard, and the immigrants do draw massive subsidies from the state. The problem with his statement is one of proportion.

There are probably also criminals named Bjorn who are creating trouble themselves. And, while it is true that immigrants draw massive subsidies, there are plenty of natural-born Swedish citizens drawing large amounts of money from the government as well. So, the question isn't whether what the police officer said is true or not. Instead, the question is, do Muslims commit a disproportionate amount of the crime, and do they draw a disproportionate amout of welfare, to the point that the policeman's statement was warranted.

On the other hand, we know that Mein Kampf is an evil piece of literature which makes spurious claims about a Jewish conspiracy to control banking, and calls for death to the Jews. We know that as a civilization, we decided a long time ago that such literature was disgusting and evil.

We know that terror attacks against innocent civilians - such as children on buses in Israel, or children in the streets of Baghdad - are works of evil. And, we know that to say that the "Jews should be crushed" is calling for the death of a whole group of people, and is therefore evil as well. If such things are not to be called evil, then we nothing is evil.

And finally, the head of "Radio Islam" in Sweden going on the air and calling for "war" on the "Jews" smacks of Holocaust era Germany. It is frightening. Such behavior needs to be eliminated from Western Civilization altogether.

But, the Swedes don't think so, apparently. Hmm.

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

From an interview with Hamas Chief Mahmoud al-Zahar:

WND: When you talk of occupied Palestinian land, are you referring to the West Bank and the eastern sections of Jerusalem, or do you mean the entire state of Israel? Let's be clear here. Is your goal the destruction of Israel?

Al-Zahar: No one will deny the fact that before 1948, the state of Israel did not exist and that for thousands of years this land was part of an Islamic and Arabic land. History proves that this is the land of the Palestinian people and we will never give up any part of it. If our generation will not succeed to liberate all of historical Palestine then that mission will be for the following generations.

Yes, you've gotta love your enemies, when they tell the truth.

Thank, Mahmoud.

Monday, October 10, 2005

"I Hope They Think I'm Dead"

Iraq's Message to Mr Blair:
We Still Need the Troops
That Saved Us From Tyranny

Iraqi President Jalal Talibani wrote a message to the people of England, which was published in the London Times yesterday. It is an open call for the British to support the fight to establish Democracy in Iraq:

EVENTS OF recent weeks have reaffirmed the need for the alliance between the new Iraq and Britain. The lesson of the ghastly drumbeat of terrorism, the rioting in Basra and the vile murder of the leadership of the Iraqi Anglican Church is that the battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned. Above all, Britain owes no apology for delivering the enslaved people of Iraq from the hands of a callous tyranny.

The challenge is to show fortitude in the face of horror so that we can finish the job that began in 2003 of uprooting dictatorship and implanting a democratic government. Reforming Iraq, restoring a society distorted by fascism, was never going to be easy.

The alternative — to pretend that sanctions were working and that Saddam Hussein was contained — was an illusion. As has now been established, the United Nations Oil-for-Food programme was corrupt in root and branch. Saddam manipulated Oil-for-Food to become his personal chequebook for a campaign of international bribery and a trough from which his psychopathic progeny supped. Saddam’s regime openly declared in August 2001 that the sanctions had collapsed. Indeed, in 2003, as Saddam proclaimed his innocence to the world, his envoys were in Syria to negotiate the purchase of North Korean long-range missiles.

The Baathist regime, guilty of aggression and genocide, was overturned because Britain and the United States had courageously enforced the UN Security Council resolutions that others would barely support with words.