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:


You might remember me I run one of the very rare german languageanti-islamist blogs in Austria under

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!

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?


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

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.


Posted by Picasa

"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.


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.