Saturday, May 06, 2006

Evil Jews Save
Mahmoud Abbas' Life

Hamas was planning on killing the Palestinian President, and the Israli intelligence organization, Mossad, tipped him off; saving his life:

A HAMAS plot to assassinate Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, has been thwarted after he was tipped off by Israeli intelligence.

Hamas’s military wing, the Izza Din Al-Qassem, had planned to kill Abbas at his office in Gaza, intelligence sources said.

Abbas, who became president of the Palestinian Authority last year after the death of Yasser Arafat, was formally warned of the danger by the Israelis and cancelled a planned visit to the territory.

The murder plan is the clearest sign yet of the tensions inside the Palestinian Authority between Hamas, which swept to power after elections in January, and Abbas’s Fatah movement.

Hamas leaders, who refuse to recognise the state of Israel, suspect Abbas of obstructing their attempts to govern, which have been hampered by a financial boycott from donor nations.

“Hamas considers Abbas to be a barrier to its complete control over Palestine and decided to kill him,” said a Palestinian source who was an adviser to Arafat and is a close acquaintance of Abbas.

It is understood that the attack would also have targeted Mohammed Dahlan, Abbas’s strongman in Gaza.

Bush Says Fight
Against Terror
Is World War III

Most of us who spend our time attempting to understand this war against the Jihadis already recogize the fact that we are in WWIII. However, much of the American public thinks this is something much simpler. In fact, many lefties actually think we're not in at war at all. Thank God Bush tells the truth here:

US President George W. Bush said the September 11 revolt of passengers against their hijackers on board Flight 93 had struck the first blow of "World War III."

In an interview with the financial news network CNBC, Bush said he had yet to see the recently released film of the uprising, a dramatic portrayal of events on the United Airlines plane before it crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

But he said he agreed with the description of David Beamer, whose son Todd died in the crash, who in a Wall Street Journal commentary last month called it "our first successful counter-attack in our homeland in this new global war -- World War III".

Bush said: "I believe that. I believe that it was the first counter-attack to World War III.
"It was, it was unbelievably heroic of those folks on the airplane to recognize the danger and save lives," he said.

Flight 93 crashed on the morning of September 11, 2001, killing the 33 passengers, seven crew members and four hijackers, after passengers stormed the cockpit and battled the hijackers for control of the aircraft.

The president has repeatedly praised the heroism of the passengers in fighting back and so launching the first blow of what he usually calls the "war on terror".

In 2002, then-White House spokesman Ari Fleischer explicitly declined to call the hunt for Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda group and its followers "World War III."

All the major powers are involved, including Russia and China, who are helping Iran build their nuclear weapons. In fact, there is a sense in which, at this point, WWIII is looking an awful lot like the Cold War. During the Cold War, Russia and America fought each other primarily through proxies such as Viet Nam. One could view this war the same way. Russia and China are trying to decrease American power by strengthening the power of regional enemies such as Iran and Syria.

Problem is, they are playing a very dangerous game. Viet Nam could not have hurt Russia back in the 1960's, but Iran could very well blow up in the faces of Russia and China.

I am constatnly mystified by the fact that they think they are going to escape from this in one piece. They are playing with a firestorm.

Friday, May 05, 2006

Iran Is

Atlas has a post up this morning about President Bush's statement of "unshakable faith":

America will never desert the state of Israel, President Bush said last night, sending an unambiguous signal to the ruling mullahs in Iran - who are developing a nuclear weapon capability in the teeth of international pressure - that their threats to destroy Israel will be fiercely resisted.

"America's commitment to Israel's security is strong, enduring, and unshakable," Mr. Bush said in a speech to the American Jewish Committee, which was celebrating its centennial at Washington's National Building Museum, and while sitting alongside the German chancellor, Angela Merkel.

He said America and Israel were "natural allies and these ties will never be broken."In his first major foreign policy speech for some time, Mr. Bush made clear his words were intended to be heeded by the Tehran regime and its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who declared in October that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map."

America would be unflinching in its commitment to defend Israel's right to exist and to ensure that the mullahs would not gain possession of a nuclear weapon. Iran already has obtained missile technology from the North Korean communists capable of reaching the capitals of Europe.

Mr. Bush said he was concerned by the direction Iran is heading. "We are concerned because the Iranian regime is repressing its people, sponsoring terrorists, destabilizing the region, threatening Israel, and defying the world with its ambitions for nuclear weapons," he said.

"America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats."The president also reiterated his determination not to deal with terrorists, including the Palestinian Arab government dominated by the Hamas terrorist group. New York Sun

At the same time as America is expressing "unshakable faith" in Israel, Israel seems to be losing faith in itself. The plan to divide Jerusalem strikes me as a frightening turn of events.

Reminds me of the Roman centurions who cast lot for Christ's clothes as he hung on the cross. I wouldn't want to carry such Karma, but Olmert seems to think he can bear it.

Thursday, May 04, 2006

Stop The Dangerous
"Christian Missionary Octopus:
16,000 "Apostates"
Per Day

A Libyan Islamic scholar says Muslims are converting to Christianity at the rate of 16,000 per day:

This translation of a televised conversation reveals a rare glimpse into the outlook of Muslim scholars who are concerned about Christianity’s growth. The invited guest is Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani; the president of The Companions Lighthouse for the Science of Islamic Law in Libya, which is an institution specializing in graduating imams and Islamic preachers.

Katani starts off describing the overall problem:

Islam used to represent, as you previously mentioned, Africa’s main religion and there were 30 African languages that used to be written in Arabic script. The number of Muslims in Africa has diminished to 316 million, half of whom are Arabs in North Africa. So in the section of Africa that we are talking about, the non Arab section, the number of Muslims does not exceed 150 million people. When we realize that the entire population of Africa is one billion people, we see that the number of Muslims has diminished greatly from what it was in the beginning of the last century. On the other hand, the number of Catholics has increased from one million in 1902 to 329 million 882 thousand (329,882,000). Let us round off that number to 330 million in the year 2000.

As to how that happened, well there are now 1.5 million churches whose congregations account for 46 million people.

In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity. These numbers are very large indeed ...From what I have heard from reliable sources, six million may be too low. Reliable accounts say that one hundred thousand Africans convert to Christianity per day, though not all of them come from Islam.

Then Katani says Muslims should build schools before mosques, in order to build the worshipper (Muslim) before the building. Why? To stop the the dangerous “Christian missionary octopus.”

Our Progress In Iraq
And A Prayer That Someday
The Left Can Take Credit

Wretchard has an excellent post up over at Belmont Club, wherein he analyzes recent reports on the situation in Iraq by one General Barry McCaffrey. Wretchard notes that General McCaffrey is cited by the media as a "skeptic on the war as early as 2003, and as "Secretary Rumsfeld's most outspoken critic".

Here's are excerpts from McCaffrey's report from 2005:

US Military Forces in Iraq are superb. Our Army-Marine ground combat units with supporting Air and Naval Power are characterized by quality military leadership, solid discipline, high morale, and enormous individual and unit courage. Unit effectiveness is as good as we can get. This is the most competent and battle wise force in our nation’s history.

The US media is putting the second team in Iraq with some exceptions. Unfortunately, the situation is extremely dangerous for journalists. The working conditions for a reporter are terrible. They cannot travel independently of US military forces without risking abduction or death. In some cases, the press has degraded to reporting based on secondary sources, press briefings which they do not believe, and alarmist video of the aftermath of suicide bombings obtained from Iraqi employees of unknown reliability. ... Military leaders on the ground are talking to people they trust instead of talking to all reporters who command the attention of the American people. (We need to educate and support AP, Reuters, Gannet, Hearst, the Washington Post, the New York Times, etc.)

The initial US/UK OIF intervention took down a criminal regime and left a nation without an operational State.
The transitional Bremer-appointed Iraqi government created a weak state of warring factions.
The January 2005 Iraqi elections created the beginnings of legitimacy and have fostered a supportive political base to create the new Iraqi Security Forces.
The August Iraqi Constitutional Referendum and the December-January election and formation of a new government will build the prototype for the evolution of an effective, law-based Iraqi State with a reliable Security Force.

Now, here are some excerpts from McCaffrey's latest report.

On the American military:

The morale, fighting effectiveness, and confidence of U.S. combat forces continue to be simply awe-inspiring. In every sensing session and interaction - I probed for weakness and found courage, belief in the mission, enormous confidence in their sergeants and company grade officers, an understanding of the larger mission, a commitment to creating an effective Iraqi Army and Police, unabashed patriotism, and a sense of humor. All of these soldiers, NCOs and young officers were volunteers for combat. Many were on their second combat tour - several were on the third or fourth combat tour. Many had re-enlisted to stay with their unit on its return to a second Iraq deployment. Many planned to re-enlist regardless of how long the war went on.

On the Iraqi military:

The Iraqi Army is real, growing, and willing to fight. They now have lead action of a huge and rapidly expanding area and population. The battalion level formations are in many cases excellent - most are adequate. ... The recruiting now has gotten significant participation by all sectarian groups to include the Sunni. The Partnership Program with U.S. units will be the key to success with the Embedded Training Teams augmented and nurtured by a U.S. Maneuver Commander. This is simply a brilliant success story.

On the Iraqi police:

The Iraqi police are beginning to show marked improvement in capability since MG Joe Peterson took over the program. The National Police Commando Battalions are very capable ... The police are heavily infiltrated by both the AIF and the Shia militia. They are widely distrusted by the Sunni population. They are incapable of confronting local armed groups. They inherited a culture of inaction, passivity, human rights abuses, and deep corruption. This will be a ten year project requiring patience, significant resources, and an international public face. This is a very, very tough challenge ...

On the political situation:

The creation of an Iraqi government of national unity is a central requirement. We must help create a legitimate government for which the Iraqi security forces will fight and die. If we do not see the successful development of a pluralistic administration in the first 120 days of the emerging Jawad al-Maliki leadership - there will be significant chance of the country breaking apart in warring factions among the Sunnis and Shia - with a separatist Kurdish north embroiled in their own potential struggle with the Turks. ... There is total lack of trust among the families, the tribes, and the sectarian factions created by the 35 years of despotism and isolation of the criminal Saddam regime. This is a traumatized society with a malignant political culture. ...

However, in my view, the Iraqis are likely to successfully create a governing entity. The intelligence picture strongly portrays a population that wants a federal Iraq, wants a national Army, rejects the AIF as a political future for the nation, and is optimistic that their life can be better in the coming years. Unlike the Balkans—the Iraqis want this to work.

The bombing of the Samarra Mosque brought the country to the edge of all-out war. However, the Iraqi Army did not crack, the moderates held, Sistani called for restraint, the Sunnis got a chill of fear seeing what could happen to them as a minority population, and the Coalition Forces suddenly were seen correctly as a vital force that could keep the population safe in the absence of Iraqi power. In addition, the Shia were reminded that Iran is a Persian power with goals that conflict with the Shia Arabs of southern and central Iraq.

On the "insurgency":

The foreign jihadist fighters have been defeated as a strategic and operational threat to the creation of an Iraqi government. Aggressive small unit combat action by Coalition Forces combined with good intelligence - backed up by new Iraqi Security Forces is making an impact. The foreign fighters remain a serious tactical menace. However, they are a minor threat to the heavily armed and wary U.S. forces. They cannot successfully stop the Iraqi police and army recruitment.

Wretchard points out that McCaffrey's chief criticism was for the State Department:

... for the institutional inability of the State Department to "live and work with their Iraqi counterparts" for extended periods.

McCaffrey sums up the situation thusly:

The Iraqi political system is fragile but beginning to play a serious role in the debate over the big challenges facing the Iraqi state - oil, religion, territory, power, separatism, and revenge. The neighboring states have refrained from tipping Iraq into open civil war. The UN is cautiously thinking about re-entry and doing their job of helping consolidate peace. The Iraqis are going to hold Saddam and his senior leadership accountable for their murderous behavior over 35 years. The brave Brits continue to support us both politically and militarily. NATO is a possible modest support to our efforts.

There is no reason why the U.S. cannot achieve our objectives in Iraq. Our aim must be to create a viable federal state under the rule of law which does not: enslave its own people, threaten its neighbors, or produce weapons of mass destruction. This is a ten year task. We should be able to draw down most of our combat forces in 3-5 years.

We have few alternatives to the current US strategy which is painfully but gradually succeeding. This is now a race against time. Do we have the political will, do we have the military power, will we spend the resources required to achieve our aims?

It was very encouraging for me to see the progress achieved in the past year. Thanks to the leadership and personal sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of men and women of the CENTCOM team and the CIA – the American people are far safer today than we were in the 18 months following the initial intervention.

Click here to read Wretchard's commentary.

Let us now take a moment to remember how many of our leftist friends have said that this a war of imperialism, that we are dying "for oil", and in order to line Halliburton's pockets. Let us always remember that such was the debate, circa 2002 and onward.

Just as victims of massacres need to remember, the American public needs to always remember how we have been failed by the Left. That when we needed the kind of progress which is fostered by the dialectic of public debate, instead we received the rantings of pacifistic lunacy. That when we needed an informed public, a group of 1960's era reporters and executives steered our Mainstream Media instead made a mythology of anti-Americanism to serve the purposes of partisanship. That when our military and the Iraqi people needed support, leaders of the Democratic party such as Howard Dean, Teddy Kennedy, and Al Gore accused the President of the United States of taking the country to war under false pretenses, and engaging in torture and human rights abuses.

We must always remember these truths, and we must endeavor to ensure that this never happens again. If we can, somehow, capture the visceral reality of this virtual treason by segments of the American Left, as if in amber, then we can use it as a teaching tool when we are faced, once again, with the hard task of going to war in order to preserve, and extend, freedom.

Alas, one can not capture visceral reality in amber. The jagged reality of our time will sway in memory, gradually diffusing into something closer to a sentimental imitation of French Impressionism, and before we know it, we will all look back with pride in our country for the great work we did in Iraq. Progressives will speak of America's commitment to freedom in the Middle East, and will find a way to credit themselves for it, more than likely by contrasting it to their version of the history of the Viet Nam War.

I guess this is as it always is. All Americans like to credit themselves with our history. We all like to think we would have fought on the side of the Union against slavery, that we would have marched beside Martin Luther King in the streets of Alabama, that we would have stood with Patrick Henry proclaiming, "Give me Liberty or give me death."

Our soldiers have fought bravely for us to be able to credit ourselves as a moral people. Thank God for them, and thank God for the vision of those who have led us this far in our project in the Middle East. I pray that sometime in the near future Ted Kennedy and his friends will be able to speak with pride of their efforts in having brought freedom to the people of the Islamic world. I pray that they may be able to tell tales of their bravery in having stood down Ahmadinejad and the Mullah regime in Iran.

The Left could be heroes. Yes. And, we must always remember the truth.

A Plan
To Partition

Israel's new Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, apparently, has a plan to partition the Holy City:

JERUSALEM -- Israel's new government has outlined the clearest picture yet of how it plans to divide the holy city of Jerusalem and abandon much of the West Bank in its move to separate from the Palestinians.

Otniel Schneller _ an architect of the plan _ said in interviews this week with The Associated Press that his blueprint would give most of Jerusalem's Arab neighborhoods to the Palestinians while keeping the predominantly Jewish areas for Israel.

"Those same neighborhoods will, in my assessment, be central to the makeup of the Palestinian capital ... al-Quds," Schneller said, calling Jerusalem by its Arabic name. "We will not divide Jerusalem, we will share it."

But Israel would keep Jerusalem's Old City with its shrines sacred to Jews, Muslims and Christians alike _ an unacceptable plan to Palestinians, particularly if carried out unilaterally.

Still, with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert determined to draw Israel's final borders by 2010, likely without waiting for Palestinian agreement, a division of Jerusalem looks realistic for the first time.

The plan to divide Jerusalem reflects a sea change in the thinking of most Israelis, who once considered sacrilegious even the idea of abandoning part of the holy city.

Since Israel captured east Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 Mideast War, Israelis had been in broad agreement that the city could never again be divided. But after five years of intefadeh bloodshed, Israeli voters swept Olmert's Kadima Party into office in March 28 elections on a platform to separate from the Palestinians for the good of the Jewish state.

A plan to divide Jerusalem was first brought up in 2000 peace talks but failed to materialize. Schneller _ a Kadima lawmaker _ is reviving that plan with his blueprint. But he cautioned that the ideas are still in the planning stages, require international backing and that there's no clear timetable for carrying them out.

Under the plan, which would be executed unilaterally if efforts to resume peace talks fail, Jerusalem's Old City, its holy shrines and the adjacent neighborhoods, would become a "special region with special understandings," but remain under Israeli sovereignty, said Schneller.

The Old City and the adjacent "holy basin," which includes the predominantly Arab neighborhoods of Silwan and Sheik Jarrah, would fall on the Israeli side of the separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank, another Israeli official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because plans have not been finalized.

The plan also calls for moving the barrier westward. That means much of East Jerusalem would no longer be cut off from the West Bank and most Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem could become part of a future Palestinian state on the eastern side of the barrier, the official said.
The United States has long held the position that "borders and Jerusalem and all final status issues ... ultimately have to be decided in negotiations between the parties," U.S. Embassy spokesman Stewart Tuttle said.

But Washington is not likely to oppose unilateral Israeli pullouts from the West Bank.

Olmert's plan involves dismantling dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank with tens of thousands of people and moving them to larger settlement blocs in the territory that Israel hopes to hold onto under a final peace deal.

Israel has said it will give the new Hamas-led Palestinian government time to agree to international demands to recognize Israel, accept past peace deals and renounce violence. More than a month into its reign, Hamas has rejected the demands, Israel has cut off all ties with what it has labeled an enemy entity and it appears increasingly likely the Jewish state will draw its borders on its own.

That's a position hotly rejected by the Palestinians, who say the result will be a truncated territory on which it will be impossible to build a viable state.

"President Mahmoud Abbas refuses to accept any unilateral steps and rejects any provisional solutions," said Nabil Abu Rdeneh, a senior spokesman for the moderate Abbas, who still wields considerable power as president even though Hamas took over the parliament and Cabinet.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

In The
Wee Small Hours
Of The Morning

In the wee small hours of the morning
While the whole wide world is fast asleep
You lie awake and think about the girl
And never ever think of counting sheep

When your lonely heart has learned it’s lesson
You’d be hers if only she would call
In the wee small hours of the morning
That’s the time you miss her most of all

To The French
Truth Itself
Is Racist

Surprise, surprise, they the movie United 93:

PropagandaStaffel trashes United 93. Already dissed by French critics who deem the film racist for showing Islamofascists praying before going into terror mode, Libé nitpicks and offers up a set of very French objections to the film.

But, the truth is, the Islamofascists were praying even as the plane was going down:

10:02:18 (Down, down.)
10:02:23 (Pull it down. Pull it down.)
10:02:25 Down. Push, push, push, push, push.
10:02:33 (Hey. Hey. Give it to me. Give it to me.)
10:02:35 (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)
10:02:37 (Give it to me. Give it to me. Give it to me.)
10:02:40 Unintelligible.
10:03:02 (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:03 (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:04 (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:06 (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03;06 (Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:07 No.
10:03:09 (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)
10:03:09 (Allah is the greatest. Allah is the greatest.)

Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Bat Ye'or -

I must say, although I own the book Eurabia by Bat Ye'or, I have never been a believer in her thesis. Her writing is obscure and confused (possibly the result of bad translation?), her footnotes many times lead either nowhere (in at least one case, she claimed no minutes were allowed to be taken for a series of EU meetings she cited as the source of her information), or to papers published in French journals in the 1960-70's, and her overall point, that there is a formalized agreement between Europe and the Arab world to Islamicize European culture and policy seems the stuff of conspiracy theory.

In fact, I would challenge my readers to come up with a qualitative distinction between the Bat Ye'or thesis, and that of the recent Robert Fisk Independent article United States Of Israel. One says the Jews control America, and the other seems to say the Arabs control Europe.

Now, let me be clear, there is a difference between my saying I don't buy the theory, and saying the theory is wrong. I leave open the possibility that Europe really does intend to Islamicize itself, because, certainly, from the tangible evidence, it appears to be true. But, one must pose several questions first;

1) Could Europe's Islamic initiative (the Euro-Arab Dialogue) simply be European Hudna; a kind of longterm softcore appeasement plan with little actual intent, on their part, to carry out it's policies?

2) Would it not be natural, instead of diabolical, for Europe to cozy up to Arab governments, and play Hudna with them, considering they don't have as much pull on the international oil market as the United States?

3) Is it not true that the level of influence any given trading partner has on the nations with which it trades is directly proportionate to the relative importance of the goods and services provided?

In other words, is the European-Arab Dialogue any different than the agreements the United States has with Arab governments. We trade military support (protecting the trade routes, and the borders, of the various Middle Eastern countries), while Europe has to rely on more complex agreements, involving goods and services, technology, and cultural cooperation.

This does not strike me as diabolical. Instead, it strikes me as the invisible hand of capitalism. One thing we can assume is that Europe will do what serves Europe's interests. It does not serve Europe's interest to willingly trade away its sovereignty. If Europe is multiplicitous in their dealings with America, then, can we not assume that Europe would also be multiplicitous in their dealings with the Arab world?

Have we not seen that Europe is willing to back down from it Euro-taqiiya when its interests are threatened? For instance, in the case of Iran's recent progress towards nuclear weaponry, suddenly, rather than triangulating America out, Europe has joined with America in opposition to the Arab world. It is likely that, in the final analysis, Europe will not support an American military strike, but their opposition will merely be a way of saving face in the Arab world (who I believe will also secretly support an American strike.)

In short, where Bat Ye'or sees malevolent anti-Semitism on the geopolitical stage, I see the natural, if gluttonous, interplay of competing interests.

This leads us to a story of the process of European Islamicization. The largest Muslim group in Sweden has presented a very long list of demands for the accomodation of Islam. Although much of the list is couched in gentle, multicultural PC-speak, there is a passage which includes a threat of unrest, if the demands are not met.

Gates of Vienna has a rundown of some of the more greedy demands, a few of which I will include here, with Baron's commentary (in orange):

The problems that exist in regards to the Swedish religious freedom is that it is a Pietistic coloured understanding of individualised religion, that lie behind the Swedish laws regarding religious freedom, whereas for the Muslim minority it is the collective expressions of the religion that are central.

Mahmoud Aldebe, the author of these demands for Muslims, exposes here his own cultural blindness. Muslim collective religious thought does not trump individual religious expression. Sorry, Mahmoud, you can’t argue against the Enlightenment.

The Muslim minority criticises this narrow definition of religion that is the basis of the Swedish laws regarding religious freedom… we can request corrections of the Swedish family law to adapt it to Islam. It is this law that is the most important to Swedish Muslims: marriage, divorce, child protection, and raising underage children.

So far, Muslims have a great record on raising children, given the aggression of young Muslim males against Swedish women. It is the Muslim attitude (read: “contempt for”) Swedish women that needs to change.

A mosque in every city or county would have significant value to the Muslims of the country… it would greatly increase the sense of loyalty towards Sweden as your new homeland, despite being a Muslim.

A little blackmail here?

And now, we come to the one demand which, particularly, struck me as supporting Bat Ye'or's Eurabia thesis:

Despite the fact that Islam has existed for 32 years as an organised religion in Sweden, the construction of burial grounds has been constantly hampered. Other than in the forest church yard in Stockholm there are Muslim burial grounds in 20 something countries, but that is not enough. Today there are Muslims in nearly 100 counties that lack burial grounds. The biggest general problem that Muslims encounter is that their dead are to be buried as quickly as possible, according to Islamic custom, and by a Muslim burial in their home county.

Baron asserts that this is the Islamist attempt to establish a waaf, for Dar al-Islam, in the heart of Europe:

What Mr. Aldebe fails to mention is the Islamic notion of waqf. Essentially, waqf means that any real estate in which Muslims have ever been buried becomes Islamic property in perpetuity.

I can buy that. If one doubts the odd concept of property in Dar al-Islam all one has to consider is that Islamists, from Qutb to Bin Laden, have referred to Spain by its former Muslim name; Andalusia.

Once Islamic, always Islamic, under pain of death to the Infidel.

But, the point here is, this Islamic organization stated in its list of demands that Islam was established as an organized religion, within Swedish borders, precisely 32 years ago. That would be 1974, for those without a calculator. This corresponds precisely with Bat Ye'or contention that Europe traded cultural concessions for favoritism in the wake of the OPEC-induced oil crisis, which began in 1973. In fact, here is a passage from a Front Page Magazine Interview with Bat Ye'or, which gives evidence, both, for her thesis being accurate, and for its all-encompassing paranoia:

FP: Is Europe's dependence on Arab oil a predominant factor in its pro-Arab policy?

Bat Ye'or: No, I don't think so. Arab leaders have to sell their oil; their people are very dependent on European economic, health and technological aid. America made this point during the oil embargo in 1973. The oil factor is a pretext to cover up a policy that emerged in France before that crisis. The policy was already conceived in the 1960s. It has strong antecedents in the French 19th century dream of governing an Arab empire and the exploitation of antisemitism to strengthen Arab Muslim-French solidarity against a demonized common enemy.

It is a project that was conceived, planned and pursued consistently through immigration policy, propaganda, church support, economic associations and aid, cultural, media and academic collaboration. Generations grew up within this political framework; they were educated and conditioned to support it and go along with it. This is the source of the strong anti-American feeling in Europe and of the paranoiac obsession with Israel, two elements that form the cornerstone of Eurabia.

Until 1971, France had been isolated in the EC in its anti-Israel stance. European Community critics accused it of bias toward the Arab world. Faced with the oil crisis, the nine EC countries -- under French and German leadership -- unified their views regarding the Middle East conflict and this generated the Euro-Arab Dialogue's overall development.

Ok, so which is it? Let's be honest here. Is Bat Ye'or a prophetess of the rise of Eurabia through rational process of Islamicization motivated by a European misunderstanding of what's in its own best interests?

Or is Bat Ye'or a paranoid conspiracy theorist who has taken something which is demonstrably true (that Europe is undergoing a process of Islamicization precipitated by its Socialist need for immigration) and bundled it, with a wholistic paranoia which can all explain all manner of phenomena simply by appealing back to the idea that Europeans hate Jews?

Go Ahead BBC,
Admit It
Now, Don't You Feel Better?

I've done a lot of complaining in the past week about the anti-Semitism in the British media. Well, after having appointed an outside agency to look into the matter, the BBC has admitted that they are, indeed, biased. And, they may be ready to take steps to remedy the problem:

The BBC fails to always give a “full and fair account” of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but is not deliberately biased, a report has said.

The BBC governors asked an independent panel to scrutinise its output.

Its report said the BBC was committed to being fair, accurate and impartial and UK viewers regarded it as unbiased.

But coverage was not consistently full and fair and “in important respects, presents an incomplete and in that sense misleading picture”, it found.

The range of stories and perspectives was too narrow and reporters’ use of language was often inconsistent, it decided.

That included the use of the words “terrorism” and “terrorist”. The BBC advises its journalists to avoid the latter because it can be “a barrier to understanding”.

But the panel said the BBC should use “terrorism” to describe violence against civilians with the intention of causing terror for ideological objectives, “whether perpetrated by state or non-state agencies”.

“It seems clear that placing a bomb on a bus used by civilians intending death or injury in supposed furtherance of a cause is a terrorist act and no other expression conveys so tersely and accurately the elements involved.”

To Israel

An oasis of sanity in the Middle East, a fount of creativity, and a bulwark against those who would work to bury the Law of God. Israel, may you and your people live forever. May you find peace. May you find Mesiach. And, may your message spread out to all the Gentiles across the face of the Earth

Happy Birthday, Israel:

Israel celebrates independence: With the conclusion of Memorial Day at sundown Tuesday, at 8:00 p.m. the nation launched its 58th Independence Day celebrations with a torch-lighting ceremony at the Mount Herzl plaza in Jerusalem.

Monday, May 01, 2006


Is It Time To Go?

Dymphna, at the great blog Gates of Vienna, gives us a little of the history of Swedish anti-Semitism:

... what has been kept under wraps for the last sixty years – is Sweden’s history of overt anti-Jewish laws:

For ten years up until the end of the Second World War, Swedish priests applied Nazi race rules to marriage. Swedes who wanted to marry Germans were forced to prove that they were not Jewish. And ‘racially impure’ marriages could be annulled by Swedish courts, according to evidence presented by the Swedish Research Council on Tuesday.

Since 2001, two research programmes have explored various aspects of “Swedish fear, horror and fascination, but also kinship within Swedish science, culture and church life with Nazism and Nazi Germany”.

[…]Any Swede who wanted to marry an Arian German was forced to sign an affirmation stating that none of the German’s grandparents were Jewish.According to Lund University’s Professor Anders Jarlert, who led the research, Sweden’s application of these laws lacked historical and democratic legitimacy. It was also alien to the Swedish sense of justice, said Jarlert.

The evidence uncovered by Professor Jarlert shows that Sweden was not merely paying lip service to its powerful neighbour. The Swedish courts were complicit too, annulling a number of marriages and declaring the children born within them as illegitimate.

Stig Ekman, a professor of history with a special interest in Nazism, told DN that Sweden’s culture of secrecy is one reason why the details of the priests’ and courts’ lack of resistance to Nazi influence is only emerging now, 60 years later.

As this study proves, the anti-Semitism in Sweden was well in place before any Muslim set foot there.

As Maxed Out Mama said in a comment at Shrinkwrapped recently:

"I think you are right about the Jews getting out of Europe. I hate it, but I think it’s time for them to go. I’d love to see the US have an official open immigration policy for any Jew of European extraction."

Is this just hyperbole? Or, is it really time for Jews to be thinking about leaving Europe? The history of the Holocaust shows us that human beings while capable of great evil, have a very hard time believing their neighbors are capable of great evil.

We see this phenomenon being repeated today in the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad and the bomb. The Iranian President clearly signals his intent to kill the 6 million Jews of Israel, and yet the world debates whether military option ought even to be an option.

I honestly don't know what I'd do if I were a Jew living in Europe at this point in history. In my opinion, we Americans have a similar, but slightly different problem on our hands. If we would be honest with ourselves, we would know that it is only a matter of time before a terrorist organization hits us with nukes. If they were smart, they would wait until they had smuggled nukes into multiple American cities, so that they could bring America to its knees.

I live near Los Angeles, a prime target in the case of such an attack. Am I thinking about fleeing? No, I'm going about my everyday life, with work, family, and friends. I'm sure all of you out there are doing the same thing.

So, shall we flee? Will we look like fools in hindsight? We'll never know, will we?

Le Pen Says
Is Surging
In France

Really?!? Who would thunk it?

PARIS (Reuters) - Veteran French far-right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen launched his 2007 presidential bid on Monday declaring his anti-immigrant views were gaining ground and that government scandals showed France was now a "banana republic".

Le Pen, who shocked France (Pastorius question: How can LePen shock the French, when the French were the ones who pulled the lever?) by coming second in the 2002 race against President Jacques Chirac, told a rally outside the Paris Opera that the tough stand on immigration taken by his right-wing rivals showed strong public support for a crackdown.

"I believe I can win both rounds of the presidential election," Le Pen, 77, told about 3,000 cheering supporters of his National Front party. "Our ideas are gaining ground."

He also lashed out at an alleged smear campaign French media say Chirac and his Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin may have organized against Sarkozy. Both deny any role in it.

"Lies of state are now the rule in our banana republic," he told the crowd, many of whom carried maps of France emblazoned with the "Love it or leave it" slogan that Sarkozy and Le Pen's far-right rival Philippe de Villiers have been using.

Referring to the 1960s slogan often shouted at Americans protesting against the Vietnam War, Le Pen said: "We were the first to use this in France, though to be completely honest, I have to say it comes from the United States."

Analysts say support for Le Pen seems to have risen thanks to diverse factors such as weeks of rioting by suburban youths of mostly immigrant origin last autumn, student protests this spring and scandals marking the end of Chirac's presidency.

Le Pen is now running at 12-14 percent support in opinion polls, compared to 7-9 percent one year before the 2002 election in which he knocked Socialist prime minister Lionel Jospin out of the running in the first voting round.

Given that a dozen or more parties tend to run in the first of the election's two rounds, a candidate can sometimes make it to the run-off with around 20 percent of the vote.

Le Pen reached the 2002 second round with only 17 percent to Chirac's 20 percent. The president trounced him in the run-off with 82 percent support because voters of almost all stripes backed him as a protest against the National Front.

Le Pen urged his closest rivals to join him in a far-right alliance to increase their chances of reaching the second round.

Villiers, who has based his campaign on warnings against what he calls the Islamisation of France and now garners about 4 percent support, has declined to join him. But a renegade former ally, Bruno Megret, has agreed to close ranks.

Wow, this ought to be interesting.

Let me be clear, I do not want LePen to win. However, I think it would be a good thing for France, if he, once again, made it to the second round, garnered big support, and lost to Sarkozy.

Clearly, Villiers is correct. There is an Islamicization of France taking place, and even if it takes a racist like LePen to bring the message to the people, it is a message which needs to be heard, and acted upon.

Sunday, April 30, 2006

Wikipedia Says
Robert Spencer
Is "Discredited"
Because Of His
"Jewish Ancestral Roots"

This is from Robert at Jihad Watch:

A few days ago you could have checked my biography at Wikipedia and found this:

Most have discredited Mr. Spencer's views on Islam due to oft-exaggeration. It must also be noted that Mr. Spencer's work is highly biased and influenced by his Jewish Ancestral viewpoints.

... the Wikipedia editor above assumes that I speak about the roots of jihad violence within Islamic theology solely because I'm Jewish. That might make some small bit of sense except for one little catch: I'm not Jewish.

Just for the record, I, the proprietor of CUANAS (Christians United Against the New Anti-Semitism) am not Jewish either.

Since when is such considered a valid criticism of one's political opinion, anyway?

Well, of course, in Britain, where the media seems to think the Jews control the whole world, maybe it is legitimate critical analysis, huh?

Sports Talk
With Pastorius
It's All
The Lakers

Blogging has been light because, honestly, I am obsessed with the basketball playoffs.

The Lakers pulled off an amazing win today, coming from behind to tie at the end of regulation, and then, coming from behind, again, to win on a last second jump shot by Kobe Bryant, at the end of the Overtime period.

I became a Laker fan as a little kid, the year Wilt Chamberlain and Jerry West took them the the 68-13 record and the World Championship.

Obviously, there have been many thrilling seasons, but rarely has a season been as satisfying as this one.

When the Lakers traded Shaq to the Heat for Lamar Odom, I was so behind it. Shaq was fat and getting fatter, and he wanted his wallet to do the same. The Heat gave him the four year, $140 million contract he was looking for, and they will pay for that.

You see what the Bulls did to the Heat today.

That's all on Shaq. He's old. He was no one to build a championship team around, and he refused to play second fiddle to Kobe Bryant, who, before his career is over, may well go down as the greatest basketball player of all time. Yes, ahead of Jordan, Magic, and Wilt.

So, here we are, 2006, after a disastrous season last year, and Phil Jackson has the Kobe-Lamar Lakers playing as I always thought they could. For years, Lamar Odom has been one of the greatest unknown talents in the NBA. A 6-10 forward who plays like a point guard, and yet, he can muscle in the paint, and rebound along with the best of them.

Lamar is like a more buff version of Kevin Garnett. Going by his track record thus far, he is not as good as Kevin Garnett, but let's wait and see on that one, shall we?

Both the Lakers and the Clippers are up 3-1 in their respective series. If they both win, as well they should at this point, then there will be a Lakers-Clippers series, which will probably bring about the Battle for Los Angeles. I can just picture it, riots in the streets, as the gang members who follow the Clippers get a taste of what a bunch of us upper middle-class dudes can do when were really pissed.


Don't be comin' around here with none of your Clipper shit. This is the Lakers house.