CUANAS: 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006

Thursday, August 31, 2006

One More
Cup Of
Coffee

Bob Dylan

Assassination
Fascination

A British TV production company has produced, and Channel Four Network is set to air, a "docudrama" about the assassination of George Bush:

Set around October 2007, President Bush is assassinated as he leaves the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago.

Death of a President, shot in the style of a retrospective documentary, looks at the effect the assassination of Bush has on America in light of its ‘War on Terror’.

The 90 minutes feature explores who could have planned the murder, with a Syrian-born man wrongly put in the frame.

(Pastorius: Of course, because it couldn't be the Muslims, I mean, "youths," I mean "Asians.")

Peter Dale, head of More4, which is due to air the film on October 9, said the drama was a “thought-provoking critique” of contemporary US society.

He said: “It’s an extraordinarily gripping and powerful piece of work, a drama constructed like a documentary that looks back at the assassination of George Bush as the starting point for a very gripping detective story.

“It’s a pointed political examination of what the War on Terror did to the American body politic. I’m sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is. It’s not sensationalist, or simplistic but a very thought-provoking, powerful drama. I hope people will see that the intention behind it is good.”

The film will premier at the Toronto Film Festival in September and was written and directed by Gabriel Range.

Roger Simon comments:

I haven't seen the film, of course, but at first glance this seems a kind of upmarket political porn. I would ask Messrs. Dale and Range (the filmmaker) how they would feel about viewing a "sophisticated" docudrama of themselves being assassinated in 2007? Horrifed, perhaps? Maybe scared out of their knickers that someone would be encouraged to follow the film's example? In the UK, where such things are subject to much more stringent legislation, they might even be advised to sue the filmmakers. Bush has no such luck in this country.

It seems to me this more evidence that the Left has truly lost their minds.

A Targeted
Assassination
In The Holy Land

From Elder of Ziyon:

Extrajudicial Killing of PRC leader

Early this morning, Ra'ed Mohammad El-Nahhal was killed. El-Nahhal was a leader in the "Naser Salah El-Deen Brigades," which is the armed wing of the Popular Resistance Committees.

While he was driving his car at the time, it was not a Zionist helicopter or drone that sent a missile down his throat, but some other PalArab pumped several bullets into his head.

Which means that the unfortunate El-Nahhal will not get a huge funeral with people waving terror flags; Reuters will not be sending any cameramen to photograph his remains; there will be no car swarm; his family will not get thousands of dollars from Iran or Saudi Arabia; no posters of El-Nahhal will be printed up and plastered all over "refugee camps"; he will have no streets or stadiums named after him; no international human rights organizations will scream about "extrajudicial killings" in their self-congratulatory press releases, no one will protest his killers. People who want to Google him will only find mention at the PCHR site and a Zionist blog.

Like this one.

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Islam And
Forced
Conversions

From Robert Spencer:

Islamic law forbids forced conversion, but as Andrew Bostom documented in a FrontPage article yesterday, this is a law that throughout Islamic history has all too often been honored in the breach. Nor is this yet another case of a “twisting” or “hijacking” of Islam; in fact, Islamic law regarding the presentation of Islam to non-Muslims manifests a quite different understanding of what constitutes freedom from coercion and freedom of conscience from that which prevails among non-Muslims.

Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them – the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war…When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them….If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur’an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

There is therefore an inescapable threat in this “invitation” to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? By non-Muslim standards, yes, but not according to the view of this Islamic tradition. From the standpoint of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence such a conversion would have resulted from “no compulsion.”

Forced Conversions
On A
Geo-Political Scale

From Robert Spencer:

Muhammad reinforced these instructions on many occasions during his prophetic career. Late in his career, he wrote to Heraclius, the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople:
Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e., surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e., your nation). (Bukhari, 4.52.191).

Heraclius did not accept Islam, and soon the Byzantines would know well that the warriors of jihad indeed granted no safety to those who rejected their “invitation.”

Muhammad did not get a satisfactory answer either from Chosroes, ruler of the Persians. After reading the letter of the Prophet of Islam, Chosroes contemptuously tore it to pieces. When news of this reached Muhammad, he called upon Allah to tear the Persian emperor and his followers to pieces (Bukhari, 5.59.708). He told the Muslims that they would conquer both empires: “When Khosrau [Chosroes] perishes, there will be no (more) Khosrau after him, and when Caesar perishes, there will be no more Caesar after him. By Him in Whose hands Muhammad’s life is, you will spend the treasures of both of them in Allah’s Cause” (Bukhari 4.53.349).

Muhammad did not limit his veiled threat only to rulers. Another hadith records that on one occasion he emerged from a mosque and told his men, “Let us go to the Jews.” Upon arriving at a nearby Arabian Jewish community, Muhammad told them: “If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle” (Bukhari, 4.53.392). In other words, if you accept Islam, you may keep your land and property, but if not, Muhammad and the Muslims would confiscate it.

Indeed, few in the West know what’s going on regarding the example of Muhammad and the stance of traditional Islam on conversion. The human rights organizations should have the courage to recognize and denounce this conversion-or-else directive, and to recognize the plight of those who even today suffer from its scourge.

Moreover, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad operating according to Muhammad’s instructions, this now has geopolitical implications. In his letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad invited him to accept Islam, and then echoed the Prophet of Islam in delivering a threat to Bush through Mike Wallace: “We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate.”

Ahmadinejad’s threat, as well as the ordeal of Centanni and Wiig, epitomizes the threat that the global jihad represents to the freedom of conscience.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Why We Are Fighting

An essay from Dennis Prager:

Last year at UCLA, I debated a professor who argued that Israel and the Palestinians were moral equivalents. He is not alone (especially on college campuses) in his lack of understanding of the immoral nature of the Islamic enemies of America and Israel.

Thus it is important to remind people once again about the moral world inhabited by the people we are fighting, whom President George W. Bush calls the Islamic Fascists.

Societal examples:

-- The Islamic Republic of Sudan, in its attempt to force Arab/Muslim rule on the largely non-Arab and non-Muslim population of southern Sudan, has led to the killing of well above 1 million Christians and animists and black (i.e., non-Arab) Muslims, in addition to the widespread enslavement, rape and torture of those people.

-- No major international Arab or Muslim organization has condemned the Sudanese government's mass murders that border on genocide.

-- The leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel. As the 6 million Jews of Israel do not plan a mass exodus from their ancient and modern homeland, such annihilation would in fact mean another Holocaust.

-- The holy center of Islam, the Muslim country where the holiest Muslim sites are situated, is Saudi Arabia. That country bans the practice of any religion other than Islam, amputates hands of thieves, does not allow women to drive a car, mandates what women wear outside of their homes and is the only country in the world to feature a weapon on its national flag. Women were treated considerably better and had more civil rights in ancient Rome, not to mention ancient Israel, than women living in the holiest cities of Islam today.

-- Virtually every Islam-based country decrees the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to another religion.

In other words, every country that calls itself "Islamic" is morally inferior to just about every country in North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, almost every Asian country and many African countries.

No Muslim country treats non-Muslims and their religions anywhere nearly as decently as any Western non-Muslim country (including Israel) treats Muslims. That is why tens of millions of Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim societies and virtually no non-Muslim immigrates to any Muslim society. In every Muslim country, non-Muslims are either systematically persecuted at worst or treated as inferiors at best.

Individual examples (in just the last five months):

-- "A German court sentenced a Turkish man to more than nine years in jail yesterday for the 'honour killing' of his sister. . . . The murder of Hatun Surucu, 23, who was shot several times at a bus stop in a Berlin suburb last year, shocked Germany. . . . Forced to marry a cousin in Turkey as a young girl, Ms. Surucu later broke with her Turkish-Kurdish family in Berlin and was living independently with her 5-year-old son, to the intense disapproval of her relatives. . . . Public outrage at the murder was exacerbated when some teenage boys at a school with many pupils from immigrant families . . . reportedly openly applauded the killing, condemning the victim for having lived 'like a German.'" (The Guardian, UK, April 14, 2006)

-- "Men using machetes attacked worshipers in three Coptic [Christian] churches in the port city of Alexandria [Egypt] on Friday morning, killing an 80-year-old man and wounding at least six other people, the police there said." (International Herald Tribune, April 15, 2006)

-- "An Egyptian state-controlled newspaper praised Monday's suicide attack in Tel Aviv, which killed nine people and wounded dozens, calling it an act of sacrifice and martyrdom." (Jerusalem Post, April 18, 2006)

-- In Britain, Abdula Ahmed Ali, 25, and his wife Cossor, 23, were arrested in connection with the plot to blow up airplanes flying across the Atlantic. According to Scotland Yard, the Muslim couple planned to take their 6-month-old baby on the suicide mission, using their baby's bottle to hide a liquid bomb. (Daily Telegraph, UK, Aug. 14, 2006)

-- "We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the [Israelis]." -- words of a Canadian UN observer written days before he was killed by Israeli bombs (Ottawa Citizen, July 27, 2006)

-- "Canadian authorities rounded up a group of 17 Muslim men and boys suspected of plotting to bomb major buildings in the Toronto area . . . " (CNN, June 5, 2006)

-- In Australia, "[Islamist] propaganda has convinced many residents their suburbs are being overrun by Islamic extremists. . . .The Saturday Daily Telegraph revealed an escalation of anti-Semitic behaviour. . . . Jewish university students were targeted and forced to hide their traditional skullcaps beneath baseball caps to avoid abuse, while attacks on synagogues have increased." (Daily Telegraph, Australia, Aug. 26, 2006)

-- "A third suspect detained in a failed attempt to blow up two German trains is a Syrian national . . . German and Lebanese authorities are each holding one of two young Lebanese men accused of carrying the suitcase bombs onto trains in Cologne station on July 31. . . . Officials say they could have caused many casualties and set the trains on fire." (Newsday, Aug. 26, 2006) Does all this suggest that we are fighting a billion Muslims? Of course not.

Does all this suggest that all or even most Muslims are bad people? Of course not.

It does suggest, however, that the dominant forces within Islam are bad at this time; that Muslims who see this evil in their midst have not mobilized any counterforce either out of fear for their lives or for some other reason; and that decent men and women around the world -- Hindu, Christian, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist and Muslim -- are threatened by this powerful, death-loving force.

Muslims who do not acknowledge the threat to civilization from within the Muslim world at least have two excuses -- fear for their lives or group solidarity. What excuses do non-Muslims have who deny this threat?

Monday, August 28, 2006

Dragonfly
And
Lotus Flower

Never Forget What?

Here is an excerpt from an excellent essay by Jason Pappas at Liberty and Culture:

The evil of Nazi Germany is universally condemned for the extreme depravity that it embodies. In our culture, minimization of this evil is reason enough for ostracism. In many European countries, Holocaust denial is a crime punishable by incarceration.

There is no longer a threat of Nazism in Europe thanks to the annihilation of Germany by the Allied forces. Neo-Nazis are a fringe group quickly damned by the vast majority of decent people. Neo-Nazis are so rare in America that they are a freak show, trotted out for periodic display by television magazine shows.

It’s safe to damn Nazism. Elliot Spitzer, who is running for governor of New York, mentions in a TV ad how he is fighting Neo-Nazism here in New York. He has it under control. Mel Gibson, while drunk, says some stupid things and there is an immediate outcry. We nipped that one in the bud.

Günter Grass finally admitted he was in the Waffen-SS and without any hesitation we have Ferguson, Hitchens, and others on the case. Quite frankly, he’s not the person who worries me today.

Nevertheless I do understand: we should never forget. ... (But) have we learned anything?

As we vociferously condemn Mel Gibson and the pre-teen Neo-Nazi twins, a leader of a major Islamic nation denies the Holocaust and announces his desire to annihilate the Jewish state. While the damnation of German Nazis and neo-Nazis is emphatic and swift, damnation of Islamic Nazis is tentative, hesitant, and laced with doubt. We see little focus by the mainstream media on this Islamic Nazi. No, I take that back. We find an ill-prepared Mike Wallace unable to ask the tough questions when he interviewed the thug-in-chief. This is not the way he’d interview Mel Gibson.

As Joel C. Rosenberg, says in the above article: “Iran is the new Germany. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new Adolf Hitler. Radical Shiite Islamic jihadists are the new Nazi storm troopers. The pursuit of the Twelfth Imam is the pursuit of the new Third Reich. CBS News had both the opportunity and responsibility to help the world truly understand this regime and the danger it poses. It failed miserably, and we are all poorer for it.”

Go read the rest.

CAIR Trots
Out
Their
Anti-Semitism
On CSpan

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is known to many as a radical Islamic front group. From what I know, the characterization seems fair. The website anti-CAIR was sued by CAIR for calling tagging them with such monikers, but when the case went to court, it got settled, and anti-CAIR still exists, and they still say the same things about CAIR.

That pretty much tells you what you need to know, huh?

Anyway, check this out:

Nihad Awad, Executive Director of the Council on American Islamic Relations, appeared on C-SPAN today hosting Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. In his speech, Awad highly recommended a book by antisemitic ex-Congressman Paul Findley, praising Findley as “a pioneer in promoting America’s interests in the Middle East.”

The book that Nihad Awad described as “an eye-opener,” They Dare to Speak Out, is oddly not for sale at Amazon. (Correction: it is at Amazon.)

So, being the curious type, I searched Google—and discovered that Findley’s book is highly regarded not just by CAIR.

The Google search reveals a squirming nest of neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, radical Marxist/leftists, and radical Islamists: ‘paul findley’ ‘they dare to speak out’.

They’re all here: Stormfront, Counterpunch, Whatreallyhappened.com, Ernst Zundel, Vanguard News Network, Soundvision, and MPACUK, just to name a few. They all seem to think Findley’s book is a work of genius.

Just like CAIR’s Nihad Awad.

Go here to see video of CAIR's CSpan presentation.

We Have
A Choice
On
How To
Face Death

I was discussing the "conversion" of the Fox News Journalists with a friend who is an ex-Muslim convert to Christianity, living in Dar al-Islam. We are both happy that the journalists are alive and well. We hope that they will soon be home with friends and family, and we hope they will never again have to undergo such an ordeal.

However, both my friend and I are in agreement that we hope that were we ever to be asked to make such a "conversion", that we would answer in the negative.

My friend's way of putting it was rather rhapsodic. And, I asked him if I could share it here. He answered in the affirmative, so here it is:

I think everyone is in either spiritual or physical (or both) danger (from the threat of Islam). The way I see it is, our strength is in our action backed by prayer, while their (Muslim) strength is in their action backed by the sword.

I believe that the sword will go blunt and the screams will fade but the power of prayer will remain mighty forever.

What I see around me is very depressing, but the prayer keeps me going. I hope I come out of this alive but if I don't I pray to have the strength to say,

"I will not convert, because I believe that Christ is my savior, the Son of the Living God, the One who gave the law to Moses, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

One thing's very interesting though, no matter how depressed I am throughout the day, at the end, I am always filled with hope. Tomorrow is always a hope-filled new day. That keeps me going. Hope, strength and happiness is what I pray for so that if, ever, my enemies see me, they see me as a person who found peace in Christ and hopefully acknowledge that fact.

Lost
Music by Brian Eno

This is a beautiful video.

It's
In The
Koran

Most know the story of the two Fox News reporters who were kidnapped by Palestinians the other day in Gaza. Prior to releasing them the Palestinians forced them to convert to Islam at gunpoint. The two reporters were videotaped announcing their new-found "faith." These conversions have been played on news reports across the world.

Brit Hume had this to say on the subject last night:

Hume: Yes, and what an appealing faith these thugs must believe Islam is, that conversions have to be effected at the point of a gun. And what of the argument that all of the ills and troubles that beset the Palestinian people, that lead them to terrorism, are the cause of what they endlessly refer to as the illegal Israeli occupation.

Consider the latest rounds of trouble in Gaza and Lebanon, two places from which Israel has withdrawn.

It has been noted that not for one day after the Israeli pullout from Gaza did the rocket attacks that came from Gaza ever stop.

We’re not dealing here with something that is susceptible to a political resolution of the kind of which the State Department and many a president has dreamed.

We’re dealing here with a lawless enemy whose goal far transcends any side-by-side, two-state solution. That isn’t going to do it. We’re dealing with a terrorist, gangland-style enemy, which I think it’s fair to conclude, and this episode only further illustrates it, must be defeated.

Islam is a unique religion in that it believes it can kidnap converts. It also believes it can buy converts. I have met people from Ethiopia who have told me that they saw this happening in their home country.

I think this incident with the journalists may wake some people up. The incredible infantilism of thinking that you can beat a person into converting has got to be instructive of the very real sickness we are up against.

Reliapundit talks about the fact that conversion by threat of force violates a verse in the Koran:

... the koran forbids coerced conversions - at least in one quote:

Islam expressly forbids forced or coerced conversion, as demonstrated by this quote from the Quran: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Surah 2: 256).

So, if Muslims hold the koran sacred, then why aren't any Muslims anywhere protesting this sacreligious act or even speaking out against it, and demanding the perps get punished?

But, the truth is, there are other verses in the Koran which call for Muslims to wage Jihad against the Infidel in order to ensure that the entire world become Dar al-Islam. These verses tells us that the Infidel who is conquered by Jihad has three choices, conversion, dhimmitude, or death.

These verses were written later in Mohammed's life, which means they abrogate the earlier verse which speaks against compulsion.

Truth is, many Muslims live by the no compulsion creed, but, if they were to choose to protest they are easily be shut up Imams and holy men who simply point out the later verses.

That's why you won't hear of any large organized Muslim protest against these "conversions," just as you also won't find any large organized Muslim protest against any Jihadi activity.

Muslims can't protest against this behavior, because it's stipulated in the Koran.

Sunday, August 27, 2006

America Is Waiting

Brian Eno and David Byrne

Koyaanisqatsi
(Life Out Of Balance)

Prophecies Section

Saturday, August 26, 2006

A
Grim
Milestone

You may not remember it, but I do. As the total number of troops killed in Iraq approached 2,000, our mainstream media here in the United States went into full-court press, intoning the phrase "a grim milestone" over and over and over ad nauseum ad absurdum.

Well, check out these numbers, and light a candle, or whatever it is you like to light:

Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces.

Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.

How does this rate compare with that in other groups? One meaningful comparison is to the civilian population of the United States. That rate was 8.42 per 1,000 in 2003, more than twice that for military personnel in Iraq.

The comparison is imperfect, of course, because a much higher fraction of the American population is elderly and subject to higher death rates from degenerative diseases. The death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39 in 2003 was 1.53 per 1,000 -- 39 percent of that of troops in Iraq.

But one can also find something equivalent to combat conditions on home soil. The death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia was 4.37 per 1,000 in 2002, 11 percent higher than among troops in Iraq. Slightly more than half the Philadelphia deaths were homicides.

Terrye, one of my favorite bloggers, comments:

Read it all and remember the faked photos, the forgotten Iraqi voters and the polls that show Iraqis really do have faith in the future of their country, the overblown AbuGhraib scandal and all the rest and ask yourself, Why would any decent person really want this to fail?

I say:

It seems to me that rather than viewing the sacrifices our troops have made as representing a grim milestone, we ought to begin viewing the "Peace and Justice" crowd as a grim millstone around our necks.

Pacifists kill. The age of the Death Hippie must come to an end.

Pakistani
Reforms
Of
Medieval
Rape Laws
Meet With
Backlash

President Musharraf attempts to drag his country kicking and screaming into the modern world, but they will have none of it:

President Pervez Musharraf has opened a new and especially bitter confrontation with radical Islam by trying to rewrite Pakistan's controversial rape laws.

These place an almost impossible burden of proof on women by compelling them to produce four "pious" male witnesses to prove rape or risk being convicted of adultery and face 100 lashes or death by stoning.

This law, known as the Hudood Ordinance, has been regarded as untouchable since its passage 27 years ago.

This news story was originally from the London Telegraph. For some reason they did not point out that this "Hudood Ordinance" is stipulated by the Koran. It is part of Sharia Law.

Robert Spencer comments:

After Muhammad's favorite wife, Aisha, is accused of adultery, he exonerates her with a revelation from Allah requiring four witnesses to establish a sexual offense: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah" (Qur’an 24:11). The adoption of this law was part of the long, slow abandonment of secular law by Pakistan.

It also sets no minimum age for sex with girls, saying only that they should have reached puberty.

This too is based on Muhammad's example. According to a hadith attributed to Aisha herself as the source, "the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years" (Bukhari, 7.62.64).

A powerful militant Muslim lobby regards this code as sacred and based on Koranic texts and sharia law. No previous Pakistani leader, not even the country's first female leader, Benazir Bhutto, dared reform it.

But Gen Musharraf's allies in parliament sparked the fury of the militant opposition by introducing a Women Protection Bill. This would remove the requirement for four male witnesses to prove rape and set 16 as the age of consent for sex with girls.

When this measure came before parliament, Islamic radicals responded by tearing up copies of the bill and storming out. "This bill is against the Holy Koran," said Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the leader of the militant opposition. "We reject it and will try to block it in any possible manner." Other MPs chanted "death to Musharraf" and "Allah is great."

Liaqat Baluch, the deputy leader of an alliance of six Islamic parties, pledged to mount a public campaign to show that "under the garb of this bill and women's rights, the government is deviating from the Koran".

United Nations
Interim
Force
In Lebanon
Broadcasts
Israeli Troop
Movements

Yes, that's right, the United Nations was caught broadcasting Israeli troop movements so that Hizbollah could have up-to-date realtime intelligence during the course of the war. You know, they are supposed to be neutral:

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. “peacekeeping” forces made a startling contribution: They openly published daily real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL—the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978—is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah “fired rockets in large numbers from various locations” and Hezbollah’s rockets “were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations” are as precise as its coverage of the other side ever got.

See for yourself; here are the documents to which this article refers: UNIFIL: United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon - Press releases. As reported several times on LGF, these daily press releases also contain numerous examples of Hizballah’s use of UN facilities as firing stations—none of which ever made it to the mainstream media.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Bush:
Fiddling
With Himself
While
Ahmadinejad Burns

The Bush Administration-brokered "peace treaty" which supposedly settled the Israel/Hisbollah war will loom huge in GWB's legacy. Bush may go on to be considered among the worst Presidents in American history.

Here's why. From Atlas Shrugs:

Critics tick off a list of missteps they claim the administration made after fighting broke out July 12 between Israel and the heavily armed Islamic militia group. Most damaging, they assert, may be how the Bush administration portrayed the war early on as a means to bring long-lasting improvements to Lebanon by dismantling Hezbollah, and then brokered a deal that may end up neither weakening the group nor greatly bolstering either Israel's security or Lebanon's wobbly government.

"It's pretty clear that things are going to pan out badly," says Danielle Pletka, a Middle East expert at the conservative American Enterprise Institute and increasingly vocal administration critic. "Whenever you try to solve something that needs major surgery with a Band-Aid you run a real risk of disaster."

Conservative critics fret a similar scenario will play out with Iran: that after repeatedly warning Tehran to stop uranium enrichment, the U.S. will manage in coming weeks to win only meager sanctions within the U.N. Security Council. As evidence they point to the administration's muted response after Iran this week said formally it wasn't going to suspend uranium enrichment -- a key requirement of a recent U.N. resolution.

"This is an administration that frequently says things are unacceptable and then goes on to accept them," says Richard Perle, a prominent neoconservative and Pentagon adviser.

The Bush Administrations handling of the Israel/Hizbollah war has left observers with the impression that the Bush Administration is conducting the War agains the Islamic Jihad with no discernible strategy. This certainly gives cause for legitimate worry as to how they will handle Iran.

A nuclear Iran. That's a legacy far worse than what Clinton's critics can pin on him. He didn't assassinate Bin Laden? Well, you know, Ronald Reagan is the President who signed into law the United States "Ban on Assassinations."

Clinton was only following orders. (Yes, that is written with intended irony.)

Meanwhile, Bush is sitting back and watching, as an apocalypse-obsessed madman ejaculates his first nuclear weapon.

Chavez:
Israel
"Worse
Than
Hitler"

Gee, do you think, perhaps, Huge Chavez is just a bit irrational:

BEIJING (AFP) - Visiting Venezuela President Hugo Chavez has denounced Israel's recent attacks on Lebanon as "genocide," likening its action to war crimes committed by Germany's Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

"Israel often criticizes Hitler ... but they have done the same thing, perhaps even worse," Chavez told reporters Friday in a briefing during his six-day visit to China.

Ahmadinejad
"Would Sacrifice
Half Of Iran"
To
Eliminate Israel

From the Jerusalem Post:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, if he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

At present, Eiland stressed, the ultimate decision maker in Iran was Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 67, whom he said was "more reasonable." But, Eiland went on, "if Ahmadinejad were to succeed him - and he has a reasonable chance of doing so - then we'd be in a highly dangerous situation."

The 49-year-old Iranian president, he said, "has a religious conviction that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear capability, that's a real threat."

In facing up to Iran's nuclear ambitions, Eiland said the United States had three possible courses of action, "all of them bad," and that a decision could not be postponed for too long, "since delay, too, is a decision of sorts."

The first option was "to give up" - to accept that Iran was going nuclear and try to make the best of it. By "making the best of it," Eiland said, he meant "isolating Iran economically, politically and internationally in the hope that this will eventually prompt an internal push for regime change."

This might also give other nations the sense that the political price of going nuclear was too high for them to contemplate, and might thus deter nations such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Algeria and others from seeking to emulate Iran and spelling the full collapse of the nuclear nonproliferation era.

Washington's second option was to launch a last-ditch effort at diplomatic action, he said. At this stage, a mixture of sanctions and bonuses would not be sufficient to deter Iran altogether, but it might seek to persuade Teheran to suspend progress for two or three years.

"In return, the US would have to open direct engagement with Teheran, with full recognition of the regime. This would boost the regime's credibility and standing at home and allow it to say it was voluntarily suspending the program for a while," he said.

The advantage for the Bush administration was that "Bush could then say, 'They didn't go nuclear on my watch, and it's up to my successors to keep things that way.'"

The third option, said Eiland, was a military operation - born of the sense that the diplomatic process would not work and that there could be no compromise with an axis-of-evil power. However, internal political realities and public opinion in the US were not conducive to this, he said, nor was international support readily available. Furthermore, said Eiland, "this would be action that would have to be taken within months.

If not, and if Iran continues enrichment, it will complete the research and development stage and have a proven ability which it can then duplicate at numerous sites. And at that point it could not be stopped by military action. Six months or 12 months from now would be too late, he said.

Tellingly, Eiland noted, it seemed to him that the difficulties facing the administration over that third course were growing.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

That Hitler
He Sure
Is Popular
In The
Islamic World

From Little Green Footballs, Here’s an update on that Hitler-themed Indian restaurant, as the manager of the place complains that nobody’s objecting to all those other Hitler-themed businesses.

Those who run the 1,000 sq ft restaurant have removed a poster of Hitler and the swastika pasted in the restaurant following the outrage from the Jews. But they are refusing to bend further and change its name.

“I have no sympathy for Adolf Hitler. The name was just chosen because it seemed so radically different from any other restaurant name. I don’t understand why no one has raised objections to at least a dozen such brand names,” 26-year-old managing director Punit Sabhlok said.

Furiously rattling off the names of kid’s fashion labels, liquor brands and tobacco products bearing Hitler’s name, Sabhlok said similar standards would have to be applied to everybody.

“I don’t wish to change the name of my restaurant, but if they insist, I would want them to change the names of all these other brands as well. Why only me?”

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

The
Religion
Of Peace

Nigerian victim of Sharia Law

Hat tip: Eyes All Around

"So you think the Ku Klux Klan and the Spanish Inquisition are bad?

So do we, but...

Put the Numbers in Perspective:

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined.

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years.

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland.

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals put to death in the last 65 years."

Children
Telling
Ghost Stories
Around
The Campfire

Remember when you were a kid and you'd sit around a campfire with a group of people and tell stories, and someone would inevitably relate a story about the time a friend of a friend saw a light turn off and on by itself, or maybe a room suddenly became freezing cold. Yes, then another kid would chime in and tell of how after his grandma died, everyone could hear her walking through the house at night and bumping into things.

Before you knew it, it seemed everyone had a ghost story to tell, and before you knew it, you absolutely believed them all. There was something about sitting around a campfire with the outer darness ringing you, and the repetition of the stories. You just knew that any second a ghost was going to leap into your midst.

Watch now and see the same dynamic at play in the Islamic community of Germany. Substitute anger at Western Civilization for the campfire, and subsitute Islam for the ring of darness:

This just in: The Lebanese men suspected of having deposited bombs on German trains last month were hired hands — in the employ of the German government itself.

That, at least, is what one 27-year-old from Saudi Arabia believes. “It’s all a Protestant crusade,” the man explains. “All of northern Germany is Protestant, isn’t it? And so is President Bush.” Then the man launches into a melange of confusing arguments and historical facts. The bubonic plague, Martin Luther and former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl all make a cameo. It’s all connected somehow, the man is sure of it.

The young Saudi Arabian’s views may make little sense from a Western point of view, but you can meet him and talk to him at a street corner in the middle of Hamburg, right by the central station. Foreigners from all over the world live in this neighborhood, called St. Georg, and a large number of them are Muslim. Several mosques have been built in the neighborhood. Many nearby stores carry no alcohol — but they do have electronic memory aides for Koran students on offer.

And then there are the conspiracy theories. They are everywhere — dozens of them — including some to explain away Germany’s recent terror scare. The others — some mutually contradictory — have pat explanations for what’s really going on in the world.

The Saudi Arabian’s crusade theory is being hotly debated on Steindamm, one of the main streets in the neighborhood. “It’s not about religion, it’s about money,” says an Algerian wearing a Lacoste shirt. A man from Tunisia immediately agrees and asks, “Why else have German soldiers been sent to Congo?”

In their struggle for money and oil, Western states will use whatever means they can, according to the theory. That the USA knew about the September 11, 2001 attacks before they happened but chose not to prevent them is a widespread view. “We think the United States needed those attacks so they could start the Iraq war,” explains Mahran Abdulwahab, a Lebanese graphic designer with a Hamburg accent.

Asked what they think of the suspects arrested for the foiled train attacks, many respond with remarks like: “They’re crazy.” Few have more to say. Abdulwahab also thinks such attacks are sheer madness. “It only harms people like us who live here,” he says.

But even he — whose views are quite moderate and who even had a Jewish girlfriend once — can’t help claiming you’ll never get the whole truth from the Western media because “their reporting is just too pro-Jewish.” Many such anti-Semitic remarks — and worse — can be heard around Hamburg’s central station.

Or on television. Just a few days ago, a 17-year-old Kurd from Bonn espoused the following theory on SPIEGEL TV: “What happened first,” he said, talking about the recent conflict in Lebanon, “was that the Jews raped a child, or something like that.” Later he claimed to have learned from a credible source that Jews once systematically shot six-year-olds in a kindergarten. “They let the teacher live so she would become mentally ill,” the young man said.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

The Garden Of Gethsemane

From Jesus Christ Superstar

This Woman
Is A
Metaphor
For Europe
As A Whole

I don't even know how to introduce this:

Jenni Murray, the presenter of BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, has made plans to end her life if she becomes a burden to her family.

She said: "When my time comes I want to be able to decide about my destiny."

The last thing she wanted, she said, was for her children to suffer from her being desperately ill.

She is sealing a pact with two friends that they will assist each other to die if any of them is diagnosed with a debilitating and incurable illness. Methods they might use include injections or smothering with a pillow.

This is despite a law outlawing assisted suicide, which Murray says is sustained by a religious minority.

She speaks of the pact tomorrow night on a Channel 5 documentary, Don't Get Me Started!, that produces statistics to back the theory that many people in the country share her views on euthanasia.

Her appearance is part of a "personal rant" series in which noted people are given the chance to sound off about a subject they feel strongly about.

Publicity material for the show says that Murray "does not want to look after her sick and aging mother, and plans to end her own life when she becomes a burden to those around her".

The network said: "Jenni is angry that, having fought so hard to become liberated and independent, women are now being trapped into caring for dependent parents."

That is painful to read. I guess this woman expects that the natural course of life is that government should take over the care and feeding of her "dependent parent."

I am so disheartened after reading this that all I can think to say is life is not about what we want, instead it is about what we give. It is not about figuring out how to shuffle our burdens off on someone else, it is about how we gracefully bear those burdens.

But, this woman has no feeling for such a life. Her "dependent parents" seem to be commodities with a shelf life. When their expiration date is up, it's time to send them off to the recycling center, I guess.

Jeez, forgive me. I don't know what to say.

Islam Is A Religion Of Peace

Monday, August 21, 2006

Chicken Grease

D'Angelo

The Muslim World Is Reasonable -
It's The West That's Nuts

Get it straight, we're the insane ones. The Guardian says so:

Israel’s persistent attempts to secure its place in this region by military force have always generated a greater Arab will to fight it, now also supported by Iran. Local attempts to secure its borders - occupations, surrogate armies, cross-border attacks, separation walls, massive punishment and humiliation of civilian populations - have not worked for Israel, and only generate more determined and capable resistance, as with Hizbullah.

Israel will also fail in its desire to subcontract its security to foreign or regional states, as it is attempting to do through the international force in south Lebanon, or by having Turkey prevent arms shipments to Hizbullah from Iran.

Every tough issue in this region - Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, terrorism, radicalism, armed resistance groups - is somehow linked to the consequences of the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The politicians and government leaders who dominate this region, or engage it from western capitals, all look like rank amateurs or intemperate brutes as they flail at symptoms instead of grappling with the core issue that has seen this region spin off into ever greater circles of violence since the 1970s. A comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement is achievable from the Arab side, to judge by the repeated offering of the 2002 Arab summit peace proposal.

Israel and the US must quickly decide if they too can become sensible and work for a comprehensive peace as the most effective way to reduce and then reverse the cycles of resentment, radicalism and resistance that now define much of the Arab-Islamic Middle East.

And, just to show you how reasonable, not to mention, how cultured, the Muslim world is let's celebrate the opening of a new restaurant in Mumbai. It's called Adolph's:

MUMBAI (Reuters) - A new restaurant in India’s financial hub, named after Adolf Hitler and promoted with posters showing the German leader and Nazi swastikas, has infuriated the country’s small Jewish community. ‘Hitler’s Cross’, which opened last week, serves up a wide range of continental fare and a big helping of controversy, thanks to a name the owners say they chose to stand out among hundreds of Mumbai eateries.

“We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people’s minds,” owner Punit Shablok told Reuters.

“We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different.” But India’s remaining Jews — most migrated to Israel and the West over the years — say they are outraged by the gimmick.

“This signifies a severe lack of awareness of the agony of millions of Jews caused by one man,” said Jonathan Solomon, chairman of the Indian Jewish Federation, the community’s umbrella organization. “We are going to stop this deification of Hitler,” he said without elaborating.

The small restaurant, its interior done out in the Nazi colors of red, white and black, also has a lounge for smoking the exotic Indian water pipe or “hookah.” Posters line the road leading up to it, featuring a red swastika carved in the name of the eatery.

One slogan reads: “From Small Bites to Mega Joys.” A huge portrait of a stern-looking Fuehrer greets visitors at the door. The cross in the restaurant’s name refers to the swastika that symbolized the Nazi regime.

“This place is not about wars or crimes, but where people come to relax and enjoy a meal,” said restaurant manager Fatima Kabani, adding that they were planning to turn the eatery’s name into a brand with more branches in Mumbai.

Fine,
Don't Watch
The Wire
But That
Would Be
A Big
Mistake

A reader wrote in and informed me of a TV show called The Wire, which she says deals with issues relavent to the war. As I don't watch TV, I had been completely unaware of this show.

Here is a review from the San Francisco Chronicle:

HBO. During its first two seasons, "The Wire" has been HBO's best series. That's saying something because HBO is the home of a good chunk of any credible critic's top 10 list and is, in case you need to be reminded, home of "The Sopranos."

You might have heard a positive word or two about that show.

Given that "The Sopranos" just completed its best season -- equal to or slightly better than its fabulous freshman run -- it will take a Herculean, perhaps even impossible, string of episodes for "The Wire" to remain the best show on television.

The truly difficult part, however, will be getting any new viewers to watch. "The Wire" has loyalists for the same reason important books have readers. But almost everyone else -- Emmy dunces included -- hasn't tuned in. This is a series that goes beyond critical darling. "The Wire" is better than its own hype. If you don't watch the show, it's your fault, your loss.

And yet, two things are frustratingly confounding about Sunday's third season premiere. First, the producers give new viewers no easy entry. This is a dense, intricately nuanced series you can't just bum-rush into at random and expect to get it, or better yet, get hooked. The season opener makes viewers work harder than they are accustomed to or probably have a desire to.

It's one thing to be principled and believe the work stands on its own, is worthy of effort on behalf of viewers and pays off immeasurably by season's end. It's entirely different to be audaciously -- and perhaps ill-advisedly -- disdainful of the most basic rule of television: Give people a reason to watch. Here's hoping HBO slaps a 17-minute "previously on" montage to the beginning of Sunday's episode, however unlikely.

Secondly, and this one is truly hard to figure, HBO has scheduled the series opener opposite the Emmys.

Welcome, all ye faithful. All others, see you in TV hell.

So the onus is on you. Either you wait until the DVD box comes out (the first season just hit stores) or you suck it up and make the effort. The HBO Web site for "The Wire" is loaded with information. There's a cast list that separates "The Law" from "The Street" and an episode guide that will bring you up to speed in no time. There's also a new hardcover book out -- a thorough companion guide.

Is all that work worth it? Depends. It's only the best show on TV so far. If you're content with "ER," then so be it. But if you like superior acting, writing and directing and want feature film quality every week, you know where to be on Sunday.

"The Wire" is television's most novelistic experience. It spins a tale slowly, it understands (like "The Sopranos") understatement. The writing is and has always been stunning, not just because it finely separates the shades of even the most minor character, but because it takes on the burden of multidimensional storytelling with almost no shortcuts. There are big stories in "The Wire," and they are told complexly, but thoroughly, with the understanding that you are a thinking person who will stand in there and absorb the dialogue, the motivation, the deeper meanings.

In short, it's the most demanding show on television. That's not what broadcast networks dabble in, so thank you, HBO, for making the effort. Whether holding steadfast to that artistic vision will get "The Wire" a fourth season is a matter of profound speculation, but look no further than putting it on against the Emmys for your first bad sign.

That said, having seen the first four episodes and survived the somewhat murky jumble of the opening hour, this much is obvious: "The Wire" is doing it again.

The dramatic performances are off the charts, the humor is lethal and that bleak view of humanity -- that downward spiral of life being ground down one day at a time -- yep, still intact.
Look, this series thinks big. According to HBO, Season 3 will "examine the concept and nature of reform and the role of the political leadership in addressing a city's problems."

Translation: It will attempt, over 13 episodes, to show how politics and bureaucracy kill hope and redemption every day. You're not likely to get that on "Crossing Jordan."

"Earlier themes include the death of the American working class, depicted in Season 2, and the inherent conflict between individuals and the modern institutions to which they are beholden, as seen in the protracted drug investigation that began in Season 1 and continues into the coming season."

You are not in Kansas, nor "CSI: Miami," anymore.

"The Wire" just added novelists Richard Price ("Clockers") and Dennis Lehane ("Mystic River") to the writing staff. That's an are-you-kidding-me? moment if there ever was one.

They say "good po-lice" on this series a lot because it means fighting the good fight against drugs and murder every day. Baltimore: It's a tough town. But the dealers and users and the desperately poor get their story told on "The Wire" better than anywhere else. This season, though it will probably eat your stomach lining like some kind of uber-aspirin. Soul-killing politics and the art of red tape are also back. Those Big Ideas that started in the mind of series creator David Simon -- television's finest writer -- continue to fester.

This is a guy who took the artistic achievement that was the first season and turned it on its head in the second season by reducing the street cops versus street criminals element of the war on drugs to "B" story status. By relocating the series to the faltering Baltimore docks to make a statement about the lost dreams of the working class, Simon essentially created an entirely different series based in the same city. You don't see Dick Wolf ("Law & Order") endangering the formula like that.

In Season 3, the focus returns to drugs, cops and killings. But even with a broad swipe at provincial politics and the failure of reform, it's the little ideas that come back like favorites: failed relationships and alcoholism, greed and cronyism, corruption and the absence of heroism, boredom and bluntness, sex, guns and insatiable trouble.

There's not a lot of sunshine in "The Wire." But sunshine is for the networks and the Nielsens.
Years from now, when collecting the complete seasons and studying the dark, TV-as-literature motivations of "The Wire" is all the rage, you can say you sat through the original episodes. You believed that great television was worth the effort.

It does sound good, doesn't it? Too bad I'm gonna miss the whole friggin' thing. Guess I'll go down to Blockbuster and see if I can previous seasons episodes.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

The Pot

Video by Tool

Peaceful
Europe
Backs Out Of
Peace
Treaty

Every nation that worked on the Peace Treaty is now backing out. Doesn't that sound Biblical? If not, you'd better start reading your Bible a little more critically. It isn't just a book of feel-good messages, you know. There's some stuff in there about Israel, and the Jews, and the people who try to kill them.

This all sounds so familiar:

None of the European countries who were so loudly calling for a cease-fire in Lebanon are willing to commit troops. They’re afraid of being sitting ducks, human shields for Hizballah. And they should be: Europeans Delay Decision on Role Inside Lebanon. (Hat tip: Ron.)

PARIS, Aug. 20 — The shaky, United Nations-brokered cease-fire in Lebanon suffered another blow on Sunday when the European countries that had been called upon to provide the backbone of a peacekeeping force delayed a decision on committing troops until the mission is more clearly defined.

Their reservations postponed any action on the force at least until Wednesday, when the European Union will take up the issue.

Haunted by their experiences in Bosnia in the 1990’s, when their forces were unable to stop widespread ethnic killing, European governments are insisting upon clarifying the chain of command and rules of engagement before plunging into the even greater complexities of the Middle East.

“In the past, when peacekeeping missions were not properly defined, we’ve seen major failures,’’ a spokeswoman for the French Foreign Ministry, Agnès Romatet-Espagne, said Sunday. “There are the bad memories of Bosnia. This time we want the answers beforehand, so we don’t come to the problems when they have happened.’’

In addition, a senior French official said, “Italy, Spain and Finland have raised the same questions as France has.” Following the usual diplomatic practice, the official asked not to be identified. A spokesman for the Spanish Foreign Ministry said Spain was willing to send troops, “but the rules have to be clarified and agreed on.”

Some countries, like Australia, which has placed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, have flatly refused to commit troops. “We have no intention of making any significant contribution,” said a senior Australian government official, who was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. “We don’t have any confidence in it. It is not going to have the mandate to disarm Hezbollah.”

1Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, 2for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.

4But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. 5You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness. 6So then, let us not be like others, who are asleep, but let us be alert and self-controlled.

--- I Thessalonians 5:1-6

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Oh Yeah

Song by Roxy Music

Some expression in your eyes
Overtook me by surprise
Where was I
How was I to know?

How we can drive to a movie show
When the music is here in my car?

There's a band playing on the radio
With a rhythm of rhyming guitars
They're playing - "Oh yeah" - on the radio

And so it came to be our song
And so on through all summer long
Day and night
Drifting into love

Driving you home from a movie show
So in tune to the sounds in my car

There's a band playing on the radio
With a rhythm of rhyming guitars
They're playing - "Oh yeah" - on the radio

It's some time since we said goodbye
And now we lead our seperate lives
But where am I
Where can I go?

Driving alone to a movie show
So I turn to the sounds in my car

There's a band playing on the radio
With a rhythm of rhyming guitars
There's a band playing on the radio
And it's drowning the sound of my tears
They're playing - "Oh yeah" - on the radio

French Pressure
Israel
On Peace Treaty
Then Back Out
On Commitment
To Provide
Peacekeeping Troops

The French have beat their own record. This time they have surrendered before they even fielded a force. From the French-American writer Nidra Poller, at Atlas Shrugs:

What is the role of French diplomacy in the Lebanese conflict? President Chirac packaged it as a “humanitarian crisis”…only two days after the outbreak of hostilities. MFA Douste-Blazy inadvertently admitted that France has been calling for a cease fire…since the very beginning.

Is France a secret ally of Hizbullah? Or simply a well-behaved dhimmi state? A dhimmi does not need to be told how to react to this or that incident, he just has to grasp the underlying concept of jihad conquest: jihadis can attack infidels, infidels do not have the right to strike back.

If the conquering jihadis are in a position of supreme power, they decimate the conquered population and erect their version of the monument to the war dead-- a mountain of severed heads. But when the jihadis are fighting an uphill battle, as is the case in Lebanon today, their main line of defense is civilian suffering. The plight of the refugees, the dead and the injured, widows and orphans, the destruction of Lebanon--a coherent strategy designed to engage the international community in a concerted effort to force Israel to stop fighting and submit to Hizbullah’s demands.

Don’t apologize. Don’t apologize to European countries all dolled up with plaques and memorials to the Shoah and now mobilized to facilitate another extermination project. Don’t fall into European traps. Here in Europe local jihadis attack, then fall back and complain that Muslims are being persecuted. Don’t bow your head when Europeans shake their fingers. At the height of the conflict, and smack between two Ahmadinejad Jew-killing declarations, the French foreign minister shamelessly caressed Iran’s rump with one hand and fondled domestic Jew-hating immigrants with the other.

Don’t apologize because there is no one on earth to apologize to. You can’t apologize to people who are sitting on the sidelines enjoying life while Israeli civilians suffocate in bunkers and Israeli soldiers courageously face death, fighting Hizbullah that is fighting for Iran that is fighting to destroy us all, Israelis, Americans, Europeans, Japanese, Indians…

Don’t apologize. Stand up to them the way you stand up to katyushas, and fight back against this lethal narrative jihad with equal valor and intelligence. No ordinary PR efforts can counter it. New methods are necessary, far more severe, far less defensive.

Your critics do not care what you are fighting for or how nobly you are fighting; they run for cover, side with the villains, hide behind the killers. They have to declare Israel guilty because they are terrified at confronting the real force that is bearing down on them.

You can’t reassure them by saying how good you are, how careful not to make tragic mistakes. Apologies feed their anguish, and their anguish is turned against us, against Jews. How dare we be so humane when subject to such vile aggression?

The injustice is beyond belief: the small nation of Israel has to fight against Iran, and as if that’s not enough, gets stabbed in the back while engaged in fierce battle

The Humiliation

This really hurts. And, in a way, I guess I'd rather not mention it. But, sometimes an embarrassing situation is best brought out into the open, so I will let you in on it.

It appears my idol may be making fun of me.

Friday, August 18, 2006

The Practical
Uses Of
Anti-Semitism

TruePeers, of the blog YARGB, has written a visionary essay on the pragmatic uses of anti-Semitism:

We all have spent too much time talking about the widespread anti-Semitism in the Muslim world and discovering, to our surprise, that many in the West actually share this feeling, while many more couldn’t really care less. This is a mistaken approach.

Instead of trying to understand “why they hate us” and why they (and many others) hate the Jews (something I hope we’ll be discussing for several generations), what we have to understand right now is: what is anti-Semitism good for? What are the uses of anti-Semitism?

Whether those who manipulate anti-Semitism are themselves anti-Semites (or anti-Zionists or whatever), whether they personally share the hatred, all that is irrelevant right now. The historical roots of the hatred, its psychology and so on are not questions we have the time to analyse, dissect, discuss endlessly nowadays. (And we’re still debating the Holocaust, how and why it happened etc., 62 years after the end of WW2, without having reached anything resembling consensual answers.)

We are spending precious time getting surprised or scared, wondering about the hatred itself, its depth and extension. That’s important, but not what’s most important right now. What we need to understand is that this hatred is being once again used cynically to obtain certain results.

Besides being anti-Semitic themselves, the Nazis used anti-Semitism brilliantly to subvert other countries and societies. Though Nazism was (among other things) a form of German expansionism, wherever there were anti-Semites the Germans would also find collaborators. Anti-Semitism was used by the Germans to undermine from the inside countries, societies and armies that could or would stand up to them.

The Nazis managed to convince millions and millions of Frenchmen and Poles, Belgians, Norwegians etc. and, yes, Brits and Americans that, since they were fighting a common enemy, the Jews, they weren’t really the mortal enemies of France and Poland and Belgium and Norway and England and the US. Untold millions were eager to believe that Germany wasn’t really threatening them and their countries, that the Germans didn’t really want to conquer, exploit and kill them.

Why?

Because they either thought that they could make a common cause with the Nazis against the Jews, or remained indifferent, neutral and defenseless because, being indifferent to the fate of the Jews, they believed it was none of their problem. Many of them even turned against those in their own countries who wanted to fight the Nazis and blamed them for putting everyone else in danger just to “protect the Jews”.

In short: if the Jews were used in the beginning as scapegoats, their main use throughout the war was as a tool to “divide and conquer”. Thanks to their sincere or opportunistic ant-Semitism the Germans were able to paralyse important forces in the countries and societies they wanted to defeat and submit.

That’s just what is happening once again before our very eyes. Though the Jihadists have their own clear, even megalomaniac goals, and while they kill thousands in the US or fight for Shari’a in Europe, while they complain about East Timor or fight for Kashmir, it is enough for them to involve the Jews, particularly Israel, in their struggle or their declared agenda to get the active support or at least the indifference of those in Europe, the US and elsewhere who would like to believe that their complaints, grievances and goals are restricted to or only motivated by Israel. Of course, they also declare they’re fighting against America, but then, for those who hate America anyway (and often the Jews and/or Israel too), the same logic works perfectly.

The Jihadists have shown us how brilliantly they can manipulate for their own purposes something as irrelevant as half-a-dozen cartoons in a Danish newspaper. Thus, it is rather unimportant whether Israel’s destruction is or isn’t their main goal (it isn’t). They seem to have discovered through trial and error that the hatred of Jews is alive and well in the West and, as the Nazis did before, they are using it not only to further their own different goals, but to recruit collaborators and to paralyze whole countries and societies as well.

It goes without saying how terrible this is for the Jews themselves, but it is at least as dangerous to the rest of the West that is allowing anti-Semitism to be used against itself. Hatred of the Jews and of Israel is the loaded weapon the Jihadis are putting in the hands of a civilization that’s willing (again) to commit suicide.

I think TruePeers thoughts are useful. However, it is a little known truth that Hitler ascribed almost supernatural power to the killing of Jews. Somehow, he believed against all reason, that if he was able to kill the relatively few Jews in Europe this would open a door for him to control the world.

I believe that Ahmadinejad thinks similarly. Yes, he wants to spread Sharia (rough equivalent of Aryanism), but somehow, the very first thing on the agenda, the thing that will open the door, is to kill the Jews.

I believe we are all left the poorer for refusing to comprehend the truth of this. But then, the truth of it is supremely hard to comprehend, because it does not belong to the world of the rational, but instead belongs to the mystical. And, what are we to do with that?

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Hey Jews, Go Back To Europe

Hi, I am on the road this week, and I am using a MacIntosh laptop which does not work with Blogger very well, so my posts look bad and don't have links, bolding or italics.

Sorry for the bad quality, but here's some info I thought you might want to look at:

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | A columnist in The Washington Post has figured out the big problem in the Middle East: the state of Israel.

Yep, it should never have opened for business. It's an historic mistake. To quote Richard Cohen:

"The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself."

For the full column, see The Washington Post, Tuesday, July 18, 2006. You've got to read it to believe it.

What a pity time travel is still only theoretical. Because it would be interesting to take Brother Cohen gently by the hand, as one would a small child or an amnesiac patient, and lead him back to the founding of Israel in 1948 as another war was raging in the Mideast.

He could tell all those Jewish refugees disembarking in Haifa — after years in a DP camp in Europe, or maybe behind barbed wire in a British detention camp on Cyprus — that they were making a big mistake.

He could tell them they needed to turn back and go to . . . well, come to think, there was no other place that much wanted them, was there?

Or we could transport Mr. Cohen to a beach outside Tel Aviv some moonless night in, say, 1938 to greet a boatload of Jewish refugees who had just run the British blockade. He could urge them to go back to warm, friendly gemutlich Germany. Or head for some other place in charming, continental Europe, which was about to become one big Jewish cemetery. Only without the formality of tombstones.

Bless his heart, Richard Cohen also seems unaware of the Jews from Arab countries, not just Europe, and from darkest Africa, too, who have had to take refuge in Israel over the years — and helped build the Middle East's only functioning democracy, embattled as it is.

Nor does Mr. Cohen seem aware that Israel's roots in that part of the world go back not just a century or so but millennia; Israel is actually the third Jewish commonwealth to spring up on that much disputed parcel of land. If it's a mistake, it's one history keeps repeating. You'd almost think it was fate. Or even Providence.

Columnist Cohen is right about one thing: History has been giving Israel a hard time ever since there was such a thing as history.

The Babylonians ended the first Jewish state, the Romans the second. Both Babylon and Rome were great powers in their day, but somehow they're no longer with us. Israel is. Who would've thought? What a stubborn, stiff-necked people — as every one of its leaders has discovered.

If there really were any rational laws of history, laws that predetermined the rise and fall of successive civilizations, as Professor Toynbee kept telling us in all his wisdom, the Israelites should have disappeared along with the Canaanites and Jebusites and Amalekites and all those other -ites. But they're still hanging around, as if they were some kind of sign.

Talk about historic mistakes, what about the Jewish presence in Europe? Look at how it turned out after only a couple of thousand years. Why, oh why, did the Jews let a bunch of Romans drag us up there? Maybe because the captives had no choice?

And if ancient accounts can be believed, it seemed to take old Pharaoh near forever to decide whether he wanted the Israelites to leave Egypt or to stay, to keep them as slaves or tell them to get the heck out for G-d's sake, at least after all those plagues hit.

Maybe the Israelites should have stuck it out in Egypt with all its fleshpots. Instead they opted for the wilderness — with nothing to eat but manna and nothing to do but get in trouble. But what choice did they have? The story is they were following some kind of divine imperative, and there's no questioning the mythical. It's as futile as second-guessing history.

Then, when you think of all the other problems the very creation of the world has led to . . . well, the Almighty has a lot to answer for to Mr. Richard Cohen.

UPDATE: I received the following in an email from a reader:

can you imagine the outrage by everyone if anyone proposed wiping blacks or others off the face of the earth...or shipping all blacks to Africa...or denying slavery happened or on the scale reported...or suggesting blacks were the cause of historical social and moral ills?

As a black person I marvel at the anti-Semitism ...but I recognize that it's spiritual ...all unredeemed mankind, for the most part, hates Jews because of the Spiritual significance of the people and the Nation...

I agree. There is just no other explanation for the fact that the entire world seems willing to drop all rationality at any second when it comes to the Jews.

Explosives Found In Bottle Of Liquid At Tri-State Airport

Explosive Substances Found at Tri-State Airport.

Tri-State Airport in Wayne County has been evacuated. A perimeter has been set up, and evacuees are being asked to stand back 350 feet from the airport.

The Transportation Security Administration reports that a passenger’s water bottle screened positive for an explosive material around 9:15 this morning. A second test was confirmed at 11:25.

NBC News reports that federal screeners found four containers of liquids inside a woman’s carry-on bag during the screening process this morning. Larry Salyers, Tri-State Airport Director, tells WSAZ the woman is of Pakistani origin, lived in Jackson, Michigan and most recently lived in the Huntington area. She is being detained for questioning.

FBI officials are on scene.

This news if from WSAZ radio in Wayned County via Little Green Footballs.

Monday, August 14, 2006

The Spotless
History Of
Islamic Civilization

Recently, George Bush called the terrorists who sought to blow up 10 planes above the Atlantic Ocean, Islamofascists. I use this term quite often as well. I do so because I think it is a way of differentiating between normal Muslims and those who would wage Jihad against the Infidel.

The kingdom of Saudi Arabia produced17 of the 19 Sept. 11th terrorists. Wahabbi Islam is the official religion of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its austere take on Islam is the root ideology behind most terrorism today. Saudi Arabia funds Mosques in the U.S. and worldwide and thereby exports the Wahabbi ideology which teaches that it is the duty of all Muslims to wage jihad gainst the Infidel.

Knowing this, it sure is interesting to see how the government of Saudi Arabia has reacted to the fact that George Bush referred to the terrorists who intended to blow up planes over the Atlantic at "Islamic fascists".

JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AFP) - Saudi Arabia warned against accusing Muslims of terrorism and fascism, in an apparent reference to US President George W. Bush’s claim that the United States is at war with “Islamic fascists”.

The Saudi government “called on everyone to realize that terrorism has no religion or nationality”, said a cabinet statement carried by the official SPA news agency.

It “warned against hurling charges of terrorism and fascism at Muslims without regard to the spotless history of Islamic civilization”, the statement said.

“What Islam is being accused of today, like fascism, is primarily a Western cultural product,” it added, calling for close international cooperation to combat terrorism.

The eternal sunshine of the spotless world of Islam. Yes, yes, yes. I've got it.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Pro-Hizbollah
Rally In
San Francisco

Go see Zombie's whole photo-essay.

Murdering Gays In Iraq?

The other day I ran a post called "Murdering Gays In Iraq." I was outrage by an article I had come across at Clarity and Resolve which indicated that Iraqi law allowed for honor killings against homosexuals. Apparently, it is not clear that this is the case.

Click on over to that link and read the post at Classical Values.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Jeff Buckley - Hallelujah

There's a bit of a "shut up and sing" moment at the beginning. But, just work past the first 20-30 seconds of talking, and be stunned by the beauty of this music.

The Anchoress
Is Doing Satire
Without A Target

The Anchoress is calling for moderation in response to the latest thwarted terror plot:

The news is serious…so why is so much that is being written and spewed forth so wretchedly unserious? Why am I getting such a strong sense that - for some, note, I say some on both the left and the right (and in the media) - this event is an excuse for extraordinarily reckless, demented and self-interested excess?

Go to the righty forums and you find a lot of this talk (paraphrased):- When Oh When will Bush take a page from FDR and inter all Muslims and Middle-Easterners into concentration camps, or totally deport them all? All Muslims are evil! This will wake up those idiots who voted out Lieberman, though, maybe! President Bush is captive of the globalist PC one-worlders or he’d be doing the right thing!

- This just proves that we’ve been too soft in Iraq and we need to just bomb the hell out of everyone! The war on terror won’t be won until we make Mecca a wasteland!

- This is why we need sealed borders, even though these terrorists were Brit CITIZENS and the cell phone sellers are US CITIZENS, that doesn’t matter. Close the borders now! Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Go Tancredo!

I have to wonder why the Anchoress bothers reading such crapola writing, much less reporting on it. The opinions she is parodying there are straight out of central casting from the latest Bushitler movie. There are no such people within the credible right-wing.

So, who is she parodying? It isn't satire, if it doesn't have a target.

Of course, there are loonies at blogs who do say such things, but they are not part of the national discourse, whereas the lefty voices she parodies in her post (go to the link and click if you want to see them) are clearly the mainstream of the Democratic party at this moment.

Now, in a comment over at Lumpy's blog, the Anchoress writes:

I do think the murderous fiends of Islam are a too-visible minority who have cowed even the “silent majority” of Muslims who are decent people. I am frankly getting leery of the “all Muslims are evil” mindset and think we should tread around that very carefully.

I love the Anchoress, but with all due respect, all her post, and her comment here is serving to do is to position herself as a moderate, which is a fruitless exercise when one is positioning oneself with regards to Islam. It’s like saying, “Not all of Hitler’s followers were evil.”
So what?

The thing is, the world view put forth by the Koran is evil. The face put forth by Islam in the political arena is evil or filled with deceit. There is no substantial Islamic political voice for moderation. All the major political groups which represent Muslims are radical in nature.

Like the Anchoress, I believe there are huge numbers of what I would call moderate Muslims. These, from my experience are Muslims who follow the good things the Koran says. They wish non-Muslims well. They are interested in giving and receiving love within their families, and within the larger world.

However, these Muslims are like decent Germans under Hitler. They are a completely unrepresented political body. They do not make their voices heard. Therefore, they are insubstantial, and they are ignored by the Islamofascists who control the Islamic voice.

It may not be The Anchoress’ intent to position herself as a moderate out of a sense of self-agrandizement, but the fact is, that as long as she is not dealing with Islam as it presents itself, the only person her words serve is her own self. It makes her look cool, but it doesn’t move the debate forward.

It is important that we say, “We hate the Islam of Jihad, strict-Sharia, and the burqa. If you are not that kind of Muslim, then you are my friend. But, please, for our sake, and for your own sake, stand up and be counted as being against this fascist form of Islam. Because if you don’t, then we are all going to have a big problem come the time when the West is hit really hard by Islamic terrorists.”

Instead of urging moderation in the public discourse about Islam, the Anchoress ought to be urging Muslims to show us their moderation. Muslims must help themselves. Their population is represented by adult human beings. They need to be responsible for what they put out in the public. Thus far, moderate Muslims have not begun to be responsible for themselves.

I think the Anchoress was off target, and it would seem time for a clarification and perhaps an apology to the right-wing she has lampooned.

Let me be clear, I am not a right-winger. I am a lifelong Democrat. (The fact that the Democratic party has become something more akin to the anti-Semitic isolationist right of the 1930's and 1940's does not make me any less of a liberal.) So, my reaction to the Anchoress is not one of personal offense. Instead, I simply think we need less calls for moderation, and more urgent calls for moderate Muslims to stand up and be counted.

The longer we wait to get serious, and the longer moderate Muslims wait to stand up and be counted, the worse the weaponry of the Islamofascist regimes will become.

What The ... ?

Bush is spending his time on his ranch reading The Stranger by Albert Camus:

US President George W. Bush quoted French existential writer Albert Camus to European leaders a year and a half ago, and now he's read one of his most famous works: "The Stranger."

White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel -- in English.

The US president, often spoofed as an intellectual lightweight, quoted Camus in a February 21, 2005 speech in Brussels praising the US-Europe alliance and urging other nations to help Washington spread democracy in the world.

"We know there are many obstacles, and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that 'freedom is a long-distance race.' We're in that race for the duration," Bush said in those remarks.

Well, Camus' The Stranger is not so much about freedom, as it is about what happens to the human being who can find no purpose, no moral compass by which to live.

Maybe Bush is preparing for a trip to meet European heads of state and he thought he had better brush up.

Apocalyptic
Muslim
Jew-Hatred

This article is from Andrew Bostom in Front Page Magazine:

Georges Vajda—in a seminal 1937 essay 1—provides an overall assessment of the portrayal of the Jews in the hadith collections (the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as recorded by pious transmitters), complemented by Koranic verses, and observations from the earliest Muslim biographies [or “sira”] of Muhammad.

Vajda’s research demonstrates how Muslim eschatology emphasizes the Jews supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the Dajjâl—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-Christ—and as per another tradition, the Dajjâl is in fact Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions state that the Dajjâl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil.

When the Dajjâl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughtered— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to a canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985), if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: “There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!”

As Vajda observes,

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

But it is the Jews stubborn malevolence, Vajda further notes, that is their defining worldly characteristic:

Jews are represented in the darkest colors [i.e., in the Koran, hadith, and sira]. Convinced by the clear testimony of their books that Mohammed was the true prophet, they refused to convert, out of envy, jealousy and national particularism, even out of private interest. They have falsified their sacred books and do not apply the laws of God; nevertheless, they pursued Mohammed with their raillery and their oaths, and harassed him with questions, an enterprise that turned to their own confusion and merely corroborated the authenticity of the supernatural science of the prophet. From words they moved to action: sorcery, poisoning, assassination held no scruples for them.

Examples of this archetypal Jew hatred from the sacred Islamic texts, sira, and main early Sunni historiographical accounts, include: Koranic verses labeling Jews as malevolent enemies of Islam (5:82), and disobedient slayers of their own prophets who suffered justifiable abasement (2:61), including, for some, transformation into apes and swine (5:60); or the more profoundly hateful narratives (in the hadith, sira, and early histories, for example by Tabari) which maintain that the perfidious Jews fomented sectarian strife in early Islam by promoting heresies—including Shi’ism itself—that threatened the unity of the Muslim community (umma), and the canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim Book 026, Number 5431) that the Jews caused Muhammad’s protracted, excruciating death from poisoning (“The Jews discussed about poisons and became united in one poison.

Vajda’s analysis indicates that all these archetypes in turn justify Muslim animus towards the Jews, and the admonition to, at best, “subject [the Jews] to Muslim domination”, as dhimmis, treated “with contempt”, under “humiliating arrangements”.

Hizbollah and Hamas have constructed core ideologies based upon this Islamic theology of Jew hatred, which one can glean readily from their foundational documents, and subsequent pronouncements, made ad nauseum. Hamas further demonstrates openly its adherence to a central motif of Jew hatred in Muslim eschatology—Article 7 of the Hamas Charter concludes with a verbatim reiteration of the apocalyptic hadith alluded to earlier:

“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him'; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.”

Demonizing Israel and Jews—via motifs in the Koran and hadith—Hizbollah views the jihad against the “Zionist entity” as an annihilationist war intrinsic to broader conflicts: the struggle between the Islamic world and the non-Muslim world, and the historical struggle between Islam and Judaism. The most senior clerical authority for Hizbollah, Husayn Fadlalah has stated, “We find in the Koran that the Jews are the most aggressive towards the Muslims…because of their aggressive resistance to the unity of the faith.” Fadlallah repeatedly refers to anti-Jewish archetypes in the Koran and the hadith: the corrupt, treacherous and aggressive nature of the Jews; their reputation as killers of prophets, who spread corruption on earth; and the notion that the Jews engaged in conspiratorial efforts against the Muslim prophet Muhammad. Fadlallah argues, ultimately, “Either we destroy Israel or Israel destroys us.”

Hizbollah is viscerally opposed to Judaism and the existence of Israel, stressing the eternal conflict between the Jews and Islam. Eradicating Israel represents an early stage of Hizballah’s Pan-Islamic ambitions, and its jihad against the rest of the non-Muslim world.

Since 1989, historian David Littman has made repeated appeals to the UN Human Rights Commission alerting its members to the dangers inherent in the binding Hamas Charter (circa 1988). Recently Littman elucidated some of key the motifs of Islamic Jew hatred contained in this document which amount to no less than a “direct and public incitement to commit genocide”, punishable under article 4 of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Article 7 contains the apocalyptic hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985) referred to earlier—reflecting the annihilationist Jew hatred of Islamic eschatology. As Littman observes, Article 8, “…a blueprint for jihadist terrorism”, is the slogan of the Islamic Resistance Movement – Hamas: “Allah is its target, the Prophet is its model, the Koran its Constitution; Jihad is its path, and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes.”

Article 28 targets all Jews: “Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people: ‘May the cowards never sleep.’” The Charter in its preface quotes Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, as saying: “Israel will exist and continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”

Read the rest.

Why Does
The World
Hate The Jews
So Much
Anyway

Yesterday I featured an article by Michael Medved entitled "Why The World Hates The Jews." Medved hypothesized that the Jews are hated because they are "chosen" and because people are jealous of them.

I stated that I thought Medved's idea was interesting, but I didn't think it explaines the fact that people hate Jews even in places where there are no Jews. And, I noted, most people who hate Jews probably don't even know they are God's Chosen People.

So, what is the reason the world hates Jews so much? Well, here's Christian writer Dave Hunt's opinion (thanks to Olivia for sending this over to me):

... multitudes of people who otherwise have little or no thought of God or Christ, give lip service to the idea that more than 1900 years ago Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and "there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?" (Matthew 2:1-2).

Oddly, many Christians who believe Jesus was born "King of the Jews" attach no literal meaning to that title, especially one that has anything to do with Jews. Prophecies concerning Christ ruling the world from David’s throne in Jerusalem are taken as metaphors referring to His present rule from heaven. Jerusalem was founded by King David 3000 years ago. No fewer than forty times the Bible calls Jerusalem "the city of David." There God established David’s throne forever, and on that throne the Messiah, King of the Jews, descended from David, must reign over Israel and the world (II Chronicles 6:6, 33:7; II Samuel 7:16; Psalm 89:3, 4, 20, 21, 29-36, etc.).

Jerusalem is named more than 800 times in the Bible and is central to God’s plans. He has placed His name there forever. Knowing that only the Messiah, descended from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, can defeat him, Satan has inspired 3000 years of anti-Semitism. Destroying all Jews would have prevented Messiah from being born. Satan lost that round. But if all Jews could be destroyed today, God could not fulfill His promises that Christ would reign as King of the Jews on David’s throne at His second coming. God would be a liar and Satan the winner.

God’s integrity and eternal purposes are linked to Israel’s survival! Roman Catholic doctrine that the nation of Israel has been replaced by that Church is spreading increasingly among evangelicals. This replacement of Israel is a subtle form of anti-Semitism. Instead of sending Jews to ovens, their significance and even their existence is denied: by some twist in history, those now commonly called Jews are supposedly not really Jews — the real Jews are Mormons, or British Israelites, or Catholics or Christians.

The shameful horror of anti-Semitism throughout history provides a shocking exposé of the human heart. Satan found multitudes of partners (many who called themselves Christians) only too eager to malign, persecute, and even kill God’s chosen people. Hitler’s "final solution to the Jewish problem" was known to Roosevelt, Churchill, and other allied leaders, who did nothing. Even neutral Switzerland and Sweden turned escaping Jews back to Hitler’s ovens.

Incredibly, a typical Jordanian textbook equates Zionism with Nazism. Yet Arabs applauded and aided Hitler — and Islam pursues Hitler’s "solution" to this day. Hitlerian threats pour continuously from Muslim religious and political leaders on TV and over radios and loudspeakers in mosque and street. The battle between Yahweh, the God of Israel who loves Jews as His chosen people, and Allah, the god of Islam, who hates them with a passion, is building to an awesome climax. It is every Muslim’s religious duty to exterminate the Jews.

Muslims dream of destroying Israel. They name holidays and streets after murderers of innocent Israeli citizens, and hold celebrations honoring terrorists. Islam’s leaders have called for a spiritual revival as the key to Israel’s destruction — and Islamic fundamentalism, which brazenly employs terrorism worldwide, is now sweeping the world. All Islamic scholars agree it is the sacred duty of every Muslim in every age to wage jihad (holy war) whenever possible to force the entire world to submit to Islam.

There are more than 100 verses in the Koran about fighting and killing in that quest. A Libyan cabinet minister explained, "Violence is the Muslim’s most positive form of prayer." In spite of his rape of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein is beloved by millions of Arabs because his scud missiles heavily damaged Israeli civilian targets and he repeatedly calls for Israel’s destruction. When Kaddafi screams, "The battle with Israel will be such that . . . Israel will cease to exist!" he speaks for every Muslim.

Islam’s founding prophet, Muhammad, declared, "The last hour will not come before the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them."

Islam’s desire to exterminate Israel is taught from childhood. A Syrian Minister of Education wrote, "The hatred which we indoctrinate into the minds of our children from birth is sacred." A ninth-grade Egyptian textbook declares, "Israel shall not live if the Arabs stand fast in their hatred." And a fifth-grade textbook states, "The Arabs do not cease to act for the extermination of Israel."

It is suicidal for Israel to trade strategic land for "peace" with such enemies — but the world forces her. Muhammad showed Muslims how to make "peace." In A.D. 628 he made a peace treaty with his own Kuraish tribe. Two years later, he suddenly attacked Mecca and slaughtered every male. Arafat has publicly declared, "In the name of Allah . . . I am not considering it [the Israeli-PLO peace accord] more than the agreement signed between our prophet Muhammad and the Kuraish tribe . . . . Peace for us means the destruction of Israel . . . ."

No place for the King of the Jews!

This is Islam — take a close look! Muslim nations are arming themselves with missiles capable of delivering chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads. Syria has manufactured thousands of chemical warheads, has huge stores of biological weapons, and has tripled its military and air power since the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The whole world knows these weapons have one purpose: to destroy Israel. But Israel also has nuclear weapons (soon to be deployed in new efficient submarines) and would use them if needed.

Who will bring peace? Christ warned of such incredible destruction that, if He did not intervene to stop it, no flesh would be left alive on earth (Matthew 24:21-22). That remarkable prophecy anticipated today’s modern weapons. No wonder the God of the Bible, who twelve times calls Himself "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," promises repeatedly to defend Israel and Jerusalem in the last days!

Having brought Israel to birth in 1948, God will complete His purpose. He declares, "Shall a nation be born . . . ? Shall I bring to the birth . . . saith the Lord . . .and shut the womb?" (Isaiah 66:8-9). In its mad rebellion against God, the world rejects the "King of the Jews" and His promised rule of international peace from David’s throne in Jerusalem, and makes its own plans.

And, a good portion of the world is currently making plans to do away with Israel. That is seen by many as the "solution" to the problems of the world. The next few years sure are going to be interesting.

Three
Middle Eastern
Men Caught
In Michigan
With
1000 Disposable
Cell Phones

I'm sure they have a good reason for needing them. Don't worry:

(TV5) — Around 1:00am August 11th three men purchased cell phones from the Wal-Mart store on M-81 near the corner of M-24 in Caro. Wal-Mart places a limit on the number of cell phones that can be purchased at once, that number is three. The three men allegedly bought 80 by purchasing them three at time so that an alert wouldn’t be triggered by the cash register. They also paid cash.

An alert clerk grew suspicious and called Tuscola County central dispatch. The Caro Police Department sent a unit and stopped the rented van on M-81 just east of Caro. The suspects were headed towards Bad Axe on M-81 where there is another Super Wal-Mart.

The three men were described as being of Pakistani descent but live in Texas. Police say the three, ages 19, 22, and 23 appear to be naturalized citizens. One man was driving while the other two were in the back opening the phone packages with box cutters throwing the phones in one box, batteries in another and the packaging and phone charger in another container. The suspects had 1000 other cell phones in the van. There was also a bag of receipts showing that someone was in Wisconsin the day before.

The phones were Nokia Tracfones selling for $20 at Wal-Mart. For your twenty dollars you receive a phone charger and 40 minutes of airtime. The phones do not have to be registered with a name. Also discovered was a laptop with store addresses and store logos.

Yesterday, two Middle Eastern men were caught in Michigan with 600 disposable cell phones.

Something is up.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Music By Portishead

Men
To
Match
My
Monuments

Recently I drove through a landscape which looked like this. I was seized by the thought of what it must have been like to be the first frontiersman travelling through such a place in horse-and-wagon.

Really, it must have been spooky.

How could one travel through such a land and not believe it was inhabited by ghosts, mediated by God?

Here are the words which went through my mind as I drove and drove and drove:

"Bring me men to match my mountains,
Bring me men to match my plains,
Men with empires in their purpose,
And new eras in their brains."

The Left = National Socialists (Nazis)

From my buddy, Jonz, the Drunken Blogger:

This is Hassan Nasrallah - leader of the Shiite Islamic terror group Hezbollah. Recently he has become a pin-up of political 'Left'.

Communist website Leninology unashamedley displays the Hizbollah flag.

"If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli"
- Hassan Nasrallah

"Anyone who reads the Koran and the holy writings of the monotheistic religions sees what they did to the prophets, and what acts of madness and slaughter the Jews carried out throughout history... Anyone who reads these texts cannot think of co-existence with them, of peace with them, or about accepting their presence, not only in Palestine of 1948 but even in a small village in Palestine, because they are a cancer which is liable to spread again at any moment..."
- Hassan Nasrallah

“If they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world wide.”
- Hassan Nasrallah

Why
The World
Hates The Jews

This is written by Michael Medved, and was published in Front Page Magazine today:

Many of the bitter controversies in every corner of the globe inevitably raise the same ancient question: why does the world hate the Jews?

Whether it’s the angry international reaction to Israel’s efforts to defend itself in Lebanon, or Mel Gibson’s drunken rant in Malibu, the age-old specter of anti-Semitism refuses to disappear. With only 13 million Jews in the world – less than one fourth of one percent of the earth’s population – why does this tiny group inspire such bitter, widespread and often violent animosity?

The answer is obvious to anyone who monitors anti-Semitic propaganda from all its multifarious sources. People who express hatred, resentment or fear regarding the Jews almost always focus on charges of Jewish arrogance, elitism, aggressiveness and lust for power.

According to the logic of anti-Semites everywhere, Jews deserve harsher treatment than anyone else because they work harder than anyone else to enshrine their own superior status. This argument suggests that the only way to answer constant Jewish demands for special treatment and privilege is to impose special limitations and restrictions on their instinctive will to dominate.

According to such logic, the rest of the world must work together to cut Jews down to size; only then will they function on the same plane as everyone else. As Hutton Gibson (Holocaust-denying father of the scandal-tarnished star, Mel) revealingly declared to interviewer Steve Feuerstein: “I don’t know what the Jewish agenda is except that it’s all about control. They’re after one world religion and one world government.”

Read the whole thing. Medved goes on to discuss the idea that, perhaps, the fact that the Jews are the "Chosen People" is offensive to the other inhabitants of our Earth.

Well, that is an interesting idea. But, the thing is, Jew-hatred is all-pervasive. Even people in Malaysia hate the Jews and there are no Jews in Malaysia, and there aren't very many Bibles either.

Honestly, I don't think most of the people who really hate Jews in this world are even aware of the idea that the Jews are the chosen people of God.

So Pastorius, you ask. To what do you attribute this omnipresent hatred of the Jews?

Well, you know what? I will answer that, but first I want to get the opinions of others. Tell me, why do you think people hate Jews?

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Pallywood

Bush Directs
Criticism
At Israel

From Associated Press:

CRAWFORD, Texas - The White House said Wednesday neither Israel nor Hezbollah should escalate their month-old war, a pointed comment after Israel decided to widen its ground invasion of southern Lebanon.

Although White House press secretary Tony Snow said the message was for both sides, his remarks came as Israel's Security Cabinet voted to expand the war effort in an attempt to deal further blows to Hezbollah. The criticism was among the administration's strongest concerning longtime ally Israel since the fighting began.

"We are working hard now to bridge differences between the United States position and some of the positions of our allies," Snow told reporters in Texas, where President Bush was vacationing. "We want an end to violence and we do not want escalations."

I don't understand the White House's position here. Israel's stated objective has always been to see to it that Hizbollah is no longer an armed force in Lebanon. The Bush Administration has been supportive of that objective. Hizbollah has not been disarmed. Instead, they have continued to fire massive amounts of rockets at civilians within Israel.

Considering the fact that thus far the relatively mild strategies Israel has employed have not done the job, the only reasonable conclusion is that Israel must step up their offensive.

So, why is the Bush Administration trying to pull in the reigns on them?

Once again, we see that George Bush, strong as he appears to be at times, does not have the courage of his convictions. He has failed in Iraq and Afghanistan because he allowed Sharia law to be enshrined in the constitutions of both countries. Thus we have situations where it is legal to kill those who have converted away from Islam in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Homosexuals are also being killed under cover of the law in both countries. This is George Bush's responsibility. These constitutions were constructed under his watch.

And, now he is attempting to force Israel to change its war plan in the middle of the offensive.

This is pathetic.

Weakness at this juncture will only lead to more, and worse violence in the future.

Democrats
Do Not
Support Israel
And Yet
Jews Support
Democrats

Taking into consideration the information that I provided in the post below, Jews ought to be very wary of the Democrattic party:

... the Dems are no longer Israel's best friend; here's an excerpt from MICHAEL BARONE, (he recently commented on a recent poll by the LAT and Bloomberg):

[The poll asked:]Should the United States continue to align itself with Israel, adopt a more neutral posture, or align more with Arab countries?By a 50 to 44 percent margin, respondents said we should stick with Israel rather than take a more neutral posture; only 2 percent want us to side more with Arab countries.

But there's a big difference between respondents of different parties. Here's a table showing the results, including independents.Continue with Israel: Reps 64; Inds 46; Dems 39More neutral posture R-29 ; I-49; D-54We see a similar split on assessments of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

The poll asked whether Israel's action was justified and not excessively harsh, justified but excessively harsh, or unjustified....A majority, 56 percent, of Democrats think Israel did not act properly, while an even bigger majority, 64 percent, of Republicans think Israel did act properly. That's a pretty sharp difference.

And yet, Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Very sad.

People form values when they are young, and then refuse to change as the times change. The Democratic Party has left the Jews, and it has left me. Unless things change drastically, I will never again vote for a Democrat. Jews would be wise to similarly reassess their affiliations.

The New
Final
Solution

Charles at Little Green Footballs has been making fun of what he calls "moonbats" for quite a while now. Moonbats are lefties, posing as Democrats, who are plagued with a genetic anomally which makes them impervious to reason, and susceptible to Bush Derangement Syndrome. They are usually radical Pacifists, meaning they believe that no Western nation has the right to defend itself against attacks from smaller, weaker enemies, no matter how vicious and destructive the attacks are.

Anyway, while I think Charles' poking fun at the Moonbats is generally funny, I never post on the subject myself, because I tend to think of the Moonbats as being a group of people who do such a good job of discrediting themselves that one really need not help.

However, the Moonbats have given birth to a meme which I have been expecting to crop up at this juncture, and I expect it to grow and soon become part of the mainstream discourse in the United States, and particularly Europe.

Read all about it:

In my diary of yesterday, I proposed that our party support the creation of a single secular democracy in the area now controlled by Israel, and I was impressed by the quality of responses. Based on this tiny sample of 100 or so Democrats, I’m thinking that maybe the average Democratic voter might be open to taking a more impartial role in the Middle East - and thus making our country less of an object of hatred by Muslims everywhere.

The most common objections to such a proposal is that the two sides hate each other too much to stop the killing and that outside forces, like the USA, cannot impose a solution.

However, I think that the US, as the prime, and virtually the only, supplier for the Israeli Defense Force for the past many decades has the capacity to force a settlement simply by cutting off that support.

The fact of the matter is, the Palestinian territories are completely free of Jews. This is not because Jews wouldn't want to live there. It is because the Palestinian people insist that no Jews live there.

For instance, when Israel "disengaged" from Gaza last year, not only did they have to bring in the IDF to forcibly remove the Jews who lived in Gaza, but they had to dig up graves and remove the dead Jews as well.

The Palestinian people have elected two parties to lead them both of which are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. The Hamas charter explicitly calls for death to "the Jews", not simply Israelis. The people of Palestine elected Hamas knowing this.

That is the will of the Palestinian people.

The only good thing that has come out of Palestinian democracy is clarity. Now, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Palestinians want Jews dead and gone from the land of Israel. Now that the Palestinian people have told us this in no uncertain terms we would do well to heed their warning.

When a group of, presumably, intelligent people calls for a "one-state solution" they either

1) prove they are not intelligent and should not be commenting on politics,

or

2) prove that they are Jew-haters by the very fact that they are willing to sacrifice the Jews to the dragon of Palestinian hatred.

Let me tell you something else about the Peaceful Land of Palestine. Hamas has imposed Sharia law within the Palestinian territories. So, when people call for a "one-state soltuion" they are also calling for an expansion of the borders of a Sharia-state.

Now, when one considers that under Sharia law the punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, and adultery is death by stoning, one has to wonder how "progressive" members of the left could support such a solution.

Once again, either they are ignorant and should not be commenting, or they are ok with the policies and desires of the people of Palestine.

Thie does not speak very well of the people who support such a solution, does it?

And yet I will tell you right now, watch, as in the coming weeks you will hear more and more political voices calling for the one-state plan. Let us be clear that when we hear such calls we are hearing calls for genocide, ethnic cleansing, and fascism.

That's an awful lot to tolerate even if ones desire is that "making our country less of an object of hatred by Muslims everywhere."

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

This
Is Really
Fuckin' Funny

Oops, I shouldn't have said that. Sorry.

Is Bush Fat?

This story, from ABC News, cracks me up:

Aug. 7, 2006 — Last week President Bush underwent his annual physical. It revealed he was in pretty good health, except for one thing. According to his body mass index, he's overweight.
His BMI was 26, putting him in the lower range of the overweight category.

He weighs 196 pounds, meaning he has gained 5 pounds since last year and his percentage of body fat has increased to 16.8 percent, which is, overall, pretty good for a man who just turned 60. (To calculate your BMI, go here).

Still, the appropriate body weight range is 157 to 192 pounds for a 5-foot, 11-inch man. Is there cause for alarm? Should the president go on a diet?

Possibly, dietitians say.

"When you're 60 and your BMI is 26, it's a risk," says dietitian Cathy Nonas, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "As you get older, you are more prone to other ailments — diabetes, arthritis and cardiovascular disease. It is helpful to not add another BMI point each year."

The notion that everyone gains weight as they age is not an excuse, say health care professionals.

"I don't know if I would say he's overweight, but if you look at the trend, increasing body weight is not a good pattern," says Leslie Bonci, director of Sports Nutrition at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "This weight gain trend is important as we get older."

While some experts have voiced concern over the president's weight, others say he has nothing to worry about. And one leading nutrition researcher believes BMI alone does not provide enough information to make a decision.

"In men, BMI is particularly misleading because of muscle mass. I would like to know the president's waist circumference. It appears the president is pretty healthy. However, if he's beginning a trend of gaining 5 pounds a year, that is not a good thing," says Barbara Rolls, head of nutritional sciences at Penn State University.

And J. Larry Durstine, president of the American College of Sports Medicine, says he believes the president should be recognized as a leader in maintaining good health.

"If 60 percent of Americans had a BMI of 26 or less, we would have a healthier population," he says.

So why is Bush technically overweight?

Body mass index is the ratio of a person's weight to height and is meant to indicate how likely someone will develop an illness, such as heart disease, because of his or her weight. A BMI of less than 25 has a low risk. A BMI between 26 and 29.99 is considered overweight and anything higher than 30 is obese and poses a high risk. An individual with a BMI under 19 may be at risk for osteoporosis and, potentially, malnutrition.

However, there is controversy with using this formula, as it may overestimate risk or inaccurately put someone in an overweight or obese category, especially men.

Although there are more precise ways of determining a person's percentage of body fat, BMI is perhaps the easiest and quickest measurement for the general population. Still, a BMI should always be taken into account with other measurements and tests, experts say.

"BMI cutoffs are not absolute about health risks," says Kelly D. Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University.

In addition, "BMI is one thing in a constellation of risk factors that should be considered for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and metabolic syndrome," says Barry A. Franklin, director of Cardiac Rehabilitation and Exercise Laboratories at William Beaumont Hospital. "I would not be upset by a BMI of 26 and would consider other factors to gauge global health, including fitness, blood pressure, lipids. In this case, the president's values are all stellar."

Bush is not the only one to have a BMI that seems incorrect or perhaps a bit unfair. In his prime, as Mr. Universe, Arnold Schwarzenneger's BMI was 33.

The reason this cracks me up is because it is a perfect example of a science writer writing about a subject he doesn't understand in the least being led astray by experts who are narrowly focused on their fields of study.

Notice the article says a BMI is the ratio of a person's height to weight. Two paragraphs later, the writer says BMI is "perharps the easiest and quickest way" to determine if a person is overweight.

This is not at all true.

Here's the one very important factor which is not discussed in the article at all: Muscle.

Muscle weighs more than fat. And, muscle does not drag on the heart the way fat does. When a person exercises regularly, they build muscle. When they build muscle their whole body builds itself to accomodate that muscle, including one particular muscle called the heart.

On the other hand, when a person adds fat to their body, they do so through overeating. In other words, the body has added weight, but has done so without exercise, meaning they have done nothing to accomodate the added weight. Thus, the added weight is basically dead weight dragging on the person's heart.

Note the article does say that George Bush's body fat percentage is 16.8%. I love how they say that is "overall pretty good for a man who has just turned 60."

Why don't we look at some photos of what men look like at different body fat percentages. All these men are 5'10" tall.

This man weighs 245 pounds and has a body fat percentage in excess of 30%. Yes, that's right, 30% of his body is just fat, which is really not "body" at all, in that it doesn't perform any function except to keep him warm and wheezing.

This man weighs 210 pounds and has a body fat percentage of approximately

14-16%. Now, there are variations in body type which would effect the way one would look, but remember, George Bush is one inch taller than this man, and weighs 14 pounds less. And, George Bush is sixty, whereas this man is probably about 40.

Ok, now, here's an athlete in prime condition. This man weighs 188 pounds and has a body fat percentage of 10%. Also, note the large endowment. That is another, less-discussed, advantage to working out.

Ok, I'm just kidding about that.

But seriously folks, considering George Bush is taller than the guy in the middle, and yet weighs less, it is likely that he looks like something in between that guy and the athlete shown here.

George Bush is a stud. Laura probably can't keep her hands off him. I'm guessing, those two are rockin' the White House.

Anyway, here's another thing which is not discussed. Muscle burns more energy than fat. When a person adds muscle to their body, their metabolism increases. Metabolism is the amount of calories one's body burns per hour.

So, there you go, the greatest benefit to working out is, the more you work out, the more you can eat.

Monday, August 07, 2006

John Coltrane Plays "Naima"

If there would have been a Pastorius Jr., I would have named him Coltrane. Alas, twas not meant to be, so I listen to the music and dream of the son born only in my mind.

:)

Murdering
Gays
In Iraq

Yes, we've done such a great job of bringing a Human Rights-respecting Democracy to Iraq that the traditional Sharia punishment of death is being levied on homosexuals:

Hardline Islamic insurgent groups in Iraq are targeting a new type of victim with the full protection of Iraqi law, The Observer can reveal. The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution.

There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country. ...

Eleven-year-old Ameer Hasoon al-Hasani was kidnapped by policemen from the front of his house last month. He was known in his district to have been forced into prostitution. His father Hassan told me he searched for his son for three days after his abduction, then found him, shot in the head. A copy of the death certificate confirms the cause of death.

Homosexuality is seen as so immoral that it qualifies as an 'honour killing' to murder someone who is gay - and the perpetrator can escape punishment. Section 111 of Iraq's penal code lays out protections for murder when people are acting against Islam.

We have failed in Iraq. We failed because we did not believe in our own principles enough to insist that they be enforced. We allowed Sharia to be enshrined in the Iraqi constitution as a source of law. We are beginning to reap what we have allowed to be sown.

Here's a question for us to ponder. We would never have allowed such a situation to have developed in a Western country, so why did we allow this to have in a Middle Eastern country?

I have my own answers, but I'd love to hear yours.

Syrian
Foreign
Minister
Wants
To Get
Into
The War

Is this guy a loose cannon, or is he expressing the wishes of Syria:

BEIRUT, Lebanon - Syria’s foreign minister offered on Sunday to join Hezbollah and said his country’s army had standing orders to respond immediately to any Israeli attacks.

“If you wish, I’m ready to be a soldier at the disposal of (Hezbollah chief) Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah,” Walid Mouallem told reporters on arrival in Lebanon in a symbolic gesture.

Asked about concerns that the war in Lebanon could spill over into a regional war, Mouallem said: “Most welcome.”

“Syria is readying itself and doesn’t hide its (military) readiness. We will respond to any Israeli aggression immediately,” he added.

Mouallem said later after talks with President Emile Lahoud: “If Israel attacks Syria by any means, on the ground, in the air, our leadership ordered the armed forces to reply immediately.”
Mouallem, the first senior Syrian official to visit Lebanon since Syria ended three decades of military presence in April Last year, criticized a U.S.-French draft of a U.N. Security Council resolution to end the war.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

White Stripes - Wild Orchid

One of my favorite songs, by one of my favorite bands.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

Palestinians Use
Racist Language
To Describe Condi

They hate Jews. It shouldn't be any surprise that they aren't too fond of blacks either:

According to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch, the PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida detailed Wednesday's Ramallah protests in which Rice was described as a "raven" who "brings only destruction."Al Hayat Al Jadida featured pictures of ralliers brandishing anti-Rice placards, some reading, "Murderer Rice go to Hell" and "Get out."

One placard had Rice drinking the blood of dead babies and stating, "I need more blood."A cartoon last week in the PA controlled Al Quds depicted Rice pregnant with a monkey. A caption read, "Rice speaks about birth of new Middle East."

In a previous article by Al Hayat Al Jadida, Rice is described three times as the "black woman," and her father, who was an ordained Presbyterian minister, was called the "black clergyman [who filled Rice's head with Bible stories]."

The article warned, "Beware of this 'black spinster,' we don't want to say 'the black widow' out of respect for her femininity and her intelligence."

There's more, if you really want to hear it.

Ave Maria

Kathleen Battle - Vocal
Christopher Parkening - Guitar

The History Of
The Christian Explusion
Of Muslim Invaders

Over at Galliawatch, Tiberge is pondering the history of the Christian struggles against Muslims invaders:

A reader named Anonymous stated that he saw nothing wrong with a church becoming a brothel or a bicycle garage, since it didn't affect the architecture. I decided to take him seriously and wrote my (inadequate no doubt) reply.

Here's the reply Tiberge wrote:

Christianity is one of the major foundations of Western culture. No one is obligated to be a Christian. No Christian is obligated to attend church. But the art, architecture, music, literature and value system of the West have, until recent times, always been impregnated with Christianity. Handel would not have composed "Messiah", Leonardo would not have painted "The Last Supper", these churches in France would never have been built, without the profound Christian feelings that are clearly absent from today's western world.

It is impossible to ignore the impact of Christianity even if it is not the only factor in French culture. There is certainly a secular tradition as well, which, by the way, would not exist except in contrast to the religious.

The purpose of this website is to present, in translation, information from France that traces the rise of Islam, the decay of French culture and education, and the abandonment of the former value systems that built the European nations. One of these is unavoidably Christianity.

If Europe today had a strong Christian identity, Islam would not be the powerful and malevolent force that it is. Europe has always had difficulty mustering the will to fight Islam, but the battles that it did win, such as Lepanto, were won because of a belief in the superiority of Christianity and the nations that were built and that flourished under its influence.

Lastly, your notion that a brothel housed inside a former parish church is just as worthy architecturally as a church used as a church is missing the point of architecture. Architecture is a reflection of the essence of whatever activity takes place within its walls. Municipal buildings, national monuments, museums, religious structures, educational edifices cannot be turned into whore-houses without making a complete mockery of the architect, his clients and architecture itself. It is making a mockery as well of the very human feelings that lived, studied and worshipped in these buildings.

By your theory, the Metropolitan Museum of Art would be just as magnificent as a giant brothel. No way.

Tiberge is right, Europe would not be having the trouble it is having with Islam if Europe had a profound belief in the Christian religion of its heritage. For better or worse (and I believe it is for better) Christianity presents a worldview by which human beings are able to make moral judgements. The postmodern European worldview teaches that there is no intellectually accessible moral standards by which we can find our way in the world.

While it is true that Europe is a champion of human rights, we see over and over again that Europe is almost completely incapable of acting on that sense of rights. Consider Sudan or Rwanda. In both cases Europe dithered and refused to take action while genocides went on.

It is not that Europe lacks any sense of right and wrong. Certainly the modern understanding of human rights is, itself, a reflection of a moral sense. But, Europe does lack a confidence in its moral judgements.

I believe this a reflection of the fact that without a belief in God, there is no foundation for a belief in absolute right and wrong. Without a belief in God it is very easy for a person, or group of people to throw their hands up in the air, when the going get tough, and say, "Well, who am I to judge?"

Yes, who are we to judge? That seems to be the message of the whole Bible, when you get right down to it. Judgement is God's. Vengeance is God's. Human beings can study the Word of God from here to the end, but they will only see through a glass darkly. God made us upright but we seek out many devices.

In short, wee can't trust ourselves, and we are only too aware of that fact.

However, if we believe in God, if we believe in an absolute moral standard to which we are held, then we go forth in fear and trembling lest we, seeing through that dark glass, should make a mistake, but, we go forth knowing that we must make a choice to act, because not to act is itself a sin. And, it is a sin for which we will be held accountable.

See, when it comes down to it, that is the difference between the religious man, and the non-religious man, that is the difference between a Bible-believing culture, and one which does not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Having said all that, let us look at how a Bible-believing culture reacts when confronted with a Muslim invasion. Let us look at the Battle of Poitiers:

The Battle of Tours (October 10, 732), often called Battle of Poitiers and also called in Arabic بلاط الشهداء (Balaat Alshuhada'a) The Court of Martyrs was fought near the city of Tours, France, by Frankish forces under Austrasian Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel and a massive invading Muslim army led by Emir `Abdul Raħmān al Ghāfiqī, Governor-general of Al-Andalus. The Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abd er Rahman was killed. Charles earned the nickname Martel ("The Hammer") for the merciless way he hammered his opponents during this victory, and went on to repulse later Muslim invasions, driving Muslim forces back to the port of Narbonne. Edward Gibbon said of the Muslim invasions and Charles Martel "in the public danger, he was summoned by the voice of his country."

The battle followed twenty years of Muslim conquests in Europe, beginning with the invasion of the Visigoth Christian Kingdoms of the Iberian peninsula in 711 and progressing into the Frankish territories of Gaul, former provinces of the Roman Empire. Muslim military campaigns had reached northward into Aquitaine and Burgundy, including a major battle at Bordeaux and a raid on Autun. Martel's victory is believed by many historians to have stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian peninsula, and is therefore also considered of macrohistorical importance in that it halted the Muslim conquests and preserved Christianity as the controlling faith in Europe during a period when Islam was overrunning the remains of the old Roman and Persian Empires.[1]

Varied estimates of the Frankish army defending Gaul suggest Martel commanded between 15,000 and 75,000 infantry[3] in the first western standing army since the fall of Rome. They had been trained to fight in phalanxes in order to face the dreaded Muslim heavy cavalry. Between 60,000 and 400,000 men [4] [5], mostly Berber lighthorse cavalry supplemented by Muslim heavy cavalry were under Abd er Rahman, often fractured into raiding parties to plunder various Frankish centers. According to Arab accounts, in the six days before the battle, Abd er Rahman recalled his forces so they were all present for the battle. By both western and Arab historical accounts, the Muslim forces probably outnumbered the Franks significantly at the onset of the Battle, but how far is unknown.

In 732, the Arab advance force was proceeding north toward the River Loire having outpaced their supply train and a large part of their army. Essentially, having easily destroyed all resistance in that part of Gaul, the invading army had split off into several raiding parties, simply looting and destroying, while the main body advanced more slowly.

The Muslim heavy cavalry broke the Christian infantry in their first charge, and then slaughtered them at will as they broke and ran.

The invading force went on to devastate southern Gaul, preparing it for complete conquest. One of the major raiding parties advanced on Tours. A possible motive, according to the second continuator of Fredegar, was the riches of the Abbey of Saint Martin of Tours, the most prestigious and holiest shrine in western Europe at the time. Upon hearing this, Austrasia's Mayor of the Palace, Charles Martel, collected his army (estimated at 15,000 to 75,000 veterans) and marched south, avoiding the old Roman roads and hoping to take the Muslims by surprise. Because he intended to use a phalanx, it was essential for him to choose the battlefield. His plan — to find a high wooded plain, form his men and force the Muslims to come to him — depended on the element of surprise.

From all accounts, the invading forces were caught entirely off guard to find a large force, well disposed and prepared for battle, with high ground, directly opposing their attack on Tours. Charles had achieved the total surprise he hoped for.

In one of the rare instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square.

"The Moslem horsemen dashed fierce and frequent forward against the battalions of the Franks, who resisted manfully, and many fell dead on either side."[6]

Despite this, the Franks did not break. It appears that the years of year-round training that Charles had bought with Church funds, paid off. His hard-trained soldiery accomplished what was not thought possible at that time: unarmoured infantry withstood the fierce Muslim heavy cavalry. A translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book says:

"And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe." [[6]]

Those Muslims who had broken into the square had tried to kill Martel, but his liege men surrounded him and would not be broken. The battle was still in flux when Frankish histories claim that a rumor went through the Arab army that Frankish scouts threatened the booty that they had taken from Bordeaux. Some of the Muslim troops at once broke off the battle and returned to camp to secure their loot.

According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day, scouts from the Franks sent by Charles began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder).

Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Muslim base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe. This succeeded beyond his wildest dreams as many of the Muslim Cavalry returned to their camp. To the rest of the Muslim army, this appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it was one.

Both Western and Muslim histories agree that while trying to stop the retreat, Abd er Rahman became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Muslims then withdrew altogether to their camp. "All the host fled before the enemy," candidly wrote one Arab source, "and many died in the flight."

Yes, we beat them, and beat them, until they began to retreat, and then we slaughtered them while they were running away. That is how battles are won.

We will, once again, regain this Charles Martel spirit. There is no doubt about it. No matter how much we may disdain the works of our hands here in the West, we know in our hearts that we can not part with our culture. Everything we love is born of and sustained by our culture, all our freedoms, all our abilities, all our technology, all our enterainments, arts and sciences.

Finally, I will leave you with a portion of an essay I wrote called "Why The Christian Church Must Take On The Battle For The Defense Of Western Civilization."

Both Judaism and Christianity teach that man, having been made in the Image of his Creator, also inherently possesses these attributes to some extent. Therefore, man is meant to be creative, he is meant to love matter, he is meant to be reasonable and analytical, he is meant to reshape his work, and even, the work of God's hands, using the gifts of reason and analysis, and more than anything, man is meant to be Free, as God, most indubitably, is Himself.

And, what's more, God wants man to have Freedom of choice. He wants man to come to Him of his own accord. When man sinned, God could have unmade the sin, and started over, but instead, God worked with the new reality man had created, and even promised to make something more glorious of it.

In other words, when God was confronted with man's sin, and He banished the sinners from the Garden of Eden, He did not make it His next step to take away man's Free Will, but instead, chose for man to retain Free Will, and He chose to remain a partner in man's creative endeavors.

Reading the rest of the Hebrew Bible, and the Gospels, and the Letters, it becomes apparent that God made this decision precisely because He wants man to be Free, otherwise, man would not be free to choose Him.In other words - and I can't stress enough how important this is -

The first principle of the Bible is that man needs to be Free, and this comes before anything else.

This is not at all a principle of Islam. In Islam, a good Muslim is to learn the Koran by heart, and to follow its rules by rote. He is not to be analytical, because his analysis can never add anything to that which Allah has already provided. The Koran, itself, is the final word of Allah to man. It is not to be amended or added to. It is to be followed only.Man's creativity is to be impeded. Music must not be made of anything more than chanting and drums. Art must not be representational. It is forbidden for a Muslim to depict the human form in a sculpture, for instance.

Man is to love the paradise Mohammed calls him towards. He is not to love the Earthly realm of matter. In fact, much of the material world is haram, to the extent that man is forbidden to even view the form of any female not his own wife.

In Islam, man is not forbidden to be generous to other men, so long as his fellow man is a Muslim. But, there is no reason to be generous to a non-Muslim. In fact, one is not to take a non-Muslim as a friend.

In Islam, compassion is not the central theme. Allah can not be said to be the equivalent of Love, as the Bible tells us Yahweh is. Allah is instead, probably, more easily called a god of justice, as defined by Allah. Or, is that justice defined by Mohammed. We can't be sure, because when it comes right down to it, the only person from whom we have learned of Allah, is the prophet himself. And, we shall never hear another new word about Allah from anyone else.

So, we see, the god of Islam is not anything like the God of the Bible. We delude ourselves if we think the two can be compared.What's more, we put ourselves in danger, and, we put our very ability to practice our religion in danger, if we accept the idea that God and Allah are the same. Because Allah does not accept divergence of opinion. It's Allah's way, or the highway. No other opinions, or ideas, or beliefs, are allowed. Free Speech, Freedom of Conscience, Democracy, these are all but the baubles and bangles of a decadent Western Civilization, as far as the most learned men of Islam are concerned. They all lead to disobedience, and sloth, and weakness, we are told. And most importantly, what we need to know is they all lead away from Allah.

Therefore, if we are to accept that Allah is the same as the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, we are accepting that Allah is preeminent, and our God must be subservient. We are accepting, therefore, that we are no longer to be free, rational, and analytical beings. Therefore, we are accepting that we no longer can make our own choices, for Democracy, for Freedom of Conscience, or for our God Himself. If we accept such, we are condemning ourselves to the destruction of Western Civilization, and we are taking away the very duty of man himself, that is to express himself as a being made in the Image of God.

The Christian Church, in general, must come to understand these things. The most important endeavor the Christian Church can undertake, at this point in time, is to understand that the defense of Western Civilization is of utmost importance to the existence of Christianity. Without the protection Western Civilization provides to Freedom of Conscience, Freedom of Speech, and Democracy, Christianity itself would go into a dark age. Christians would be forced to worship underground, away from the light of day. Fewer people would hear the gospel preached, and therefore, fewer people would be free to make a choice to follow the God of the Bible.

The Christian Church must understand that Western Civilization and the Bible go hand in hand. The Christian Church must become warriors for Western Civilization.

Friday, August 04, 2006

The Dhimmi Contract

A Dhimmi is a non-Muslim who Muslims deign to allow to live in a Muslim land. In order to live safely the Dhimmi must pay a special Dhimmi protection tax. If he does, then he is agreeing to a contract of Dhimmitude which guarantees that he will not be killed, as long as he behaves himself.

With thanks to Stogie at SaberPoint, here is the Dhimmi contract:

1. Dhimmis live in a second class condition within the society they inhabit.
2. Dhimmis are not allowed to vote or hold public office.
3. Dhimmis must pay a steep tax, called the Jihza, and do so under humiliating conditions: they must pay the tax in person where they are either spit on or slapped. The tax is a heavy financial burden, but if you can't pay it, you're dead. Some dhimmis who couldn't pay were forced to turn over their children as payment. The children were then raised as Muslims.
4. Dhimmis must dress differently than Muslims, e.g. with broad cloth belts, shoes of different color on opposite feet, or no shoes at all, and must shear their forelocks (the front part of their hair) so their dhimmi status is obvious.
5. Dhimmis must give way to Muslims on the sidewalk or street.
6. Dhimmis must give up their seat in any public place if a Muslim wishes to sit.
7. Dhimmis cannot build a house that is higher than Muslim houses in his neighborhood.
8. Dhimmis can only work in menial jobs like street sweeping or manual labor.
9. Dhimmis cannot renovate their churches or synagogues, so when they fall into disrepair they continue to deteriorate.
10. Dhimmis cannot display any symbol of their religion in public, like a cross, nor ring church bells or sing too loudly in their churches or synagogues lest they offend Muslims.
11. Dhimmis must house and feed any Muslim who passes their door for three days.
12. Dhimmis cannot criticize Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, under penalty of death or imprisonment.
13. Dhimmis cannot prevent any of their family members from converting to Islam.
14. Dhimmis cannot attempt to convert any Muslim to their religion.
15. Dhimmi men cannot marry Muslim women, but Muslim men can marry Dhimmi women.
16. Dhimmis cannot be witnesses in court against Muslims.
17. Dhimmis cannot own or carry any weapons.
18. Dhimmis cannot fight with or injure any Muslim, even in self defense, under penalty of death.
19. Dhimmis are subject to execution for apostasy against the Prophet of the Qur'an. (This provision was often abused. When a Muslim wanted a dhimmi's land or house, he simply had to state the dhimmi had insulted the Prophet. Since a Muslim's word was always accepted over that of a dhimmi, the dhimmi's unjust execution or imprisonment was assured.)
20. In many cases, dhimmi children are not allowed to attend state schools or universities.

Boy, that's quite a deal. I advise all Western appeasers to take it, before the Muslims start negotiating downward.

On The
Brink
Of Madness

Victor Davis Hanson, from National Review:

When I used to read about the 1930s — the Italian invasion of Abyssinia, the rise of fascism in Italy, Spain, and Germany, the appeasement in France and Britain, the murderous duplicity of the Soviet Union, and the racist Japanese murdering in China — I never could quite figure out why, during those bleak years, Western Europeans and those in the United States did not speak out and condemn the growing madness, if only to defend the millennia-long promise of Western liberalism.

Of course, the trauma of the Great War was all too fresh, and the utopian hopes for the League of Nations were not yet dashed. The Great Depression made the thought of rearmament seem absurd. The connivances of Stalin with Hitler — both satanic, yet sometimes in alliance, sometimes not — could confuse political judgments.

But nevertheless it is still surreal to reread the fantasies of Chamberlain, Daladier, and Pope Pius, or the stump speeches by Charles Lindbergh (“Their [the Jews’] greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government”) or Father Coughlin (“Many people are beginning to wonder whom they should fear most — the Roosevelt-Churchill combination or the Hitler-Mussolini combination.”) — and baffling to consider that such men ever had any influence.Not any longer.

Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians.

It is now nearly five years since jihadists from the Arab world left a crater in Manhattan and ignited the Pentagon. Apart from the frontline in Iraq, the United States and NATO have troops battling the Islamic fascists in Afghanistan. European police scramble daily to avoid another London or Madrid train bombing. The French, Dutch, and Danish governments are worried that a sizable number of Muslim immigrants inside their countries are not assimilating, and, more worrisome, are starting to demand that their hosts alter their liberal values to accommodate radical Islam.

It is apparently not safe for Australians in Bali, and a Jew alone in any Arab nation would have to be discreet — and perhaps now in France or Sweden as well. Canadians’ past opposition to the Iraq war, and their empathy for the Palestinians, earned no reprieve, if we can believe that Islamists were caught plotting to behead their prime minister.

Russians have been blown up by Muslim Chechnyans from Moscow to Beslan. India is routinely attacked by Islamic terrorists. An elected Lebanese minister must keep in mind that a Hezbollah or Syrian terrorist — not an Israeli bomb — might kill him if he utters a wrong word.

The only mystery here in the United States is which target the jihadists want to destroy first: the Holland Tunnel in New York or the Sears Tower in Chicago.

In nearly all these cases there is a certain sameness: The Koran is quoted as the moral authority of the perpetrators; terrorism is the preferred method of violence; Jews are usually blamed; dozens of rambling complaints are aired, and killers are often considered stateless, at least in the sense that the countries in which they seek shelter or conduct business or find support do not accept culpability for their actions.

Yet the present Western apology to all this is often to deal piecemeal with these perceived Muslim grievances: India, after all, is in Kashmir; Russia is in Chechnya; America is in Iraq, Canada is in Afghanistan; Spain was in Iraq (or rather, still is in Al Andalus); or Israel was in Gaza and Lebanon. Therefore we are to believe that “freedom fighters” commit terror for political purposes of “liberation.”

At the most extreme, some think there is absolutely no pattern to global terrorism, and the mere suggestion that there is constitutes “Islamaphobia.” Here at home, yet another Islamic fanatic conducts an act of al Qaedism in Seattle, and the police worry immediately about the safety of the mosques from which such hatred has in the past often emanated — as if the problem of a Jew being murdered at the Los Angeles airport or a Seattle civic center arises from not protecting mosques, rather than protecting us from what sometimes goes on in mosques.

But then the world is awash with a vicious hatred that we have not seen in our generation: the most lavish film in Turkish history, “Valley of the Wolves,” depicts a Jewish-American harvesting organs at Abu Ghraib in order to sell them; the Palestinian state press regularly denigrates the race and appearance of the American Secretary of State; the U.N. secretary general calls a mistaken Israeli strike on a U.N. post “deliberate,” without a word that his own Blue Helmets have for years watched Hezbollah arm rockets in violation of U.N. resolutions, and Hezbollah’s terrorists routinely hide behind U.N. peacekeepers to ensure impunity while launching missiles.

If you think I exaggerate the bankruptcy of the West or only refer to the serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan or Jimmy Carter, consider some of the most recent comments from Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah about Israel:

“When the people of this temporary country lose their confidence in their legendary army, the end of this entity will begin [emphasis added].”

Then compare Nasrallah’s remarks about the U.S:

“To President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert and every other tyrannical aggressor. I want to invite you to do what you want, practice your hostilities. By God, you will not succeed in erasing our memory, our presence or eradicating our strong belief. Your masses will soon waste away, and your days are numbered [emphasis added].”

And finally examine here at home reaction to Hezbollah — which has butchered Americans in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia — from a prominent Democratic Congressman, John Dingell:

“I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah.”

And isn’t that the point, after all: the amoral Westerner cannot exercise moral judgment because he no longer has any?

An Arab rights group, between denunciations of Israel and America, is suing its alma mater the United States for not evacuating Arab-Americans quickly enough from Lebanon, despite government warnings of the dangers of going there, and the explicit tactics of Hezbollah, in the manner of Saddam Hussein, of using civilians as human shields in the war it started against Israel.

Demonstrators on behalf of Hezbollah inside the United States — does anyone remember our 241 Marines slaughtered by these cowardly terrorists? — routinely carry placards with the Star of David juxtaposed with Swastikas, as voices praise terrorist killers. Few Arab-American groups these past few days have publicly explained that the sort of violence, tyranny, and lawlessness of the Middle East that drove them to the shores of a compassionate and successful America is best epitomized by the primordial creed of Hezbollah.

There is no need to mention Europe, an entire continent now returning to the cowardice of the 1930s. Its cartoonists are terrified of offending Muslim sensibilities, so they now portray the Jews as Nazis, secure that no offended Israeli terrorist might chop off their heads. The French foreign minister meets with the Iranians to show solidarity with the terrorists who promise to wipe Israel off the map (“In the region there is of course a country such as Iran — a great country, a great people and a great civilization which is respected and which plays a stabilizing role in the region”) — and manages to outdo Chamberlain at Munich. One wonders only whether the prime catalyst for such French debasement is worry over oil, terrorists, nukes, unassimilated Arab minorities at home, or the old Gallic Jew-hatred.

It is now a cliché to rant about the spread of postmodernism, cultural relativism, utopian pacifism, and moral equivalence among the affluent and leisured societies of the West. But we are seeing the insidious wages of such pernicious theories as they filter down from our media, universities, and government — and never more so than in the general public’s nonchalance since Hezbollah attacked Israel.

These past few days the inability of millions of Westerners, both here and in Europe, to condemn fascist terrorists who start wars, spread racial hatred, and despise Western democracies is the real story, not the “quarter-ton” Israeli bombs that inadvertently hit civilians in Lebanon who live among rocket launchers that send missiles into Israeli cities and suburbs.

Yes, perhaps Israel should have hit more quickly, harder, and on the ground; yes, it has run an inept public relations campaign; yes, to these criticisms and more. But what is lost sight of is the central moral issue of our times: a humane democracy mired in an asymmetrical war is trying to protect itself against terrorists from the 7th century, while under the scrutiny of a corrupt world that needs oil, is largely anti-Semitic and deathly afraid of Islamic terrorists, and finds psychic enjoyment in seeing successful Western societies under duress.

In short, if we wish to learn what was going on in Europe in 1938, just look around.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Our Failure In Afghanistan

If you want to know whether we are succeeding or failing in our war efforts so far, you need look no further than this report from the BBC:

They have been accused by Islamic clerics of preaching Christianity. Afghanistan bans attempts to convert people to non-Islamic faiths.

Around 1,500 South Koreans arrived this week for a "peace festival", and education and entertainment programme.

On Wednesday, hundreds of Afghans held a protest rally against them at a mosque in the city of Mazar-e-Sharif.

"They were given tourist visas and now it seems they are misusing their tourist visas," a government official told the AFP news agency.

Religious freedom is an indispensible part of a Democratic Republic. A government which does not respect religious freedom is not a human right-respecting government. Therefore, it does not fit with our notion of a Democratic Republic.

Either we believe in spreading freedom, or we don't. If this is the best we are going to do in Afghanistan, then we must believe this is the best Afghanis deserve.

This is not acceptable.

If this is the best we believe Afghanis deserve, then we have failed them, and we have failed ourselves. In fact, we have failed Democracy and human rights.

The Saddest Day Of The Year:
Jews And Christians
Are Not Allowed
To Pray
At The Temple

(Thanks to Olivia for sending this over.)

Today is a big day on the Hebrew Calendar, Tisha B'Av. Wikipedia says, Tisha B'Av, or Tish'ah b'Av, (Hebrew: תשעה באב or ט׳ באב) is a major annual fast day in Judaism. Its name denotes the ninth day (Tisha) of the Jewish month of Av, which falls in the high summer. It has been called the "saddest day in Jewish history".

Today is a day when Jews, and Christians like myself (who observe Jewish rites) might want to mosey on down to the Temple and pray. But no, we wouldn't be allowed to in the Holy City of Jerusalem:

The Israeli Police Force, able to turn out tens of thousands of members in order to uproot Jews from their homes in parts of the Promised Land, was unwilling to secure the rights of Jews to pray at their holiest site Thursday for fear of Arab violence.

In an announcement aimed at circumventing a ruling of the High Court of Justice earlier this week, according to which members of the Temple Mount Faithful would be permitted to pray on the Temple Mount on the Jewish fast day of Tisha B’Av, Jerusalem police chief Ilan Franco ruled that the site would be off-limits to Jews and Christians for the day.

The reason, according to Jerusalem police spokesman Shmuel Ben-Ruby as stated by The Jerusalem Post:

The decision to shut the Mount to visitors … followed an amalgamation of intelligence information that thousands of Muslims were planning to flock to the site to "protect" it from Jews who were planning to visit on Tisha B'av at the urging of "extremist" Jewish groups…

Muslims, who refuse to recognize or respect Jewish veneration of the place on which Israel’s ancient temples stood, are being allowed to pray on the Mount today Tisha B’Av (the Ninth Day of Av) is one of the holiest days on Israel’s calendar, when Jews around the world mourn the destruction of both the first and second temples, along with numerous other catastrophes that impacted them as a nation down the ages.

Included in that long list this year is the 2005 uprooting of Jews from their homes in the Gaza Strip and the abandoning of that ancient Jewish land to Muslim Arabs. Tens of thousands of soldiers and policemen were used to carry out that expulsion.

The lack of readiness on Israel’s part to use its law-enforcers to guarantee the rights of its own people to worship God at sacred sites has only served to strengthen the Islamic hold on these places.

So, if you are a believer in the Bible, what do you think of this?

A Worldwide
Wave
Of
Anti-Semitic
Attacks

In Belgium, the Holocaust Memorial was attacked:

BRUSSELS (EJP)--- The Brussels Jewish Memorial for Holocaust victims has been vandalized, in an attack described as "devastating" by the head of a Belgian Jewish association.

Judith Kronfeld, secretary general of the “Union of deportees in Belgium-Sons and Daughters of deportation” organisation, spoke of a “scene of devastation” which was discovered Monday night.

The gate of the Memorial’s crypt was pulled out, documents were destroyed, windows broken and an urn containing ashes from the Auschwitz-Birkenau Nazi death camp was desecrated and emptied.

In Baltimore, MD, the Hebrew University was firebombed.

In Malaysia, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is again calling for the destruction of Israel.

In Oslo, Norway, a Synagogue was vandalized. The assailant defecating on the front steps.

And at the United Nations, they have decided that Hizbollah is not a terrorist organization after all.

Jay Mac comments:

Right before our very eyes Hezbollah are, apparently, metamorphosising from a terrorist organisation to...well, no news what exactly they are yet. I'm sure it'll only be a short time before the MSM starts calling them freedom fighters or some such nonsense.

I wonder how long before other terrorist groups are elevated to the same level as nation-states?

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Dhimmi Carter

A Dhimmi is an infidel who "enjoys" second-class citizen status under Islam in return for paying the Jizya, which is a protection tax levied under Sharia law.

Dhimmi Carter pays the Jizya by fellating the entire Arab world with statements such as the ones below:

Today in the Washington Post, Democrat former one-term president Jimmy Carter said:"Israel should withdraw from all Lebanese territory, including Shebaa Farms, and release the Lebanese prisoners."

The BBC reported that the prisoner most wanted for release by Hezbollah is Samir Qantar. We previously reported on this evil child-murderer here. According to the child's mother, Qantar "smashed my little [4-yr.old] girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt."
---
Carter also said: "[I]t is inhumane and counterproductive to punish civilian populations in the illogical hope that somehow they will blame Hamas and Hezbollah for provoking the devastating response."

Brylun, of YARGB, notes:

Somehow Carter missed the point that Hezbollah is hiding behind the women and children.

Check out this quote from a guy who lived in the midst of the brave Hizbollah freedom fighters:

"I lived in a small town in southern Lebanon, near Marjayoun, where most of the population was Shi'ite, like me. It didn't take long after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon until the Hezbullah had control, there and in all the other towns. With the welcome of triumphant [Hezbullah] partisans, we received weapons and rocket storage in bunkers. The "social services" of the Party of God consisted of building a school and apartments over this bunker. A local Sheik explained. laughing, that the Jews would lose no matter what --- when the rockets were fired, or when they attacked the bunker and world opinion condemned them for the civilian dead. The Lebanese people don't interest these people in the slightest; they use them as shields, and when dead, as propaganda. So long as they exist, there can be no rest or peace."
--- Dr. Mounir Herzallah, Berlin-Wedding

Mel Gibson Apologizes

Mel Gibson is apologizing for his hateful words about Jews:

August 2, 2006 -- There is no excuse, nor should there be any tolerance, for anyone who thinks or expresses any kind of Anti-Semitic remark. I want to apologize specifically to everyone in the Jewish community for the vitriolic and harmful words that I said to a law enforcement officer the night I was arrested on a DUI charge. I am a public person, and when I say something, either articulated and thought out, or blurted out in a moment of insanity, my words carry weight in the public arena. As a result, I must assume personal responsibility for my words and apologize directly to those who have been hurt and offended by those words.

The tenets of what I profess to believe necessitate that I exercise charity and tolerance as a way of life. Every human being is God’s child, and if I wish to honor my God I have to honor his children. But please know from my heart that I am not an anti-Semite. I am not a bigot. Hatred of any kind goes against my faith. I’m not just asking for forgiveness. I would like to take it one step further, and meet with leaders in the Jewish community, with whom I can have a one on one discussion to discern the appropriate path for healing.

I have begun an ongoing program of recovery and what I am now realizing is that I cannot do it alone. I am in the process of understanding where those vicious words came from during that drunken display, and I am asking the Jewish community, whom I have personally offended, to help me on my journey through recovery.

Again, I am reaching out to the Jewish community for its help. I know there will be many in that community who will want nothing to do with me, and that would be understandable. But I pray that that door is not forever closed.

This is not about a film. Nor is it about artistic license. This is about real life and recognizing the consequences hurtful words can have. It’s about existing in harmony in a world that seems to have gone mad.

It seems to me the right thing to do is for the Jewish community leaders to work with him, giving him positive steps he can take to heal himself and those he has hurt. He is a sick man, but the Bible does make it clear that the sacrifices which God honors are those which come from a broken and contrite heart, and that is a humility we need to learn in forgiving, as well as in asking for forgiveness.

We are to take care of the widows and the orpans, and certainly, Mel Gibson has made himself an orphan in this world.

On the other hand, I, not being Jewish, really have no right to speak for the Jewish community. It is up to the Jewish community how they want to handle this.

CUANAS