Is that next? I mean, Iran wants an apology as it is just to consider talking to us, whaddaya bet we give it to them in some form or another and they come back with this shit?
Seriously? How do you "negotiate" with that?
But never mind that, I'm so CONFUSED! Weren't we led to believe they were just sitting there waiting for the call of a Democrat with a Muslim-sounding name?
*snort*
I just don't know what to say about this.
I guess I could say I'm terrified by it. I guess I could say the Britons would only get what they deserve if they cave and do this. And I guess I could say that even I am surprised by their cluelessness when it comes to what it *is* in the first place.
What I won't say is that I'm surprised the BBC would put out such a sugar-coated-candy-mess like these videos, because I'm not.
After this case, that term is going to take on a whole new meaning.
TAMPA - When a South Carolina police officer pulled over two Egyptian engineering students for speeding last month, he noticed one trying to put away a laptop computer.That computer contained a 12-minute video showing how to take apart a remote-control toy car and reassemble the wiring to make it into a remote detonation device, a federal prosecutor said Friday. The video’s narrator, a graduate student at the University of South Florida, said the device helped “to save one who wants to be a martyr for another battle,” the prosecutor said.
Investigators seized the laptop at the traffic stop. They later found that the most recently viewed files included videos showing Qassam rockets being fired along with visits to Web sites relating to Hamas and videos involving martyrs. It was not clear whether those files were being viewed as the two students drove. ...
Youssef Megahed and Ahmed Mohamed were indicted Aug. 31 in Tampa and charged with illegally transporting explosive materials. Mohamed also is charged with teaching and demonstrating how to make an explosive device. The video was uploaded onto YouTube, but later removed by the Web site, Hoffer said.
During their search of the car last month, investigators also found PVC pipe in the trunk filled with an explosive mixture of potassium nitrate, Karo syrup and kitty litter. Officers also found safety fuse, bullets and a mostly-full 5-gallon can of gas. Hoffer called the potassium nitrate mixture a “low grade explosive.”
Megahed’s rented Tampa home was searched by FBI agents. They found more material used in the explosive mixture, Hoffer said. In addition, they found a remote control toy boat still in its box. At a separate storage shed rented by Megahed, agents found a .22-caliber rifle and have uncovered evidence he tried to buy a Beretta handgun.
“The United States views this defendant as a danger," Hoffer said.
What was your first clue? The pipe bombs, the video of how to turn a remote-control toy into a bomb, or the explosives and bomb-building materials at their house?
Un-frickin-believable....
Emperor Misha sums up the day for me perfectly. So, as the sixth anniversary of 9/11 draws to a close, let me invite you to read this (and remember it like your life depends on it, because it does):
NEVER forgive!NEVER forget!
...and that's really all I have to say for now, since a lot of people seem to be having trouble remembering those two simple lines.
And don't give me any "but they haven't attacked us in 6 years, so this war you talk about is all bogus" either. On September 10th, 2001, they hadn't attacked us in 8 years.
Complacency kills.
Ya gotta love James! He actually made me laugh today, and given the other shit I've been reading and hearing today, that was a feat-and-a-half!
Why is it that no one in the MSM calls out these people on the inherent contradictions in thier point of view?
I can understand how some people who find themselves cohabiting a portion of a Venn diagram with Osama would bristle at the notion that they are on his side, or like him in any way; if he said the sun rose in the East, that doesn't mean that people who accept celestial mechanics are terrorists. Just because he said that Kennedy was killed by the military-industrial complex and the Iraq war is about oil doesn’t mean it's not so. Just because he cites Chomsky doesn't mean Chomsky's wrong. Just because he chides the Democrats for not pulling out of Iraq doesn't mean they shouldn't. Just because he hates Rumsfeld and blames him for everything from Vietnam to the Shah to the unsatisfying Sopranos conclusion doesn't mean that many of us in the West didn't think that episode lacked closure. Just because he says the right things and hates the right people doesn’t mean he's left--er, right. Er, good. He's irrelevant, because there is no terrorist threat, except for the one we created, which we can solve by leaving, but he's also extremely relevant inasmuch as we haven't found him yet, which proves the Administration is incompetent at protecting us from the threat of terrorism--which is a manufactured bogeyman designed to take away our civil liberties. Is it any coincidence that the tape surfaced just as a court struck down that law about that uh, that thing they were doing? I don't think so. As I keep saying every time a court strikes down a provision of the Administration's post 9/11 practices, or a newspaper reveals another element of our secret strategies: we are a hair's breadth away from a fascist state.
Ooooooh, that's right, they are "these people," utterly complicit in the propagandizing of America.
Excuse me while I go puke up my dinner.
You know how the government and the CIA have been telling us the Osama video is "authentic? Maybe not.
Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze
by George Maschke
Sun Sep 9th, 2007 at 06:10:31 AM ESTOsama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end. All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.
That's my response to Osama who "invites" us all to embrace Islam as a means of getting his followers to stop killing us.
Of course, that's right after he tells us that we should go read books by those who say we're being attacked and targeted for death because of our policies not our faith or lifestyles.
And, if that's not schizo enough for you, he also attacks the Democrats for not living up to their campaign promises to get us out of Iraq!
But the money quote of the whole tape was this one:
"To conclude," bin Laden says, "I invite you to embrace Islam." He goes on to say: "There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakaat [alms] totaling 2.5 percent."
And of course now there are people running around (mostly on the left) saying "SEE, we told you it's the policies STOOOOPID!" We'll be hearing a lot of that, people using Osama's words to justify their calls for retreat, to support their claims that Bush has made us less safe, and to impress upon us that we are the evil imperial satan that Osama says we are!
OK, so what about all this "convert to Islam or die" stuff? Is that just our penance for having lousy policies? Isn't it enough to get out of the region? Oh no? We have to convert too?
"NOOOO!" The leftards will tell us. "OH NO, of course we should not embrace something that would demonize (and execute) gays and lesbians, enslave women and practice rampant discrimination! Perish the thought! We should just get out of the region and stop pursuing our own interests there!"
Um, OK...So he's right to demand that we forego our own political interests, but wrong to demand that we forego our own spiritual ones? What if Osama disagrees?
I think we all know the answer to that one won't be forthcoming any time soon. In fact, I doubt we'll hear much about the gracious (yeah, as-in "engraved in blood") invitation extended to us to join this psychopath and embrace his satanic death cult of a "religion." It doesn't fit the "SEE, we told you it was all our fault!" meme now does it?
The liberal press and the asshats who follow it (or lead it, as the case may be) will completely miss the irony of their situation and will cherry pick from Osama's words to ensure the American People wake up tomorrow and feel most afraid of their own country. Meanwhile, Osama in return will do the exact opposite--he'll continue to sit in his cave and find new and different ways to say that everthing we do--whatever that might be--is a mistake, and when he does, there will for sure be Americans right there to cheer him on for doing so, willing to take any negative thing he says about this administration or the war in Iraq by itself as a sane and rational thing to say, even for a psycho. And of course, those of us on thie right (as in "correct") side of the fence will continue to argue the opposite, and the net result? Disunity, disharmony and ultimately, if they do strike us, CHAOS.
Because folks, the only thing this monster cares about is destroying us. If he has to pretend to like some of us better than others, or that there is a way we can redeem ourselves in his eyes, so be it, all the better to drive a wedge between us.
The thing to do, the one thing we have never done, is hang together, whether we agree politically or not. This is OUR country, OUR democracy, OUR way of life. Are we going to stick up for it, or are we going to allow someone else to use the freedoms it affords them to destroy us from within?
Only time will tell I suppose....Time, or Newsweek (or the NYTimes, or ABC or NBC or CBS, etc. ad infinitum....)
Well it's a damn good thing I'm not running for office! All my opponent would have to do is peruse this site for a few minutes and they'd have enough flip-flopping to make John Kerry look like the man of steel!
If you recall, back in June I wrote this post on the subject of the war. I was so certain, so frustrated, so defeatist, I actually typed these words:
It is TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ
But I've been reading Michael Totten, and I've changed my mind. How can I not when I read things like this:
What worked in Ramadi might not work in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army's relative moderation, compared with Al Qaeda's brutality, prevents it from being rejected by the entire society. But this much cannot be denied: There are powerful winds of change in Iraq, and not enough time has passed to determine how they will transform the country.Want to know if the surge will succeed or fail? There is only one thing to do: Wait.
And let me be clear, the violence in Anbar has gone down despite the surge, not because of the surge. The inability of American soldiers to protect these tribes from al Qaeda said to these tribes we have to fight al Qaeda ourselves. It wasn't that the surge brought peace here. It was that the warlords took peace here, created a temporary peace here. And that is because there was no one else there protecting.
As JD says:
if the Anbar Awakening is evidence of a U.S. military failure--lets have more of those failures.
You know, even if things weren't going so well in Iraq with the surge, I think Schumer's words would be enough to win me back to the pro-war side! Where does that worm get off putting politics above country? Political victory over the honor of our troops? He is a disgrace.
There's nothing more I can add to what Pete has already said about what Iran's doing now. (Aptly titled Brass Balls defined.
You will now go RTWT.
Alois alerts us to the plight (bwaahahaha) of a poor suffering (guffaw, snort, chortle) convicted terrorist (son of a biscuit eater) currently serving a 40 year sentence (which is not half of what he deserves) for plotting to kill innocent Americans and Britons.
Convicted terrorist Dhiren Barot has been attacked in prison—leading to requests for special treatment.As Alois says:
More of the same, always more of the same... how long are we going to be stupid enough to play this game?We're supposed to be dhimmis, and bow and scrape before the Islamic hordes. But the minute one of these terrorists gets popped, and put into a cell with decidedly unsympathetic infidels, all the rules are supposed to change.
I can see it now....Muslim wings on every Federal prison, the perfect places in which to plot and scheme some more without fear of a fight from their intended targets.
Watch the video and marvel with me at the calm and straight-faced way this "Solicitor" insists that we should even CARE about the alleged "disfiguring" of a man who planned to not just "disfigure" thousands of Americans and Britons, but who would have been indifferent to their suffering when he succeeded.
Take special note of the sound he makes on the reconnaissance video, right after the shots of the twin towers...If you pay attention, you can hear him make the sound of an explosion with his mouth.
I hope his fellow inmates beat the ever-loving shit out of him every day for forty years, and I hope no one lifts a finger to stop them.
You know, I disagree with Christopher Hitchens about God (he's an atheist after all), but I can't take away from the man his sheer brilliance when he focuses his disdain for organized religion in the direction of those who useit to justify intolerance and general unruliness, never mind cold-blooded murder.
His latest piece for Slate is a case in point. [Hat tip to Alois for the link]. In it, he explains "Rage Boy" to us. You've seen him, the seemingly professional Muslim effigy-burning, flag-trampling, open-mouthed-screaming lunatic who is always free on the day that someone, somewhere 'insults' his God. He's always got enough time on his hands to show up and pose for the cameras doesn't he?
But here's what Hitch has to say to the rest of us about him and how we should react to him:
We may have to put up with the Rage Boys of the world, but we ought not to do their work for them, and we must not cry before we have been hurt. In front of me is a copy of this week's Economist, which states that Rushdie's 1989 death warrant was "punishment for the book's unflattering depiction of the Prophet Muhammad." There is no direct depiction of the prophet in this work of fiction, and the reverie about his many wives occurs in the dream of a madman. Nobody in Ayatollah Khomeini's circle could possibly have read the book for him before he issued a fatwah, which made it dangerous to possess. Yet on that occasion, the bookstore chains of America pulled The Satanic Verses from their shelves, just as Borders shamefully pulled Free Inquiry (a magazine for which I write) after it reproduced the Danish cartoons. Rage Boy keenly looks forward to anger, while we worriedly anticipate trouble, and fret about etiquette, and prepare the next retreat. If taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean living at the pleasure of Rage Boy, and that I am not prepared to do.
I realize this is going to come as a shock considering my post below from just a couple of days ago, advocating the immediate bombing of targets inside Iran, but I have come--quite suddenly--to the conclusion that it's time to go. Yes, you read correctly. It is TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.
There. I've said it. I wish I felt better about it, but I don't.
I have supported this war from the git-go. I have supported the "Surge" but my increasing rage at this President over immigration has led me to believe that he no longer deserves my support for this policy either.
Does this mean I've changed my mind and that our withdrawal won't leave a chaotic untenable situation? NOPE. Still believe that, 100%. I think the minute we *start* to withdraw the shit is going to hit the fan. I still think Iran will move in--openly and without shame--and I still think a bloodbath of Pol-Pot proportions will ensue. The only difference now is that I don't give a shit.
No, really, I don't. I mean, why should I? Have you seen Gaza lately? I'm starting to come to the conclusion that some of the naysayers, the ones I used to call "bigots" were right all along. These people--Muslims who'll kill for their religion--can't handle freedom. Period. They can't handle it, and they therefore sure as hell don't deserve for one more drop of American blood to be shed in defense of it FOR them. Fuck them. I'm sorry to those brave souls in Iraq who *do* want freedom, I really am. I know you're there, I wish you well. Shit, I wish you a free ticket outta there and into safe assylum here if your bonafides are in order. But I think the time has come to face reality. There are just too many people in your country who would rather kill each other than live in peace. They would rather settle old grievances (your grandfather stole my goat types of grievances) than set them aside and build a future for their children. Apparently they don't care if their grandchildren are able to say "Your grandfather killed my chance at freedom."
But I'll tell you what, there are American CHILDREN who are sick of saying "You killed my Daddy (or Mommy)." Enough is enough.
And Mr. President, you've had your chance too, it's time to go.
How you ask? How should we do it? What about our long-term interests in the region? What about them "following us home?"
Well, I wish this were my idea, but it's not. This comes straight from my Dad, but he's put into words the best plan I've heard in a loooong time.
I think the time has come for Bush to say that it is obvious that forces in the region, including Iran, Shiite and Sunni extremists
from a number of countries, and anti-US extremists from various countries in the region, such as Al Quaeda, have made it impossible for the Iraqi's (with the kind of aid that the US is able to give), to
establish a representative government for the country.Since this objective, which was the secondary objective of the original decision to implement a regime change (getting rid of Saddam), cannot be achieved, we will begin withdrawing our military from Iraq, except from the autonomous Kurdish region, if the government of that region asks us to continue to deploy troops there.
With that announcement Bush should couple a warning that if any extremist group is emboldened by our withdrawal to start attacking US installations or US territory, and we trace the attackers to any country or region, we will respond by devastating all of the infrastructure of that country or region, including power plants, roads, bridges, etc....
That would transform the campaign debate about Iraq into a debate about what will our next leader do when the next attack occurs--and
Hillary won't be able to avoid it by saying it's hypothetical. That way we'll put the candidates on the hot seat, and when whoever is
elected is elected, we'll know what we're getting (and if we elect a
candidate who said he/she would just jawbone, we will have invited
another attack).
You see, we're not saying we can leave and expect not to be back, let's just put them on notice that when we come back, it will be by AIR not by land, and we won't be so choosey about the targets this time. The time for military-as-social-worker should end, NOW. I love--no, adore--the members of our military for their service, but with every passing day I'm more convinced that they have not been allowed to do their jobs, not really, not the way they were trained to do(i.e., seek the enemy, surround the enemy, kill the enemy. Full stop.) Instead they seem to be bogged down in the "seek the enemy" step more often than not. Well, as cruel as this sounds, my present attitude is that the enemy is in Iraq in the same way the enemy was in Germany or Japan. We didn't pick and choose *which* enemies to target in Dresden, nor should we do it in Falluja or Basra or Mosul or Bagdad. No more. Enough is enough.
If this is really a fight about our national interests, then surely bringing it to a quick decisive END is also in our national interests. After years of fighting the "nice" way what have we wrought? A terrorist magnet, that's what.
Do I sound like a left-wing moonbat? I'm sure I do, but you know what? The genius of the left is that they thwart policy for so long the chaos they claim the policy is causing (the same policy they have strangled and twisted until it's less of a policy than a half-measure) will come to pass. Make no mistake, I still blame the left in this country for the present situation in Iraq--at least as much as the terrorists and extremists--it is there fault that we've had to spend so much time pretending Islam is "peaceful" and that we could go door-to-door fighting terrorists and "insurgents" in Iraq. I still blame the Arabists at the State Dept. (liberals all of them) for giving self-defeating nation-building advice to Bush, and I still blame the media for exaggerating all the bad news and serving as willing propagandists for the enemy. The *only* new thing here is that I blame Bush personally for listening to all of them, and I blame the Iraqis for not stepping up and telling them all to FUCK OFF, for not recognizing the beautiful gift our soldiers gave them--we taxpayers gave them--of freedom from tyranny. They want tyranny apparently, badly enough that they're willing to die for it.
So let's give them their wish.
If I sound harsh, sorry, but there it is.
I mean seriously! If this isn't enough to force the President to DO SOMETHING I don't know what will be.
CIUDAD DEL ESTE, Paraguay - The Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia has taken root in South America, fostering a well-financed force of Islamist radicals boiling with hatred for the United States and ready to die to prove it, according to militia members, U.S. officials and police agencies across the continent.From its Western base in a remote region divided by the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina known as the Tri-border, or the Triple Frontier, Hezbollah has mined the frustrations of many Muslims among about 25,000 Arab residents whose families immigrated mainly from Lebanon in two waves, after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and after the 1985 Lebanese civil war.
U.S. officials fear that poorly patrolled borders and rampant corruption in the Tri-border region could make it easy for Hezbollah terrorists to infiltrate the southern U.S. border. From the largely lawless region, it is easy for potential terrorists, without detection, to book passage to the United States through Brazil and then Mexico simply by posing as tourists.
The CIA singles out the Mexican border as an especially inviting target for Hezbollah operatives. “Many alien smuggling networks that facilitate the movement of non-Mexicans have established links to Muslim communities in Mexico,” its Counter Terrorism Center said in a 2004 threat paper.
“Non-Mexicans often are more difficult to intercept because they typically pay high-end smugglers a large sum of money to efficiently assist them across the border, rather than haphazardly traverse it on their own.”
Oh, that's right...In this country we're supposed to wait to be attacked before we raise a hand to defend ourselves...
I respect the President's devotion to his Christian principles, but sweet Jesus, I didn't think that meant I had to turn the other cheek to make it easier for my beheader to access my NECK!
Pete reports that Palestinians are not only presuming to speak on behalf of "the world's Muslims" (news in and of itself--in particular to many of those who would prefer we see them as "moderates"), they are claiming that they are driven to violence by "memories" of desecration of their holy places by (I presume) non-Muslims (because why do I suspect their "feelings" wouldn't be as wounded if they were digging for treasures that would prove that they and not the Jews, had originally occupied the land on which the mosque sits?).
GAZA, February 12, 2007 (WAFA) - Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP) condemned Monday the diggings near Al-Aqsa mosque, warning of the ramifications of agitating Muslims' feelings.In a press release, GCMHP expressed its full condemnation for this dangerous act that harms holy places and highly inflames Muslims feelings.
"The diggings and destruction to the Mosque is considered a clear provocation to Muslims worldwide and a blatant violation of the principles of the international law, particularly, the fourth Geneva Convention that prohibits the destruction of civilian properties - especially holy places," according to the press release.
"Such acts bring memories back to what Al-Aqsa was previously exposed to of incidents that violated its sacredness and led to eruption of violence in the region."
*Sniff!*
Wouldn't want to bring back any unpleasant memories of the horrible day when Ariel Sharon walked his filthy keffer feet onto the hallowed ground of the Temple Mount! Egads! How on Earth do those poor Palestiand get through their days, the flashbacks must be debilitating! (heavy sarcasm).
Gee, maybe *I'm* the one who needs a mental health professional, but seems to me they ought to be more worried about the shithole they're living in, or that the hatred their burdening their children with...But what do I know about anyhthing? I must just be one of those unfeeling infidels who just doesn't "get" what the word "sanctity" means. Apparently it applies to DIRT more than to human life.
Whaddaya know, learn something new every day.
If you were asked to negotiate a deal with someone you knew couldn't be trusted--someone who made false promises and offered phony handshakes with their own friends and relatives--would you do it? Would you even bother?
Well that's what we're doing when we ask the Israelis to "negotiate" for peace with these guys.
Besides, why bother negotiate with these maniacs? Just ignore them long enough and they may ignore enough of their own internal negotiations that there aren't any more of them left to talk to in the first place! (One can only hope)
How on Earth did I miss this?
Daniel Pipes, in a few short paragraphs, gives us a way to talk about why we may well be losing the war (and not just the "War on Terror" either, but the whole megilla, the clash of civilizations, the war between enlightenment and medieval brutality and tyranny).
Now if only our leaders in Washington who agree with him would speak as clearly...
Yeah, I know, who am I kidding? Churchill said it best: "Americans will always do the right thing...After they've exhausted all the other options."
Let's hope so, and let's hope we're not too late when we do.
Can someone please tell me how a Muslim policewoman can "perform her duties" if she refuses to touch a man other than her husband, brother or son?
LONDON -- Police said Sunday that a Muslim woman officer had refused to shake hands with London's police chief during a graduation ceremony last month due to her religious beliefs, fanning a debate in Britain over the assimilation of Muslims into society.The woman - whose identity was not revealed - asked to be excused from the customary handshake with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair during the ceremony, saying her faith prohibited her from touching a man other than her husband or a close relative.
Can you imagine?
What's next?
"Um, I'd like to be a football referee, but my religion precludes me from working on Sundays. Oh, and I'm blind."
And the world slumbers on, blissfully (and willfully) ignorant of the cancer lurking within...
I thought about writing a reply to Ahmadinnerjacket's letter to the American people, but every time I tried to respond to it, I had to re-read sections of it--just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating you understand--and each time I had to do that, I ended up wanting to take a shower, I felt so ICKY.
So I gave up and started reading what other braver less easily grossed out people had to say instead.
That's when I came across what AskMom at Baldilocks had to say.
Let's just say her piece reminded me that I really need to do those Kegel exercises I've been blowing off for the past year since Lily was born, because I'll be damned if I didn't almost pee all over myself laughing!
Read it yourself and just try to keep a straight face! I dare ya!
This is a message from the Uppity Unburka'd Gun-Toting Grandmas of the Free World to Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, so-called President of Iran and teller of poisonous, slithering lies:Bite Us.
You loser. Your pansy excuse for a religion requires you to offer us a chance to submit and convert before you try to kill and enslave us. Offer noted for the record. Tragically for you, we have guns and bad attitudes. Our sons and grandsons have bigger guns and worse attitudes. Our military has the biggest guns and the worst attitudes this earth has ever seen.
I've got news, Mahmoud my boy. We're pretty committed to this democracy thing we've got going here. And none of us is all that excited about giving up our job, education, voting rights, intimate body parts or ability to feel the sun on more than just our eyebrows.
We don't fancy our daughters and granddaughters as breeding stock for you and your genetically subnormal followers, either. The girls are uppity too and expect to choose for themselves who the daddies of their babies will be. "Smelly violent hate-crazed camel molester" doesn't seem to be a strong favorite, sorry to have to disillusion you about that.
And you will now go read the whole thing and laugh some more (and, if you are a good friend, you will share it with others who need a good laugh).
I read this tripe from Haaaahvaaaad lecturer, Jessica Stern yesterday, and my teeth almost fell out of my mouth when my jaw hit the floor.
Just check out this one paragraph:
Jihad has become a millenarian movement with mass appeal, similar, in many ways, to earlier global movements such as the anarchists of the 19th century or even the peace movement of the 1960s and '70s. But today's radical youth are expressing their dissatisfaction with the status quo by making war, not love. They are seduced by Thanatos rather than Eros. Newly-wed pro-jihadi youths spend their wedding nights watching today's ghoulish pornography: the beheadings of foreigners held hostage in Iraq. Children film themselves reenacting these beheadings, seduced by a familiar drama of the good guys killing the bad guys in order to save the world.
Ms. Stern forgets the difference that makes ALL the difference: CULTURE
The culture in which jihad could become a "fad" as she so ludicrously describes it, is one in which parents derive a certain kind of ecstasy at the thought of their babies dying for God.
Our culture, by contrast, is one in which a parent (Andrea Yates) who brutally hunts down and murders all five of her own children (also for God) is deemed "insane" and locked up in a nut-house for life.
For those of you in remedial humanism 101, let's review:
There: Mommas who wish their babies to die for God = sane, rational, heroes or "martyrs"
Here: Mommas who wish their babies to die for God = crazy, insane, irrational, monsters
Proof that Ms. Stern doesn't get it comes farther down the page. Let's read what this esteemed professor has to say about how to combat the problem:
To win this war, we need to understand that we are fighting an idea, not a state. Military action minimally visible and carefully planned and implemented may be necessary to win today's battles. But the tools required in the long run to win the war are neither bombs nor torture chambers. They are ideas and stories that counter the terrorist narrative--and draw potential recruits away from the lure of jihad.
OK, first of all, anyone who uses "narrative" instead of "culture" is obviously a few fries short of a happy meal when it comes to their ability to perceive reality. Just something I've observed. It's a pretentious word used almost exclusively by academic elites who are so busy looking at the veins on each leaf of each tree, they forget they're in the forest, never mind being able to see it. These are the same folks who can't stop using the word "nuanced" either. But I digress...
Uh-huh. "Ideas" are the ammo we need. Yes, I'm sure that will do it! We'll just round up all the jihadis, their clerics, their teachers, their parents and grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings and friends, and we'll subject them to some of your lectures, some of your "ideas" about better more wholesome ways to fight the status quo they loathe so much.
How would that go exactly? How would you suggest, for example, we combat the "idea" that Jews are monkeys and pigs who drink the blood of Muslim babies? What purpose does racism serve and how would you "replace" it with a better "idea"? Is there a better scapegoat, really? Or do you honestly believe you can convince all the living generations of an enormous group of people that the scapegoat they've chosen is the wrong one? Would a better "idea" have been Hitler's undoing? Would it have worked with the Hitler Youth d'ya think?
Shit, even relatively civilized Mel Gibson--a guy who's successfully hidden his hatred for decades and certainly never ordered his life around doing anything about it--had to get a smack-down to realize being a flaming anti-semite was damaging to his "career," never mind to his "soul." Is that what we want from the Jihadis? An apology for their rantings?
See, it's simple kiddos. People like Ms. Stern--people who think jihad is a "fad" that will just go away--not only don't know their history (or they'd know, as Hugh Hewitt does that "Strictly speaking, I'm not sure that you can describe something that's been around for 14 centuries as a fad.")--they don't know the first thing about Arab or Muslim culture. If they did, they'd understand that it makes about as much sense to talk to a radical Muslim about better "ideas" for dealing with their angst and woe as it does to talk to Andrea Yates or any other child-killer-now-deemed-mentally ill.
Or, as my Dad likes to say, "Talking to a jihadi makes about as much sense as talking to a Dingo dog." If you don't already know, Dingo dogs look like dogs, walk like dogs, bark like dogs, but unlike dogs, cannot be easily domesticated and are always a danger to humans, even when the seem "trained." Their goal in life is to kill and eat, and they'll play possum (play dead) to ambush their pray. They are animal terrorists of a sort. And they don't care if what they kill is a baby kangaroo or a baby human. Makes no difference to them. If it serves their purpose (filling their belly in this case) they'll kill it and eat it. So it is with Jihadis. If it suits their purpose of world domination to kill babies, so be it, even if they are their own.
Put another way, ask yourself, why is it that despite being on the receiving end of over 160 rocket attacks in the last 24 hours alone, you don't hear much about Israeli citizens being killed? Sure, the rockets are inaccurate, but that only proves my point. The Israeli missiles are almost perfectly accurate and we know they don't 'target' women and children, if they did, they wouldn't waste time and effort (and risk planes) dropping leaflets imploring them to get out to avoid getting hurt!
So why the discrepancy? Random attacks for which Israelis have maybe a minute or two warning (five at the most) kill very few, surgical strikes in Lebanese villages that were warned days in advance kill dozens (or so we're told).
There's only ONE explanation, and if you stop and think about it (which of course no one in the media ever does, thus missing the REAL story every single cottin' pickin' time), it makes perfect sense. Israelis love their kids. They come from a culture that loves and values life. When they feel lives are threatened, especially those of the youngest and most innocent and vulnerable amongst them, they move heaven and earth (literally) to move them out of harms way. Jihadis, in contrast, not only don't move Muslim children out of the way, they pack them into buildings, send out faulty intelligence or fire missiles attracting bombardment, and then secretly rejoice at the huge PR boost the ensuing carnage provides. Dingo dog behavior. Kill and eat, kill and eat, without fear or remorse.
Now imagine if you will the Sesame Street song "One of these things is not like the other," and you'll have my point. CULTURE is the differentiator, not "ideas." Sure, cultures are made up of ideas, but they are also made up of "beliefs," which are far less rational. Even I'll be the first to tell anyone who asks that Judeo-Christian beliefs are far from rational. "Turn the other cheek?" "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" You mean even before I know whether they'll reciprocate? Sheesh! Totally irrational. Some would say "Nice idea, in theory. And yet, we live in a culture that has built its entire world around those beliefs, and thus, that "idea." It would be about as easy to change our minds about these things as it would be to convince us that the world was flat. I know this, you know this, probably the most illiterate gangsta in the hood would agree as well, but for some reason, Ms. Stern would not. In her fantasyland, we could just present a different "narrative" to the jihadis (who come from a culture in which the narrative they have was supposedly handed down literally by God himself), and they would change their minds, would accept a better set of "ideas."
Yeah. Right. Her and what army?
And that, folks, is my point. It takes armies, not ideas. As with Dingo dogs, the only thing you can do to change the behavior and motivation of a Jihadi is to KILL HIM. Kill enough of them, fast enough, overwhelmingly enough and convincingly enough, and those who are left--like the Dingo dogs who encounter a bonfire in the midst of your encampment in the outback--will tuck their tails between their legs and run the other way. In the world we live in, that's about the best "idea" we could hope for them to have.
Goody goody gumdrops! Egypt is threatening to revoke its peace treaty with Israel.
OH PLEASE! Please do!
That would be a savings of several BILLION DOLLARS per year for us here in the good 'ol USA--money that could be much better spent, oh, I dunno, on arming ourselves and the Israelis to the TEETH so we could whip the sorry asses of those lazy fuckers in Egypt and elsewhere in the thankless Godless Middle East!
Fingers crossed over here Mr. Murbarak! Can't wait to see your corrupt regime bite the dust, you pandering bastard you!
Contrast this astounding statement from White House Press Secretary Tony Snow
"Why would it be our war? I mean, it's not on our territory. This is a war in which the United States--it's not even a war. What you have are hostilities, at this point, between Israel and Hezbollah. I would not characterize it as a war."
I know, the movie is long (1 hr. 17 min to be exact) but it's a MUST SEE. It should be required viewing by every American High School History student AND their parents. It should be required viewing by every American law-enforcement official, politician and member of the military as well.
If I were gutsier (and my husband would allow it), I would create a group called Mothers Against Muslim Extremism (MAME for short) whose purpose would be the protection of the Children of the West from the mind-numbing stupidity that teaches them to view all other cultures--as one idiotic mother on my local mommy board said--as "equally wonderful as our own."
I would have my organization tour the nation (and the world) teaching children that a culture that hates you simply for breathing is NOT wonderful at all. A culture that wants to kill for the pure ecstasy of killing, is not beautiful, is not valuable, is not worth saving. I would also teach that our culture does NOT do those things, and should be saved.
I would work hard to make sure every kid over the age of 10 saw that movie. I would make sure they knew exactly who their enemies were, and I'd make sure their parents were hopping mad enough to start demanding from the rooftops that their leaders DO SOMETHING ALREADY!
What the world does NOT need is World War II: The Sequel.
Unfortunately, that appears to be what we're getting, and even the so-called "war monger" Bush doesn't see it for what it is.
Sounds like a game show! (Yeah, on Hell TV, the network of choice for savvy terrorists everywhere)
Anyway, since no one in the MSM seems to "get" that "negotations" involve making sure each side gets something they WANT, I decided to write a hypothetical script for what it might sound like if Condi Rice went face-to-snout with Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah (what it might sound like, that is, if she were HONEST and not trying hard to pretend that she was talking to a human being and not Satan incarnate).
You see, there's nothing Israel could give Hezbollah (or Hamas for that matter) that it really wants, other than Israel itself, with or without Israeli corpses instead of living citizens (preferably with of course--they dock you virgins in "Paradise" if you fail to actually "kill" the infidels).
Hezbollah didn't start this fight to get a "cease fire." They didn't start it to get territory, other than the territory currently known as Israel. What then could they get out of "negotiating?" What "win" could any negotiator like Condi Rice offer? Prisoner swaps? Anyone who believes that better just go back to their bong and keep smoking. Let's see how that would sound:
Condi: "Mr. Nasrallah, if you would just stop the random, unprovoked, illegal acts of terror you are currently perpetrating in violation of not one, but two UN resolutions, Israel is prepared to offer you several dozen unharmed, well-fed, well-rested members of your organization who--like you--are sworn to spend their lives (literally) pursuing the destruction of Israel.
Of course Mr. Nasrallah, we hope it goes without saying that in exchange for the live bodies of your followers you will also return the dead and (probably) mutilated bodies of the innocent Israeli soldiers you brutally kidnapped two weeks ago. We can assure you, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the UN and all other potentially interested parties will swarm like starving maggots all over the Israelis to investigate--in full view of the CNN, MSNBC, BBC, SkyNews and Al Jazeera cameras, and with exclusive print rights to the New York Times--the treatment your followers received while incarcerated (and legally represented). At the same time, we promise that these same entities won't as much as fart in your general direction. No need to worry about accusations of war crimes, no sir, we'll reserve the right of the Jew Hating "International Community" to level those at Israel and only Israel.
If you agree to this deal, and promise to honor it until your newly released followers have at least had a chance to shit, shower, change and load their rocket launchers (we figure somewhere in the vacinity of five and a half minutes), Israel will pull its troops out of Lebanon forthwith and return to her status as your target practice for the rest of us blind, deaf and dumb infidels.
Whaddaya say?"
Nasrallah: "Blessings be upon you so that your mangled corpse will rot more quickly in hell after we kill you and everyone who matters to you." "We accept!"
Someone on the left "gets" it.
Blame the terrorists, not Israel
by Alan M. Dershowitz - July 24, 2006
THE HEZBOLLAH and Hamas provocations against Israel once again demonstrate how terrorists can exploit human rights and the media in their attacks on democracies. By hiding behind their own civilians, the Islamic radicals issue a challenge to democracies: Either violate your own morality by coming after us and inevitably killing some innocent civilians, or maintain your morality and leave us with a free hand to target your innocent civilians. This challenge presents democracies such as Israel with a lose-lose option and terrorists with a win-win option.There is one variable that could change this dynamic and present democracies with a viable option that could make terrorism less attractive as a tactic: The international community, the anti-Israel segment of the media, and human rights organizations should stop falling for this gambit and acknowledge that they are being used to promote the terrorist agenda. Whenever a democracy is presented with the lose-lose option and chooses to defend its citizens by going after the terrorists who are hiding among civilians, this trio of predictable condemners can be counted on by the terrorists to accuse the democracy of ``overreaction," ``disproportionality," and ``violations of human rights." In doing so, they play into the hands of the terrorists and cause more terrorism and more civilian casualties on both sides.
If instead this trio could, for once, be counted on to blame the terrorists for the civilian deaths on both sides, this tactic would no longer be a win-win situation for the terrorists.
It should be obvious by now that Hezbollah and Hamas actually want the Israeli military to kill as many Lebanese and Palestinian civilians as possible. That is why they store their rockets underneath the beds of civilians. That is why they launch their missiles from crowded civilian neighborhoods and hide among civilians. They are seeking to induce Israel to defend its civilians by going after them among their civilian ``shields." They know that every civilian they induce Israel to kill hurts Israel in the media and the international and human rights communities. They regard these human shields as ``Shahids," or martyrs, even if they did not volunteer for the lethal jobs. Under the law, criminals who use human shields are responsible for the deaths of their shields, even if the bullets that kill them come from policemen's guns.Israel has every self-interest in minimizing civilian casualties, whereas the terrorists have every self-interest in maximizing them -- on both sides. Israel should not be condemned for doing what every democracy would and should do: taking every reasonable military step to stop the killing of their own civilians. Now that some of those who are launching rockets at Israeli cities have announced that they have new surprises in store for Israel that may include chemical and biological weapons, the stakes are even higher. What would Israeli critics regard as ``proportioned" to a chemical or biological attack? What would they say if Israel tried to preempt such an attack and, in the process, killed some civilians? Must a democracy absorb a first strike from a weapon of mass destruction before it fights back?
When are we going to stop sugar-coating this debate and call people who would say that what they really are: ANTI-SEMITES.
Read about the Holy See's condemnation of Israel over at Michelle Malkin's site, and all I can say is "Is that a dunce cap on your head your "Holier-than-thou-ness," or are you just glad to see another opportunity for the Catholic church to return to its roots of hating the joooooooos?"
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican on Friday strongly deplored Israel's strikes on Lebanon, saying they were "an attack" on a sovereign and free nation.
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict and his aides were very worried that the developments in the Middle East risked degenerating into "a conflict with international repercussions.""In particular, the Holy See deplores right now the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation, and assures its closeness to these people who already have suffered so much to defend their independence," he told Vatican Radio.
The LAST thing the "free" Lebanese or their supporters should do is blame Israel for cleaning up the infectious boil of of a terroristic state-within-a-state they allowed to fester on their soil.
It might do the Catholic Church good to remember which is their dog in this fight. Hint: NOT the islamothugs that's for sure! They've stated publicly and unequivocally that it's one of their fondest dreams to return the Vatican to the rubble of yet another civilization conquered by barbarians.
If New York is the terrorists' Kilimanjaro, Vatican City is their Everest. They will not rest until their freak flag flies atop the shattered remains of both places.
I've sent a post to Alois at Schmaltz und Grieben about Israel's justifiable attacks on Lebanon and Gaza, so there's no point repeating it here.
Suffice it to say
IT'S ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
I only hope Israel treats this as a real WAR, not just an incursion, not just a police action, not just a rounding up of the usual suspects or a retaliation. I hope they kick some serious islamothug ASS.
Lebanese Christians deserve to be free from Hezbollah threats, they deserve to live free and not as human shields for terrorists.
Palestinian Christians deserve the same, plus the ability to live in something other than the squalor created by those who care more about destroying Israel than about helping their own people.
We need to see what it looks like to fight to WIN. We've forgotten, it seems.
Europe needs to be told in no uncertain terms to fuck-off-and-die if they do or say anything un-supportive about Israel because (as they've already seen), they are NEXT if Israel fails.
The Arab world needs (FINALLY) to lose the ability to use the Palestinians and Lebanese as pawns in their sick game to distract the world from their own tyranny and chicanery .
And Israel deserves to defend itself, to make good on the promise to its people that "never again" would they go willingly to their deaths without a fight.
I pray they will demolish the will as well as the ability of these vermin to terrorize innocents anymore, and I pray just as hard that we will be watching when they do. I pray hardest that we will wake up and realize who the real villains are before that happens so we don't make the mistake of casting the bad guys as the good, and vice versa. Because nothing is more dangerous than pretending your enemy is your friend, especially if the only one who believes the lie is YOU.
Posting will be light to non-existent for a week. We're off on vacation (finally), but with luck I will return refreshed and ready to write on this or any other subject.
In the meantime, please pray for the people of Israel. They are in a fight they can win, let's hope they ignore their critics and DO!
Hat-tip to Alois for this brilliant piece by Ralph Peters.
Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
--------------------------
This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them.
Dad sent this to me with the following comment:
I respect Weisel, but when has anyone been able to mobilize enough world opinion to prevent a fanatic anti-semite from trying to destgroy Jews? I guess we can hope...
Enjoy yours Zarquawi!
And now a message for the MSM:
Who the hell cares how we got the bastard, we got him! The only people who stand to gain by knowing how are PEOPLE JUST LIKE HIM!
I am so sick of how obvious it is that our own press doesn't want us to win this war! Can you imagine this headline:
"Luck, German miscalculation and better than expected weather lead to success on D-Day"
Why not cut to the chase and simply hand our play book over to the insurgents and terrorists, it would be so much more efficient (and honest).
Assholes.
Good riddance Abu, may you burn in hell forever, and ever, and ever, and ever (redundant I know, but I just wish there was a period of time longer than forever for this guy).
Mark Steyn's question (mentioned in my post below) about how many Jihadis there might really be in all of Islam got me thinking... How large would the "Jihadi Military" be, even if only 1% of the world's population of muslims were members? Wanna know the answer?
TEN MILLION PEOPLE
That's right, only 1% of the total population of the so-called ROP would have to be active fighters for the cause of Jihad for them to have manpower more than ten times the size of our total combined armed forces (National Guard included).
Ten million is hardly a "fringe" group. We should be so lucky as to be able to recruit half that number into our own armed forces on ideology alone. Imagine it: their recruits are often asked to blow themselves up, their survival chances in battle are often zero going in, so even if they are not 1%, but rather only .0001% of the total population, that much dedication, combined with their asymmetrical warfare tactics would still make up for any loss in numbers of "troops."
True, our technology still surpasses theirs--for now--but as we've seen just this week with Iran's test-fire of an underwater missile, the Russians will happily sell technology that's good enough to sink our battleships to anyone who'll pay enough for it. "Show me the money" is their tagline. You'd think they'd care about potentially empowering allies of the Chechens, but noooo, what are a few school kids when there's money to be made?
Now add in the fact that populations sympathetic to these fighters control half the world's oil supply (Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia), have nuclear weapons (Pakistan and North Korea--Kim Jong Il would sell his own mother to hurt the US), and you have a truly terrifying situation.
So next time someone looks at you condescendingly and says that "Radical Islamists are just a tiny portion of the total Muslim population, probably less than 1%, blah blah blah, no reason to fear such a tiny fringe, etc..." tell them they ought to play the lottery because they can't do math and, judging by their arrogance and deep denial of reality, must be hoping you can't either.
Mark Steyn has collected a series of statements made by Aussie leaders about the "learned peaceful religion of Islam" Jihadi fascists that makes me think the only sane place on Earth right now is down under:
If I had to propose a model for Western rhetoric, it would be the Australians. In the days after Sept. 11, the French got all the attention for that Le Monde headline -- "Nous sommes tous Americains" -- "We are all Americans," though they didn't mean it, even then. But John Howard, the Aussie prime minister, put it better and kept his word: "This is no time to be an 80 percent ally."Marvelous. More recently, the prime minister offered some thoughts on the difference between Muslims and other immigrant groups. "You can't find any equivalent in Italian or Greek or Lebanese or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad," he said, stating the obvious in a way most political leaders can't quite bring themselves to do. "There is really not much point in pretending it doesn't exist."
Unfortunately, too many of his counterparts insist on pretending (at least to their citizenry) that it doesn't exist. What proportion of Western Muslims is hot for jihad? Five percent? Ten, 12 percent? Given that understanding this Pan-Islamist identity is critical to defeating it, why can't we acknowledge it honestly? "Raving on about jihad" is a line that meets what the law used to regard as the reasonable-man test: If you're watching news footage of a Muslim march promising to bring on the new Holocaust, John Howard's line fits.
Is it something in the water down there? Listen to Howard's Cabinet colleagues. Here's the Australian treasurer, Peter Costello, with advice for Western Muslims who want to live under Islamic law: "There are countries that apply religious or sharia law -- Saudi Arabia and Iran come to mind. If a person wants to live under sharia law these are countries where they might feel at ease. But not Australia."
You don't say. Which is the point: Most Western government leaders don't say, and their silence is correctly read by a resurgent Islam as timidity. I also appreciated this pithy summation by my favorite foreigner minister, Alexander Downer: "Multilateralism is a synonym for an ineffective and unfocused policy involving internationalism of the lowest common denominator." See Sudanese slaughter, Iranian nukes, the U.N.'s flop response to the tsunami, etc. It's a good thing being an Aussie Cabinet minister doesn't require confirmation by John Kerry and Joe Biden.
I'd say you have an uphill battle if you can't even muster the guts to talk about the enemy openly and honestly.
[Thanks to Pete for the link. You're right, it is a "Must Read."]
I'm giving it two weeks. Things will either calm down, or blow into full-scale civil war by then (I'm guessing the latter).
What should we do?
Pull back to the Kurdish line and protect those guys like our lives depend on it. Let them kill themselves otherwise and plan on the Shiites winning and having an even BIGGER Iran to worry about.
OK, according to Edward Luttwak, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, it WOULD be possible to disable Iran's nuclear program militarily, and in a single night no less!
Shit, we went into Iraq on the "theory" that WMD of the non-nuclear variety "could" be present, and that Saddam "could" still have a nuclear program hidden somewhere, just waiting for us to lift sanctions so he could continue it, so what's the hold-up with Iran???
Here's a country that not only has nuclear ambitions, they have ANNOUNCED their intentions openly, kicked out the IAEA, threatened Israel and the US (the whole world actually) and we're sitting here biting our fingernails doing nothing but "warning" them and calling it "diplomacy."
Why give them any warning? Did we learn nothing from Saddam? You don't "warn" people like this, you take them at their word and then quietly go about the business of gassing up the bombers!
I realize there are those who'd argue that taking out Iraq's nuclear reactor was easier because there was only one (as compared to Iran's 100+ installations that constitute their entire program), but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Yes, Iraq's weapon program of 1981 was stopped by a single air strike carried out by less than a squadron of fighter-bombers because it was centered in a single large reactor building. Once it was destroyed, the mission was accomplished. To do the same to Iran's 100-odd facilities would require almost a hundred times as many sorties as the Israelis flew in 1981, which would strain even the U.S. Air Force. Some would even add many more sorties to carry out a preliminary suppression campaign against Iran's air defenses (a collection of inoperable anti-aircraft weapons and obsolete fighters with outdated missiles). But the claim that to stop Iran's program all of its nuclear sites must be destroyed is simply wrong.An air attack is not a Las Vegas demolitions contract, where nothing must be left but well-flattened ground for the new casino to be built. Iran might need 100 buildings in good working order to make its bomb, but it is enough to demolish a few critical installations to delay its program for years -- and perhaps longer because it would become harder or impossible for Iran to buy the materials it bought when its efforts were still secret. Some of these installations may be thickly protected against air attack, but it seems that their architecture has not kept up with the performance of the latest penetration bombs.
Nor could destroyed items be easily replaced by domestic production. In spite of all the claims of technological self-sufficiency by its engineer-president, not even metal parts of any complexity can be successfully machined in Iran. More than 35% of Iran's gasoline must now be imported because the capacity of its foreign-built refineries cannot be expanded without components currently under U.S. embargo, and which the locals cannot copy. Aircraft regularly fall out of the sky because Iranians are unable to reverse-engineer spare parts.
The bombing of Iran's nuclear installations may still be a bad idea for other reasons, but not because it would require a huge air offensive. On the contrary, it could all be done in a single night. One may hope that Iran's rulers will therefore accept a diplomatic solution rather than gamble all on wildly exaggerated calculations.
I'm also not all that interested in finding out what life would be like (literally overnight) with one-third less oil to go around to the economies of the world that need it (ours in particular).
I have no idea what the administration's strategy is right now, but I sure hope they listen to guys like John McCain who said--very clearly and audibly--that he would not take the military option off the table. Why we would go to war in Iraq but NOT in Iran at this point is simply beyond my comprehension. It may not be a popular thing to say, but there it is.
Just talking to my Dad on the phone, and one of his friends--who does a lot of work for a group in Norway--says that the upside (if there is one) of these "DEMONstrations" by the Muslim barbarian horde is that their immigration policy (and that of the Danes, and the Swedes and if they have any brains, the French too) will finally be reformed to exclude entry to any more of these freaks.
He pointed out the irony that the Europeans--Northern European countries in particular--have been the most supportive (financially and politically) of the Arab perspective vs. the US and Israel in particular. My guess is that they've been so supportive for two reasons:
WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.
And here's the other good news. We have a chance to sit back on the sidelines of this clusterfuck to watch and learn, watch and learn. Think we can appease these maniacs? Turn on your TV and take a look at what "appeasement" hath wrought in France and Denmark. Think we can just sit out the fight totally? Tell that to the Austrians whose consulate was demolished right alongside that of the Danish just because it was there! Think there are "moderate" Muslims (or if these mythical creatures exist, that they have one shred of power)? Why is their outcry about as loud as the crickets in my yard?
Will we learn? I hope so, I sure hope so.
DEMONSTRATORS?! Are you fucking kidding me?!!!
(CNN) -- Islamic anger over newspaper cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed continues to spread internationally, with protesters torching the Danish consulate in Beirut.Wielding sticks and stones, the demonstrators ransacked the building on Sunday, smashing its windows.
OK, just so we're clear. I wouldn't want to confuse the Muslim reaction to a bunch of DRAWINGS with the tyrannical violence and vandalism of the Nazi Thugs on Kristallnacht or anything...And I sure wouldn't want to compare it with the reaction of the black Los Angeleans who were "offended" at the Rodney King verdict...And heaven help me if I happened to be reminded of the way racist Southerners burned black churches and businesses and lynched black citizens because they were "offended" by desegregation.
No, this is not the same thing at all! This is merely a "demonstration" of Muslim "anger." They have nothing against free speech, that is as long as it's speech they agree with. If not, well, they're offended and if you were the one speaking, expect your house, place of worship or business to be "demonstrated" to the ground--with or without you inside of it!
Excuse my sarcasm, (nah don't) but I'm am sick to death of the world giving a pass to these freaks. I am 100% sure if they were Christian or Jewish, the entire world would not only be calling them by their proper names (thugs, murderers, terrorists, barbarians, mindless fucks...), they would be calling their collective behavior by its proper name: ACTS OF WAR.
That's what this is folks, just another series of battles in the war of civilizations. We aren't waiting for it to begin, or working to prevent it from happening, we are in it, full on right now. Just because we refuse to accept it, and allow our media to continue to euphemize--granting these monsters humanity they do NOT deserve--doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Is it fear? Do we have some massive case of Stocholm Syndrome? Do we really believe the inane ramblings of the anti-war crowd--that if we leave them alone they'll leave us alone? Really? Where were these "offensive" cartoons published? Were they printed up and plastered all over buildings in Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon? NO. They were published in the native tongues of WESTERN countries in WESTERN publications! These are the same publications that have--on occasion--depicted George Bush as a rambunctious chimp, Ariel Sharon as a Nazi and Jesus as so many offensive characters I don't have time to list them all here. I didn't happen to hear about mass violence by Americans, Jews or Christians on any of those occasions, did you? So what gives these Muslims the right to vent their outrage by destroying private property? Why aren't they being rounded up, arrested and tried as the criminals they are? Even we arrested as many LA rioters as we could, what the fuck gives?
No, instead, "rescue workers" come to the aid of the "demonstrators" who are injured while climbing into broken windows of buildings they've ransacked. And newspaper publishers are firing editors who allowed these cartoons to be printed. So much for free speech.
Muslims don't need armies or bombs to defeat us, they already have a much more powerful weapon than those: OUR OWN SPINELESSNESS. Our willingness to toss our freedoms away with both hands will be our demise, not some guy in a bomb vest. The way they work is insidious. They infiltrate our countries using immigration--usually legal by the way. Then they build their mosques, send out their recruiters to our prisons (they know where to look for the "best" and "brightest" monsters around), then get involved in our political process using our vocabulary against us.
Case in point, right here in the US of A, in my old hometown of Boston, the Islamic Society of Boston has filed suit against, well, everyone pretty much, simply because the Boston Herald printed reports that some associated with the ISB and a new mosque being built by them with terrorism. All the Herald did was report news, the ISB is calling it "libel" and now the courts will decide if freedom of the press has a future in our country. The irony of course is that they are using our laws, our freedoms as a weapon in the war against those very freedoms.
And we're not doing a damn thing to stop them.
Wake up America. The enemy is right here, and no, they won't leave us alone if we leave them alone. They have "demonstrated" that their aim is to destroy us. Perhaps we should stop apologizing to them long enough to notice.
I might not have put it this way, but Banagor pretty much sums up how I feel about what's been going on lately with the so-called "offensive" cartoons about Muhammed:
What amazes me even more is that some Westerners are angry that we have offended Muslims, as if they truly are worshippers of a"religion of peace." Isn't it incredible that every time these "peaceful" Muslims are offended, more people die as a result? When was the last time that Christians started blowing up airliners full of passengers because they were offended by the trash piece of artwork"Piss Christ"? When was the last time that Jews started blowing up busses full of civilians because the Arab press is chock-full of anti-Semitic works every single fucking day of the year?
Good questions all. Too bad we're not asking them more often!
Oh, and by the way, couldn't it be construed an "act of war" to torch foreign embassies given that they are considered sovereign territory belonging to the states they represent?
Another good question in need of a good answer.
This is what happens when you make a firm commitment to coddling your native population--importing "cheap" foreign labor from hostile nations so your own can take three months off every summer and work 30 hour weeks the rest of the time (for unusually high wages and with free healthcare and subsidized childcare).
Iraq may end up looking civilized in comparison to the suburbs of Paris, but I can definitely see why the French think the biggest crisis they face is the widespread importation of McDonalds and genetically modified food.
Finally, some real condemnation of terrorism.
When Muslim extremists murder innocents in cold blood, there is often a politically-correct reluctance to call the killers terrorists, or to denounce them unequivocally. But there was no such reluctance last week when an Israeli Jew, Eden Natan Zada, opened fire inside the bus he was riding through the Arab town of Shfaram in northern Israel. Zada, 19, was active in the outlawed extremist Kach movement, and had deserted his army unit to protest Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. His rampage left four Arabs dead -- Michel Bahus, 56; Nader Hayak, 55; Hazar Turki, 23, and her sister Dina, 21 -- and another 12 wounded.
Zada was immediately labeled a terrorist and widely condemned. "A reprehensible act by a bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist," one Middle Eastern leader called the massacre. Another said he was "deeply shocked and distressed by the murder of innocent people." From a senior cleric came a statement expressing "disgust and severe condemnation at the despicable act . . . . a murder that is impossible to forgive."
Israel and its supporters complain with reason that Arab terrorism against Jews is too often shrugged off or excused by Arab and Muslim leaders, or that a murderous attack will be condemned in English for international consumption, while the government-run local media extols the killers in Arabic. But when the terrorists themselves are Jews -- admittedly a rare event -- do Israel's defenders live up to the standard they expect of others? How many of the statements quoted above, for example, would leading Israelis have been willing to make?
All of them.It was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who described Zada as a "bloodthirsty Jewish terrorist" and Shimon Peres, the vice prime minister, who referred to the attack as "the murder of innocent people." The cleric who pronounced Zada's "despicable act . . . impossible to forgive" was Rabbi Shlomo Amar, the Sephardic chief rabbi of Israel. And headlines in all the country's major newspapers bluntly labeled Zada a terrorist.
Of course it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer, don't we?
In the hours after the "Religion of Peace's" latest demonstration of it's "peacefulness" in London, I wondered how long it would take the leftards to begin their chorus of "Blame America." I didn't have to wait long. Whether on blogs or just the Today show, pundits and pigeon-brains everywhere came up with such doozies as "It's a Bush/CIA conspiracy to help Bush turn the USA into a Fascist state" and "If only you'd focused on Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and hadn't gone into Iraq, this wouldn't have happened!" [From a caller on the Laura Ingram show who claims to be American, but refused to refer to those fighting in either Iraq or Afghanistan as anything other than "You people"].
These people have forgotten. They have forgotten 9/11 to be sure, but more importantly, they've forgotten what came BEFORE 9/11--in some cases waaaay before. So with this post, I implore them (and all of us) to remember a few things.
Remember...
- The first WTC bombing, 8 full years BEFORE 9/11
- The bombing of the USS Cole
- The bombing of the Embassies in Africa
- The bombing of the Kobar towers
And if remembering these attacks, the people who perished in them, and the perpetrators (either Al Qaeda or those using the same methodology and ideology as Al Qaeda) isn't enough to remind people that Bush and the war in Iraq didn't START this thing called "terrorism" against the US and its allies, how about remembering every terrorist bombing that's ever happened in Israel.
And if you're the type who'll say "YES, I remember those things, but it's because we support Israel that these things are happening" then I say, WHICH IS IT RETARD? Are they attacking us because we're in Iraq, or are they attacking us because for decades upon decades, we've supported Israel? PICK ONE, not both.
And if you select our support of Israel, remember that even Osama didn't even MENTION Israel or the Palestinians prior to 9/11--NOT ONE SINGLE TIME. He is Saudi, and near as I can tell, couldn't give a fiddler's fart for the welfare of the Palestinians except insofar as he's realized (since 9/11) that some of you have lumped his cause in with theirs, and he now figures, "Hey, whatever scares you and gets you to blame your own leaders! Whatever you say!"
Which makes me want you to go FARTHER back in history, to the last time people Osama admires inhabited the earth. Yes kids, I'm talking about the Crusades. That's a lot of years ago, but if you take a moment to study how long it took Osama's heroes to get rid of the "infidels," you'll realize it was over 100 years! Not once did they ever let up, either in the intensity or the frequency of their attacks. WE may have forgotten (or never bothered to learn) this period in history, but I can assure you the terroists have not. We portray them as ill-educated thugs, but in truth, they are at least led by very well-educated people who know their history, and they think they know ours. Lucky for us, they seem to have skipped a thousand years of it or so, but they remember that our ancestors beat it out of the Middle East before with their tails between their legs, and they don't care how long it took--just that it happened!
The proof of this comes in a story told to me by my father who used to do a lot of work in Israel. He was at a dinner in Jerusalem that included some Palestinians (who were friendly to his Jewish friends) and he got into a conversation with one of them about terrorism in Israel. Israel had just celebrated 50 years of statehood at the time, so my Dad asked this man if he thought the Palestinians would finally begin to see that Israel was there to stay. His answer? "It took my people 100 years to get rid of the Crusaders. Talk to me again in 50 years and we'll see where things stand."
Today's attacks probably took a year or more to plan--perhaps they were envisioned after the Spanish elections returned a victory for them in the wake of the Madrid bombings. The stated goal was to get Britain out of Iraq AND AFGHANISTAN. So to those who think somehow that these attacks were planned more recenty, or soley because we are in Iraq, I say REMEMBER something that happened prior to your waking up this morning!
Let me put it as clearly as I can. These people want to destroy our way of life. They want us cowering before them, enslaved by them if possible. They want our governments destroyed and either in chaos or ruled by them. This was somehow easy to believe when it was Hitler's army running all over Europe, but not when it's a global terror organization that takes no prisoners and seeks to kill as many people as possible, whenever and wherever they can? This I don't get. What do you people really think their goal is? Do you honestly believe they just want us out of Iraq? What do you think the terrorists who attacked Londoners today would do if we did leave? Would they just head back to their day jobs and their families, secure in the knowledge that Iraq was free of the dreaded Americans?
In the wake of 9/11 Bush made it very clear: You are either with us or you're with the terrorists. People like Saddam had to choose. Even if he didn't even know about 9/11 in advance (much less have anything to do with it), he chose to congratulate the terrorists and to support demonstrations of elation by some of his people (Sunnis). He chose to allow injured Al Qaeda (Zarqawi) into Iraq for treatment. He chose to allow Ansar al Islam to live and train in his country (that I think we can all agree he controlled absolutely). He CHOSE to fund suicide bombers' families in Israel--rewarding those who killed Jews and Americans alike. He chose to have his people fire upon our planes patrolling the no-fly zones. He chose to steal from the rest of the world in the form of the Oil for Food program. And on and on and on... He also chose to ignore resolutions that would have helped prove that he had disarmed according to the cease-fire agreemement HE SIGNED after Gulf War I. What should our President have done? Should he have said--in a world in which a 9/11 could happen--"OK Saddam, keep thumbing your nose at us because we sure don't want to piss off any terrorists who might be your pals?
PUHLEEZE!
Is there any reasonable person out there who has any knowledge of history--who knows that Saddam plotted to assassinate Bush the elder, who knows that Saddam wanted to destroy and "punish" the USA, Bush Jr. in particular--who doubts that in the face of the tremendous "success" of the 9/11 attack Saddam would be willing to "help" those who want to hurt us? REALLY? Even if he didn't have WMD, but just had lots of stolen money with which to fund attacks on us and our allies, at what point would we find it simply intolerable to allow him to remain in power?
And all of that is discounting the millions of people he SLAUGHTERED. How funny that the same people who rant and rave about our "genocide" of the "Native Americans" have no trouble whatsoever with the genocide of the Iraqi people. What's the deal? All genocides are not created equal? Oh that's right, the only ones that even count are perpetrated by the USA, I forgot, how silly of me!
I see. Peace is only for those who HATE the USA. Terrorists hate us, kill us, threaten us and delare war on us--every man woman and child amongst us and those like us, the answer is to apologize and do whatever they want.
If my life, the lives of my family and my nation were not at stake, I'd almost say "FINE. Have it your way. Let's just pack it in and see where that gets you."
Part of me would like to watch as the gun-shunning liberal peaceniks ran begging to the doors of their neighbors with guns, begging for help, only to be turned away. Here's what I'd say:
"Go kiss their asses some more, maybe they'll kill you quickly and less painfully."
In the meantime, the rest of us need to remember our history and the history of these barbaric people who are attacking us. They are patient, and they are NOT KIND. They are barely even human. All we can and should do is KILL them, and honestly, we should kill everything that supports them--make their living areas uninhabitable, seize and intern their entire families. We need to forcibly shut down their hate-schools, hate-newspapers, hate-radio, etc... They are not entitled to free speech. They are not entitled to that which they would so freely destroy, period.
Sound cruel? Sound like I want us to lower ourselves to their level? Well how do you think you defeat your enemy? Look at history and show me the victor who did NOT do this.
I'll be waiting!
There's not much I can add to this, it's perfect already:
Justice: For Arabs only?
Well, the day has finally arrived. I now find myself in agreement with the Secretary General of the Arab League.Recently, at the end of the Arab League Summit, Amr Mussa declared that peace could not arrive until there was withdrawal from occupied territories, the creation of another state, and the return of refugees.
He's basically correct. Except he has a few details mixed up.
Native Copts in Egypt—millions of them—had their country overrun by conquering, settling, subjugating, and occupying Arabs.
To this day, they never know when the next murder will occur, the next church will be burned down. They have learned that to survive they must consent to the forced Arabization process. Their leaders have even written that for Israel to "get along," it too must consent to a variation of this. Pretty pathetic. Uncle Butros instead of Uncle Tom—but the same breed, if you know what I mean. Just imagine the world-wide outcry if Israel's Jews did this sort of thing to Israeli Arabs.
The majority Berber population of North Africa saw its lands overrun as well over the past centuries by conquering, settling, and subjugating Arab hordes creating Arab empires. Imperialism is evidently only nasty when non-Arabs indulge in it. Berbers who dared to insist on keeping their own pre-Arab language and culture have been murdered for trying to do so. A look at any number of websites dealing with Berbers on these subjects will be revealing indeed.
In 1968, Ismet Cherif Vanly wrote The Syrian Mein Kampf Against the Kurds. A Kurdish nationalist, he described the murderous and brutal Arabization policies—Syrian settling, conquering, and occupying Arabs—employed against Kurds who predated them in the land by thousands of years. Settling, conquering, and occupying Iraqi Arabs did likewise to Mesopotamia's ancient native Kurds (the Hurrians, Guti, Kassites, and Medes of old), Assyrians, and other non—Arab peoples as well—Jews included.
Literally millions of native African Blacks have been butchered, maimed, enslaved, turned into refugees and seen their lands forcibly Arabized. All of this still going on today, and not just in the Sudan.
Half of Israel's almost six million Jews originated in the Arab/Muslim world. They too predated the Arabs in many of those lands that they were forced to flee as refugees, leaving far more property and valuables behind than Arabs who fled in the opposite direction after the latter's brethren invaded a reborn Israel in 1948.
The famous Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, was prominent centuries before Jesus. The Jews of Iraq had been in that country at least since the days of the Babylonian Captivity and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews of Yemen were on the Arabian Peninsula before Muhammad was born, and the latter Prophet of Islam fled Mecca to Medina, a Jewish date palm oasis on that peninsula where the Jews were still prominent when Muhammad sought refuge there during the Hijra. When they would neither convert to his new faith (based largely on their own), nor accept his religio-political leadership, he butchered and enslaved them. Jews also took part in the resistance against the Arab imperial invasions of North Africa in the 7th century C.E. Recorded history, replete with similar instances, is difficult to reconcile with Amr Mussa's demand that the Jewish state submit to the will of the Arab world.
A better course for the Middle East might be the following:
It's time that the Africans of southern Sudan gain independence from the Arabs who have butchered, subjugated, and enslaved them over the centuries—long before the hypocrites in the United Nations raised so much as a mutter.
It's time for thirty million truly stateless people—such as the Kurds—to finally get their own state. They were promised one after World War I but saw it sacrificed at the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. An Arab Iraq was pieced together in its stead.
Trusting Arabs—whether Shi'a or Sunni—is probably an unwise decision, given the track records of Arabs of any stripe towards these people. With almost two dozen states already—including one carved out of almost 80 percent of the original 1920 borders of "Palestine" and today called Jordan—Arabs now have an American-sponsored roadmap to help create yet another for themselves. Yet even as they demand justice for Arabs, they seem deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of the Kurds.
It's time for the subjugation of North Africa's huge Berber populations to come to an end and for those folks to be able to decide if they want to remain forcibly tied to Arabs or not. If not, then why should they not get territory to create a Berber State if Arabs can get to have yet a second one carved out for themselves in "Palestine?"
You see, Mr. Musa, justice should not be exclusively for Arabs.
Unfortunately, for the Copts, not too much to offer here...So many more will become refugees.
And the above Arabs' victims' list is by no means complete. Just ask native Christian, Semitic but pre-Arab Lebanese—as just one other example.
The hypocrisy of the conquering, racist, and subjugating Arab League is nauseating enough. That the latter, however, is widely supported in its demands on Israel by much of the rest of the world should be appalling to anyone with any notion of fair play.
Despite all of the international pressure on it to consent to becoming a reincarnated 1938 Czechoslovakia, ready to sacrifice itself for another "peace for all time," Israel must now muster the strength to do what it must do.
The only appropriate response of Israel to all of this should be to counter offer the Arab League peace for peace. Israel must not consent to slowly being eroded via the Arabs' openly admitted "Trojan Horse" destruction in stages plans. And it must free itself from the belief that it must allow Arabs to determine the rules of the road if widespread violence erupts again. Abbas' folks have said that they would support quiet only as long as Israel continues to cave in to all of their demands. And they're the "moderates."
Millions upon millions of non-Arabs became refugees because of the Arabs. Many of these people fled to America, Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. They're not returning to those "Arab" lands. Likewise, Arabs will have to take care of their own refugees, created in a war that they started and far fewer in number.
The occupied territories Amr Musa mostly speaks of are disputed lands. They are not purely "Arab." Jews had as many, or more rights to be on those lands as Arabs had. Much has been written about this, including UN Resolution 242, and leading experts such as Eugene Rostow, William O'Brien, Arthur Goldberg, Lord Caradon, and others have been quite vocal on these matters as well.
Jews have a word describing demands such as those made by Amr Musa. It's called chutzpah. Israel must have leaders who will respond to such so-called Arab prerequisites for "peace" by telling them where to stuff them.
Apparently, Lee would like to trade places with some of the Gitmo detainees--provided he can be on the receiving end of some of their most novel "torture" tactics:
AP: Gitmo Soldier Details Sexual TacticsSAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Female interrogators tried to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay by sexual touching, wearing a miniskirt and thong underwear and in one case smearing a Saudi man's face with fake menstrual blood, according to an insider's written account.
A draft manuscript obtained by The Associated Press is classified as secret pending a Pentagon review for a planned book that details ways the U.S. military used women as part of tougher physical and psychological interrogation tactics to get terror suspects to talk.
It's the most revealing account so far of interrogations at the secretive detention camp, where officials say they have halted some controversial techniques.
"I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the author, former Army Sgt. Erik R. Saar, 29, told AP.
I just have one question: Did the techniques WORK? Because if they did--if the prisoners started singing like canaries after this "technique" was implemented, then I think there's no doubt we're in a religious war!
Makes sense, right? I mean, if you have a bunch of terrorists, and nothing makes them talk--not sleep deprivation, hunger, countless replaying of the Barney song--except for something their religion proscribes, isn't it fairly OBVIOUS that religion is at the heart of what separates us from our enemies (and them from us??)
I'm actually impressed that our people have finally woken up to the reality that the ONLY thing that has a prayer (pun unintentional) of working on these detainees is a technique that relies on either corrupting or denying them access to their holiest of holies: their religious "purity" as THEY SEE IT. Whether it bears any resemblance to "true Islam" is immaterial here. Their verson of the faith is what matters.
Threatening them with sexual contact with women not their wives might work, but to be honest, I wonder why we don't just go for broke. Why don't we force them to sleep on mattresses covered with pigskin? Oh, that would provoke the ire of the UN, Amnesty International etc...? Too bad. Then how about this? How about we just make sure that we send each and every prisoner an autographed copy of the official Super Bowl football (made of pigskin of course) as a "good will" or "humanitarian" gesture. We could leave it on their beds, right on their pillows, what do you think?
I don't think it would be a problem. If people complain, we could always fall back on our "Americain ignorance" right? Even the French would back us up then!
Hehehe. I crack myself up.
So let me get this straight: Muslim detainees are interrogated by women in thongs and it's "torture" but Americans are beheaded and it's "legitimate insurgency?"
What people like Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy and the others who insist that we weren't threatened by anything going on in Iraq, and that the terrorists only attack us because we're "occupying" the country don't get is that some people really do hate freedom.
Lee gets it though. Hopefully you do too.
What do you bet this bomb scare was a test by the terrorists of how we'd deal with the discovery of a bomb on board a jet liner? How hard is it to make a phone call? How much do you wanna bet someone, somewhere was sitting there with a watch, binoculars, etc... timing how long it would take authorities to respond, and documenting exactly how they would respond (fighter escort, landing on "full emergency" status, what does that look like, etc...")
See, I'm trying to think like these maniacs, and my thinking is that it would be much more "spectacular" and would kill way more people if they didn't actually blow a plane up in mid-air, or slam it into a building (both tough to pull off anymore), but pushed it to land somewhere with a full contingent of emergency personel, and THEN detonated a bomb, killing everyone on board and on the ground. As the wolf would say to Red-Riding Hood, "All the better to have hundreds of CAMERAS broadcasting the horror-show my dear!"
Look kids, I'm no genius, and neither are these goons. It took me all of five seconds to think up this scenario, and others just like it (what if they could foce the RAF to blow 300 people out of the sky out of fear, "how cool would that be?" they must be thinking).
I just hope the people in charge of keeping us safe are as bright and are thinking the same way or worse or we're all in deep shit. I feel it in my bones, an attack is coming in the next month, it's just a matter of when and where at this point.
This post should be subtitled Good Fences Make Good NeighborsInstead of placing Palestinian terrorists and those who send them on trial, the United Nations-sponsored international court placed the Jewish state in the dock, on the charge that Israel is harming the Palestinians' quality of life. But saving lives is more important than preserving the quality of life. Quality of life is always amenable to improvement. Death is permanent. The Palestinians complain that their children are late to school because of the fence. But too many of our children never get to school they are blown to pieces by terrorists who pass into Israel where there is still no fence.
If I hear one more person--in the media or in person--say that Israel's defense fence is "illegal" or "immoral" I'm going to ram a printed copy of the above-referenced op/ed down their throat. That is, just as soon as I pull their brainless head out of the sand in which it is obviously buried.
...if it doesn't use its power from time to time?
C'mon, who's kidding who here? The Saudis acted like they didn't know where Johnson's captors were all week. They claimed they were searching for but just couldn't find them.
Spare me.
This is Saudi Arabia people, not the United States where police and domestic intelligence officers are practically hog-tied when it comes to finding people who don't want to be found. The House of Saud has its own secret police and intelligence service. How else have they been able to successfully fund terrorism all these years without being touched themselves? Please, it's absurd to think they didn't know where Johnson's murderers were all week. If they didn't know, then how were they able to (oh gee, what a co-in-kee-dink) find them on the very day they also found Johnson's body? Hmmmm... Let's ponder that one a moment shall we?
It's really very simple. The Saudis have been feeding the alligator for decades, and now they're looking around and realizing that they can no longer hide the fact that they are the fattest, tastiest tidbit on the menu! What better way for the swine Islamists to hurt the west than by disrupting our economy which is so heavily dependent upon oil? What better way to impact the price of oil than to scare the living shit out of the western contractors who literally run the Saudi economy (because the Saudi people are too fucking busy studying their precious Q'ran, plotting heinous acts of murder and sipping tea to be bothered)?
You know, if I were a real Oliver-Stone type conspiracy theorist, I'd be wondering if:
1) The Saudis knew about and even had a hand in planning the latest round of terror attacks against westerners in the kingdom
2) They did it not to appease Al Qaeda, but rather to force the U.S. to increase its military footprint in the kindgom, but in such a way as to make it look like the House of Saud was being forced against their will to have us there
After all, if we send our troops or commandos back into Saudi Arabia to protect our own against Al Qaeda, we'll also be protecting the House of Saud from their menace. The Prince will once again be using U.S. blood and treasure to pay for his protection, and he'll be safe to resume spending his own money to finance the very people who made it all necessary.
Personally, I think we should tell the Saudis to fuck off. They are not a nuclear power, and we have a lot of oil in reserves. Maybe it's time we spent the money we'd spend defending our interests in the kingdom on alternative fuel research, and while we're waiting for that tree to bear fruit, maybe we open up some of the Alaskan wilderness (I said some) and our strategic reserves (again, I said some) to provide our energy needs.
While we're at it, we ought to tell the environmental extremists who oppose nuclear power plants (thanks to Jane Fonda's 'China Syndrome', that bitch ruins everything) to fuck off because it's either nuclear power or dependence on fossil fuels and production of greenhouse gasses, at least for the near future.
Let Al Qaeda get their hands on Saudi Arabia. Let them do business with the Japanese and Chinese all by their little lonesomes. They'll have a hard time getting the oil out of the ground without westerners to pump it for them, and without the oil, there's nothing there but sand. Let's see how much fun they have eating sand with a side of oil, shall we?
If we do this, and things go awry, the solution will be easy enough. With nothing else in Saudi Arabia that we want or need, there will be nothing stopping us from turning it into the world's biggest outdoor barbecue. Might be fun. I'll bring the baby back ribs and beer, y'all come, ya here?
As Lee says
Want to know what's going on in Iraq? Skip the major media, and ignore Michael Moore. Ask a Marine.
As far as Falluja goes, we have not been allowed to get back in there with any real numbers yet. Initially, it was confounding. However, a very interesting dynamic has developed. Since we have stayed out of Falluja and focused elsewhere, the mujahadeen have had their run of the town. As they have had no one to fight, they have turned their criminal instincts on the citizens. The clerics who once were whipping these idiots into a suicidal frenzy are now having to issue Fatwas (holy decrees) admonishing the muj for extortion, rape, murder and kidnapping. It is unfortunate for the "innocent people" of Falluja but the mujahadeen have betrayed themselves as the thugs that they are by brutalizing the civilians. There are, in fact, reports of rape, etc from inside the town.While the muj are thugging away inside the town, we are about 1/2 mile away paying claims, entering into dialogue and contracting jobs. The citizens come outside the city for work and money and are treated like human beings. They go back inside and enter a lawless hell. In short, the muj have done more to show the people what hypocrites they are in a few short weeks than we could have hoped for in a year. The result is more and more targetable intelligence. If we are given the green light, we can really go to town on these guys (no pun intended). However, as much as we would like to do just that, the optimal solution is to empower the Iraqis to take care of it themselves. That is precisely what we are doing.
Equally astounding is evidence that these "holy warriors" are taking drugs to get high before attacks. It true, as we pushed into the town in April many Marines came across drug paraphernalia (mostly heroin). Recently, we have gotten evidence of them using another drug BZ that makes them high and very aggressive. Cowards and hypocrites. They don't have the nerve to fight without calming their fear with drugs. Between highs, they are robbing people and raping young girls. Some jihad.
Of course, it goes without saying that words will never come close to expressing how grateful I am that there are guys like this brave marine out there ignoring the idiocy of some of our (very vocal) countrymen.
May I suggest that the anti-war, "Canada had the right idea staying out of this war" crowd now ask our neighbor to the North how that decision worked out for them in the good-will from Al Qaeda department?
You see, according to Al Qaeda, the answer ought to be "not so well."
But don't take MY word for it, have a few of theirs. When you're done reading, if you still think we're not at war with Islam, and that Bush is all worked up over a "few extremists," then I sure hope your excuse is that you are dyslexic or illiterate to begin with. If not, and you still think terrorists have "grievances" with the West--grievances that can be diplomatically resolved or simply avoided by staying home and minding our own business (whatever that means), then you are just being willfully stupid for the most pathetic possible reason: You hate Bush more than you love your own life.
From LGF by way of Canada's National Post. Khalid Khawaja, a friend of Osama bin Ladens who calls the Saudi terrorist and his followers the most wonderful people of the world, told the National Post that Canadians should not be surprised if suicide bombers want to strike their country.It is very simple, he said. As Bush says, either you are a friend or you are an enemy. So if you are not my friend, you are our enemy. So it is very simple. When you are supporting the enemy [the United States] then you are a target.
Canada, as a secular democratic society, is by definition assigned to Dar ul-Harb. From the perspective of al-Qaeda and associated Islamic militants, it is incumbent upon Muslims to wage a jihad, a holy war, against Dar ul-Harb in order to destroy its perceived evils and transform those societies into Dar ul-Islam, said Professor Martin Rudner.
According to this doctrine, Canada is a religiously sanctioned target for terrorism, suicide bombing and political violence, said Prof. Rudner, Director of the Canadian Centre of Intelligence and Security Studies at Carleton Universitys Norman Paterson School of International Affairs. ...
In an interview in Islamabad yesterday, Mr. Khawaja, who fought with bin Laden in Afghanistan and openly admits he supports jihad activities, provided a rare explanation of why terrorists wish to bring violence to Canada.
Suicide bombers are simply fighting back against the Western assault on their faith and Canadians should just learn to take it, he said.
They are also fighting a war against you. They are fighting their way, you are fighting your way. So lets be happy. But only thing is, your faces are pulled down, you are scared, sitting in America and Canada. You are scared of a man sitting in the cave.
We are not scared of you.
He described life as a cage and a prison from which he hoped to escape. We love it like we want to live in a toilet, and we just want to get out of it. And the best way to leave life is in jihad, he said. So how can you fight with us? [Emphasis added]
Life is a "cage" no better than a "toilet?" THESE are the people the anti-war folks want us to "understand?" These are the people with whom we're supposed to "dialogue?" These are the people who are "mad" at us because we've somehow done them wrong, been "mean" to them, etc...?
What wrong could we possibly have perpetrated to deserve the heinous barbarity now being directed at us? Why have we not suffered similar organized systematic attacks for decades at the hands of other groups we have wronged? Is there really nothing unique about the terrorists we now face? Really?
Can you honestly come up with a logical reason why others we have "oppressed" (Native Americans, black Africans, Japanese Americans, Jews, Catholics) have not declared their culture's equivalent of "jihad" on us?
OH, that's right...Their cultures DON'T HAVE JIHAD! The concept of living to die while killing others is just not part of their make-up. It is simply ridiculous to talk and behave as though there's nothing whatsoever that set our new foe apart. There is, and they're trumpeting what it is from the rooftops and minarets around you!
If only you'd LISTEN.
Can't tell whether the following was taken from Andrew's site or whether it was written in response to something written there, but nonetheless, it's spot-on and exactly the kind of crap I was talking about in my rant below.
[From American Digest
AN INSANE SPIN: How are the media this stupid? AOL headlines: "Abuse Scandal's Deadly Fallout" referring to the hideous beheading of Nick Berg. Or this idiocy: "American Beheaded for Abuse." Do these people have no memories? This is al Qaeda. They beheaded Daniel Pearl long before the war in Iraq. They murdered thousands in New York City long before Saddam was removed from power. And they are as stupid as they are evil. Iraqis now have contrasting images. Do they want to be run by people who cut innocent people's throats at will or by people who have removed a dictator and are investigating unethical abuse of prison inmates? Zarqawi has now done something for our morale as well as his. He has reminded us of the real enemy; and he has reminded the Iraqis. One simple question: will CNN now show these video stills? I know it must be torment for the family. But if we are in a propaganda war, as we are, we need to be as ruthless in publicizing the murders committed by our enemy as we are in exposing the abuses committed by our own.
Tell me, does a day go by when somebody doesn't claim that we're "no safer" than we were before 9/11? I'm guessing that the people who make this claim are counting on the rest of us taking their word for it because anyone who stopped to think about such statements for more than a nanosecond (well, anyone with a functioning cerebral cortex anyway) would probably say
"Define "safer"
"Hmmm...I wonder what the statistics have to say about that?"
Yes folks, there are statistics that MEASURE how lethal terrorists have been towards us since 9/11, it's just that the people who want you to quake in your shoes with fear and dread at the thought that Bush has spend the ensuing 3 years working to make you less safe don't want you to know about them.
We can, for example, COUNT how many terrorist attacks there have been worldwide since then. We can also COUNT how many Americans have died in them.
And thanks to my buddy Lee, you too can read all about these and other interesting statistics for yourself.
Here's the gist of it though:
There were 190 acts of international terrorism last year, compared with 198 in 2002. It was the lowest figure in 34 years.In those attacks last year, 307 people were killed, compared with 725 in 2002; 1,593 people were wounded, compared with 2,013 in 2002.
Thirty-five Americans died in 15 international attacks. The deadliest was a May 12 attack by suicide bombers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed nine U.S. citizens and 26 people overall.
Anti-U.S. attacks increased slightly to 82 from 77 in 2002. But they have declined sharply since the 219 attacks in 2001.
Asia had the highest number of attacks, with 159 people killed in 70 attacks. [Emphasis added]
"This" being our foreign policy of course.
I've spent a lot of time lately talking with my Dad about the neo-con "make-the-world-a-better-place" approach, and I'm starting to think it's the wrong way to go.
Don't get me wrong. I fully supported the President's decision to go to Iraq, and currently support doing anything we can do to at least make it seem like we've won there, it's just that I'm losing faith in our ability to really "win" there because--for all Bush's sincerity--I'm not sure even he's tough enough to do what really needs to be done.
It's simple really. We had to go to Iraq because a preponderance of the evidence suggested that Saddam had WMD. Given that Saddam had links to some islamomaniac terrorists (Hamas, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas), it was logical and sensible to presume that he could have links to Al Qaeda as well--if not already, than potentially in the frighteningly near future. As such, it would have been irresponsible for the President to allow this threat to grow until it became "imminent," and we had to go in and take the hairy bastard out.
The mistake we made, however, was in trying too hard to redefine the war after it became clear that Saddam put one over on us about the WMD. Either he moved them to another country (most likley Syria or Lebanon if anywhere) or he buried them really well under a chicken coop or outhouse someplace in Iraq, or (implausibly) he never had them and just wanted everyone to think that he did. No matter which it is, the fact remains that they are not there and neither is he anymore, so in theory, we accomplished our declared objective.
If we'd wanted to, we could have left that shithole of a country as soon as we'd captured Saddam, killed his sons and heard from David Kay, but nooooooo! We had to get into the "nation-building" business. We (we being the non-loonies who supported this thing in the first place, the administration included) began to believe some of the negative PR about ourselves it seems because instead of standing by the original reason for the war and saying "Well, the President's responsibility is to respond to growing threats by removing them. Guess we did that, time to go home," we started down-playing the WMD issue and replacing it with speeches about rape rooms and mass graves.
Don't get me wrong. Those things were worth getting rid of too, it's just that--well, let's be honest shall we--that's NOT why we went to Iraq. We went because a guy who was psycho enough to have such things ALSO (we were told by an obviously totally incompetent CIA Director) had WMD. Not only did he have them, it was supposedly a "slam dunk" that we'd find them when we got there.
The President didn't lie, but he might have been lied TO, and then (I'm sorry to say) he was in the unenviable position of having to decide whether to can the guy whose information led him into the political morasse of his life--risking the publication of some nasty reprisal tell-all bullshit during an election year--or to keep him on the payroll a la "keep your friends close but your enemies closer."
So now that we've redefined this as a war of liberation, we have to stick around until the Iraqis really ARE liberated. Clearly, getting rid of Saddam didn't really free them from terror and violence, all it did was remove the one guy who had enough power to ensure that he was the only one inflicting these things on his people. Was that a reason to keep him around? No, but that's because, as I said, he appeared to pose a real danger to US, and I'll always be on the side of kicking the ass of the guy who's getting ready to kick ours, even if he's only put on one of his shoes so far.
And what's the problem with sticking around? Well, aside from the obvious huge cost in money and American lives, there's the fact that I'm not really sure an oil-rich country like Iraq can be democratic, ever. First of all, there's no one alive there anymore who remembers anything other than total domination. Second, even if you could get some kind of representative government in place, the temptation created by such easy access to wealth would probably be enough to corrupt that government.
The way I see it, as soon as we started believing the media that we were supposed to be ashamed of the fact that we found no WMD (instead of glad they weren't there to be used on our troops), we lost this war. In fact, I suspect that the absence of WMD in the days immediately following the fall of Baghdad pushed us to move too quickly from a military footing to a political one. If we'd used the MOAB bombs to extract an unconditional surrender from the Iraqi military and Fedayeen Saddam, and if we'd then used disaffected Iraqi soldiers for security instead of spending untold billions and way too much time trying to hire and train a new Iraqi security force, we might have had a chance.
Instead, with the statues still coming down, we were already building schools. We had soldiers playing soccer instead of hunting down Saddam loyalists while they were still on the run, and we left the border with Iran gaping open assuming (wrongly) that these mortal enemies wouldn't find the bonds of common faith sufficient to unite them against us. That was a doozy.
The way my Dad and I see it, we should either IMMEDIATELY start kicking the living shit out of the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq, Muqtada al Sadr included--realizing of course that "they" can't hate us more if they try--or we should plan to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30th and get the fuck out of dodge forthwith. I'm sure we won't do the former, but I think there's a small chance we'll do the latter.
How can I say this? You ask. How can I advocate "cutting and running?" C'mon people! I'm not saying we get out when they tell us to, I'm saying we get out when we said we would. Why do you think Bush has refused to change the deadine? It is his exit strategy, it has to be. Oh sure, he'll leave a few units there for a while to provide security for the fledgling government (which will, I'm sure, be tempted by oil wealth to devolve quickly into a semi-benign dictatorship).
If we stay in full force past the June 30th deadline, we look more like failures because everyone--Iraqis included--will say "But you're still there, why can't you DO SOMETHING to stop the violence?"
If we leave, it will--at some point--become the Iraqis' fault that they can't get their shit together.
In other words, everyone says the terrorists are trying to get us to leave, but I think they have a plan for us even if we stay. It's not the leaving itself, it's the TIMING and MANNER of leaving that counts. Sure, if we bug out now, before the hand-over, we look like total wimps (i.e., Spain). If we stick around for months or years after June 30th, we look like miscalculating, lying, occupying, imperialistic puppet-masters (not to mention sitting ducks for opportunistic terrorists who just get off on killing Americans). If, however, we leave precisely when we said we would, and if we make all kinds of noises that make it look like we expect the new Iraqi government to do that which they claim they want to do (i.e., take care of their own mess for a fucking change), then whatever happens becomes their fault.
Will there be people who still say that whatever happens after we leave is our fault? Sure, but that was always going to be the case, even if we left a thriving Jeffersonian democracy in our wake. Even then you'd have anti-Americans around the globe whining again about how much damage the museums suffered, or how Iraqi kids are becoming obese on too much McDonalds.
My point is, we have to start thinking of OURSELVES more. We started off OK in this regard by going in despite protest from the UN and human panty-shields everywhere, but like I said, we lost our footing after the WMDs didn't materialize. Whoever advised the President to change his tune should be shot. What he should have done was come out strong to say something like:
"I'm the President of the United States, I took an oath to protect you all, and when my CIA Director tells me that a madman sho's had it in for us for over 12 years has WMD and ties to terrorists who are already killing friends of ours, I do what I have to do to make sure he's not a threat to you anymore. I was doing my job, you should have expected no less from me. But now that it turns out my CIA guy had his head up his ass so far he couldn't see daylight, I guess it's time to mop up the mess as best we can and git on home."
Mopping up the mess would not mean spending gazillions of dollars building schools. What happened to the oil revenue that was supposed to pay for that crap? Mopping up the mess would mean putting on such a huge display of firepower for any remaining (or recently arrived) terrorists or future would-be terrorists that they would think twice before deciding that the best thing about getting rid of Saddam was having the opportunity be then next Saddam-like maniac in the region.
The only thing these people understand is BRUTE FORCE. It's what they've had for over 30 years, another few months of it directed at the people who really deserved it wouldn't have ruined our relationship with the Iraqi people. They know what "war" looks like! What they aren't used to is chaos, and that's what they have now, and (predictably) the bad guys are doing a pretty good job of convincing them that we're the ones to blame for that chaos.
I'm happy to see the guns ablazin' in Fallujah over the last two days, and I'm hopeful that we've seen the error of our ways and are "mopping up" before pulling out in June, but I sure hope this teaches us a lesson about "democratizing" the middle east! It's a nice idea, but about as possible as fully domesticating one of Sigfried and Roy's tigers.
I'm racist you say? A bigot? Why can't these folks create a democracy like ours? Well, maybe they can, but given that they're starting at about the same level English speaking folk were at when we got the Magna Carta, we might be waiting 700+ years for it to happen. Forgive me for being selfish, but I'm not really that jazzed about what may or may not be possible seven centuries from now!
I don't care if Iraq looks like us when we're done. I only care that whatever it looks like, it has a really vivid picture of how much MORE chaotic we could make it if the government they choose decides to mess with us again! Why do you think the Japanese are "our friends" today? Why do you think the Germans aren't sending terrorists to kill us (yet...wait until their demographics look more like Iraq, say around 2035)? Because these people know that as much as they might not really like us, they know what can happen when we get really pissed off!
The terrorists and the Iraqis-turned-terrorists really don't know what we can do, and it's about time we showed them. But even if we don't (and most likely we won't), we should still say sayonara on June 30th, come-what-may, because "failure"--which would indeed be disasterous--will not be a measure of how democratic Iraq is. No, failure will be a matter of perception. The way I see it, it will be a function of how much we look like apologists for going in to begin with, how weak we appear (i.e., how much we let the politicians determine military strategy and tactics), and whether we keep our word and turn over sovereignty on time or not.
We cannot allow ourselves to buy-into the bullshit rhetoric of Europeans and others who will claim that leaving Iraq in anything other than perfectly stable condition proves that we had no business removing Saddam in the first place. We should stick to the WMD argument, even though we haven't found them because they really were the main reason we went in there. As long as we keep talking instead about the poor-put-upon Iraqi people, we are taking on the responsibility for making their lives completely safe, and that's just plain wrong. At some point, the Iraqis not only need to take responsibility for protecting themselves, we need to push them to do so by resisting the urge to compare the government they end up with with our own.
The other thing we should do (after we bring our boys home) is pack up and get the hell out of Europe, schedule a sit-down with the countries that either will matter to our economy in the future (China, Russia) or are decent, mostly like-minded folk who "get" that we're at war for our very survival as a civilization (Great Britain as long as Tony Blair is there, Israel, Australia, New Zealand). We should tell everyone else in the world to fuck off, stop giving them aid, and close our borders (or at least make it painfully difficult for people to come here legally, and lethal to try to get here illegally). If anyone--and I do mean anyone--comes here from a foreign country and perpetrates an act of terrorism, we will hold their country of origin accountable. Some Saudi blows up a mall? Bye bye Riyadh, see how simple that is?
But what about the oooooooil? Well, let them eat it! I'd like to see the middle east function without having us as a market for their one and only "product." Sure the Saudis could make life really hard for us if they stopped production, but it wouldn't be long before their own people would be begging them to start it up again so they could eat. What's that? We'll just create more people who hate us? What, and a billion or so who already do when it seems to only take 1 hate-deranged suicide bomber to take out dozens, if not hundreds of us, aren't enough already? What's a few million more? Let them try to come here and attack us at home, we'll just bomb them back to the dark-ages, that's where they want to be anyway, isn't it?
Do I sound harsh? Oh well! I'm sick of this crap. I'm sick of us pretending there's something called a "moderate Muslim." Even the ones who pretend to be "moderate" voices of reason show their true colors whenever the subject of Israel comes up. They'll condemn terrorism all day long when it's happening here, or happening in Spain, but when a Palestinian blows himself and a bunch of Israeli school kids to smithereens, oh well...That's "justifiable resistance."
Spare me.
I'm sure to get all kinds of hate mail about this post, from both sides. I do realize I'm contradicting things I've said in the past about Iraq--I've made plenty of hay out of the "Saddam was an evil guy" argument to support the war, but even I've been disillusioned by the behavior of the Iraqi people since the fall of Baghdad. I gave them too much credit. I was naive. How could I not be? I've been fortunate enough never to have spent my entire life under the thumb of an all-powerful dictator, monitoring my every word and deed. I know how to think for myself and can't imagine living any other way. I now see that the reverse is true for most Iraqis.
The President went in for the right reasons, but now that those reasons have been moved (most likely), it's time to hand over the keys to these rabble and continue the hunt for them elsewhere. By "hunt" of course I mean beefing up our intelligence. Let's put the money we'd otherwise spend continuing to provide security to these ingrates into developing the world's very best intelligence resources. Let's start racially profiling people who want to come to our country and lay down the law to the Euroweenies that if they continue to allow these maniacs to travel across their continent with impunity, we'll hold future attacks against them as well. Then it really won't matter if the Iraqis get their shit together or not.
Sound insane? Maybe a little, but I honestly think this is what we'll come to eventually anyway, why not start now and save some money and American lives in the bargain.
Just catching up on my Lileks, and all I can say is, based on how I'm doing right now, I should finally stop laughing sometime tomorrow around noon!
In this week's edition of the Bleat, he takes on the anti-everything-that-matters protesters.
Here's a teaser:
The Movement to Reinstall Saddam commemorated the first anniversary of the Iraq campaign by expressing their outrage at the loss of an ally in the war against America. These people are the fringe of the left; yes. They are the Klan with out the sheets. Worse: they dont have the inbred moonshine-addled mah-pappy-hated-nigras-an-I-hate-em-too dense-as-a-neutron-star stupidity of your average Kluxer. They didnt come to this level of stupidity naturally. They had to work at it.
Go. Read. Now.
Vinny has definitely earned his "Honorary Member of the Tribe Award" this week! Just go read his site, any post from the past few days will do. Anyone who dares denounce the "assassination" (eyes rolling, fake coughing) of Ahmed Yassin (yeah, "ya-seen the rest of his body lately?") stands no chance against the superior brainpower and logic of the Vin man!
Be sure to catch his observations on Dickhead Clarke too, they'd be hilarious if they were parody instead of TRUTH!
Picking up where I left off in my previous post, let me say that those who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with groups who seek the eradication of Israsel--groups who openly support the use of "any means necessary" to achieve this goal--are ALSO complicit in acts of terror against Western targets.
I can hear the gasps now:
"Oh Deb! How can you say that? You can't possibly mean that all those 'peace, love and understanding' people are helping the terrorists' cause simply by expressing their freedoms of assembly and speech!"
Yes, I do mean it, and it's actually very easy to say. Here's how I see it:
And when I say "heard and heeded," I mean "heard as evidence of the FEAR that was the goal of the terrorists' actions in the first place!"
After all, protest rallies rarely include banners AGAINST the terrorist organizations. Rarely do you see "Anti-Suicide Bombing" rallies, and even though he was a fascist dictator with moustache, you never see images of Saddam wearing Nazi garb.
No, instead all you see are people out in force, blaming the victim for being attacked! If this isn't a terrorist's wet-dream come true, I don't know what is! When they see these things, they not only laugh, they get pumped up to kill some more! I can hear it now:
"Look Ah-ben Smokehn Krakh, those stupid infidels are blaming their own leaders for what we did! Maybe if we do it some more, they'll do us a favor and get rid of those leaders themselves so we won't have to"
"Yeah, you're right Kahnon Fahdehr! Allah smiles upon us surely! Just think how much C4 we'll save if we can get them to tear down their own civilization!"
In other words kids, anything--and I do mean ANYTHING--you do that gives the terrorists a boost of ANY KIND can be considered "support" for terrorism. You can sit there and decry their actions, object to their motives and weep crocodile tears for their victims all you want, in the end it comes down to this:
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM?
As Andrew Sullivan said yesterday, if you think that "While hundreds lie dead, while limbs and severed heads lie scattered across railway tracks, the most important thing is to stick on your lapel name-labels, hurry down to the nearest hotel lobby and have a seminar" you are NOT working to "fight" terrorists, you are working to embolden them (at a minimum) and perhaps helping them get their message out (at worst).
If you allow yourself to be used--with or without your explicit consent--as a PR tool of terrorists and their supporters, you are complicit in my book. There are other ways to "voice your opinion" without marching side-by-side with terrorist agents and sympathizers. Getting your contrarian mug on TV is not the core of your right to free speech, getting your voice heard is. I don't begrudge anyone their right to protest, I just think people should wake up and realize that the manner and media used make all the difference.
In other words, got something to say? Write a fucking letter!
(sarcasm) It's great to see that Iraqis have no sympathy whatsoever for terrorist organizations! (/sarcasm)
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite cleric in Iraq, urged Muslims to unite against Israel and restore what he said belongs to the Palestinians.Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite cleric with a powerful base in a poor Baghdad neighborhood, said Iraqi Muslims support the Palestinians.
"We as Muslims stand hand in hand with our brethren in Palestine," he said. "And we say to them that we are ready to extend all forms of assistance, be it moral or physical."
Gee, if they're this bummed out about the death of a Hamas leader, how do you think they'll react when we capture or kill OBL?
Remember, "connections" needn't involve overt support. "Connections" can simply mean that the majority of your population dances with joy in the streets when terrorists attack Western targets. "Connections" can (and does) also mean "Muslims who consider themselves Muslim first, whatever nationality they are second."
CALL THEM WHAT THEY ARE FOLKS! Stop pretending that everybody separates religion and state, because they do NOT, not by a long shot.
Or do you disagree dear reader? Do you honestly believe that a nation's population can cheer for terrorism and NOT somehow have (perhaps concealed, but nevertheless present) more overt connections to terrorism?
What we in the West need to do, for once and for all, is declare--loudly and unequivocally--that those who dance and sing in praise of terrorist actions and terrorist leaders are NO LESS GUILTY than the terrorists themselves.
Iraq isn't the center of the WoT? Yeah, and a purple polka-dotted pig just flew past my window.
I have to hand it to Lee! He gets the "Most Accurate, Entertaining and Unlikely Analogy Award of the Year" if you ask me!
In reference to the (smirk, fake cough) "assassination" of Hamas' "Spiritual Leader" Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Lee offers up this fabulous tidbit:
Chris Rock once did a comedy bit about the murders of rappers Tupac Shakur and Biggie Smalls and the way many people referred to their killings as assassinations.
"Also - what's this with saying them two were assassinated? Listen - JFK was assassinated. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Them two niggas just got shot! I mean, I love Biggie, I love Tupac, but school will be open on their birthdays!"
Well, it seems that Reuters needs to bone up on their Chris Rock:
"A Palestinian general strike in the West Bank has been declared from mosque loudspeakers after Israel assassinated Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in an air attack."If this is an assassination, were the killings of Uhaul and Queasy Hussein also assassinations? By any objective standard calling this killing an assassination is quite a stretch. To paraphrase Chris Rock:
Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. Anwar Sadat was assassinated. That terrorist scumbag got blown up. Good riddance.[Emphasis added]
Even Dennis Miller got into the act on his show tonight when he said that the Israeli strike served double-duty as payback for Leon Klinghoffer's murder by the PLO back in the late '80s--a kind of "wheelchair for wheelchair" vendetta.
Dennis's comment went something like this:
"I'm thinking 'ol Leon's gonna meet up with the Sheikh on the other side to dish out a serious ass-whoopin'!"
See, and I'm thinking Lee's comment was funnier than Dennis's! Maybe Lee missed his calling and ought to have gone into current-events stand-up, whaddaya think?
Ever since the Spanish caved into terrorist blackmail last week, I've sat in awe of their foolishness and flagrant irresponsibility. I've tried to understand their point of view, but try as I might, I cannot. This is because the European view--that the WoT can and should be separated from the war in Iraq--differs so drastically from my own.
I'd sit here and try to put into words what I think, but why bother when Andrew Sullivan has done such an excellent job of it already.
The Spanish were not protesting the war on terrorism, some insist; they were protesting the war to depose Saddam. And as all right-thinking people acknowledge, there is no connection whatsoever between the war on terror and the war to liberate Iraq. There are a few points to me made with regard to this argument, and the first is that al Qaeda begs to differ. If the war in Iraq is utterly unconnected to the broader war on terror, then why, pray, does al Qaeda want the Spanish government to withdraw its troops? If the war in Iraq is such an irrelevance to the war on terror, why on earth would al Qaeda and the Jihadists be so keen to force Western governments to withdraw? If Iraq is such a distracting quagmire for the West, why wouldn't it be in the terrorists' interests to see more troops committed, more resources diverted, more attention distracted from the real war that they are busily fomenting elsewhere?The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. Nothing threatens al Qaeda or the Islamo-fascist terror network more than the possibility of a constitutional democracy in Iraq. If Iraq succeeds, the entire dysfunction in the Middle East on which al Qaeda relies for its recruitment and growth would be in danger of unraveling. If Iraqis can achieve a semblance of a free and democratic society - with economic growth, political pluralism, and religious freedom - then the al Qaeda model of theocratic fascism will lose whatever appeal it now has in that part of the world. Losing Afghanistan was bad enough for the Jihadists. Seeing Iraq emerge into modernity would be fatal. How long could Syria's dictatorship last if that occurs? What would happen to Iran, where a young generation desperate for freedom and democracy could finally look over the border and see a Muslim state prosper with real elections and a meaningful constitution? Al Qaeda understands the stakes and that's why it's so desperately keen to drive a wedge between Europe and America, intimidate anyone building a new Iraq with violence and murder, and mobilize the young and disaffected among Europe's Muslim population to unleash terror from within as well.
To answer that, I put forth the following points:
Euopeans refuse to acknowledge that Iraq could be linked to the WoT because...
- They didn't actually mind Saddam's attitude towards Palestinian suicide bombers. If you doubt this, just look around at the next anti-war rally and count the Palestinian flags.
- They don't consider Palestinian suicide bombers and groups like Hamas "terrorists." If you doubt this, just look at the EU definition of terrorism and the example groups listed, then peruse what the UN has to say on the subject, and you'll quickly notice there's no mention of Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the like.
- Allowing terrorist sympathizers to live and work in a country is not "support for terrorism" in their world. If it were, then they'd have to blame themselves for the Madrid bombings because, after all, most of the collaborators were living and working in Spain prior to the attacks, one of them even under the supposed watchful eyes of Spanish police! (And we all know that self-reflection and self-awareness are not European strong-suits).
- Taking out Saddam not only served no obvious European interest, it was contraindicated for several European nations who stood to lose big bucks if Saddam was taken down (i.e., France and Germany). When America acts in its best interests, it's "Imperialism," when Europe acts in its, it's "Internationalism." How interesting...
- Having no military strength of their own, Europens are loathe to accept the argument that military action is the best way to deal with terrorism because it would mean they'd truly be beholden to the U.S. and Great Britain (which still isn't considered a "European" nation after all) and psychologically they just can't abide that.
- Choosing to believe that which is totally illogical feels good in the moment. There are probably people in Europe who know intellectually that backing away from the U.S. even more isn't going to keep terrorists from attacking, but who feel like it OUGHT to work that way, so why not give it a try. After all, the hallmark of liberal thought is a belief that what SHOULD be, WILL BE, if you work hard enough at looking down your nose at those who try to convince you otherwise.
Do I believe that there are those in Spain and elsewhere who really believe that turning away from the U.S. will keep the terrorists at bay? Sure, everyplace has its share of morons after all. But more likely is the notion that there are people in Europe who just flat out CHOOSE to ignore the connection Andrew points out. I've hypothesized a few reasons why they might do that, but I'll bet there are even more than I've come up with.
The bottom line is that we in the United States can't allow ourselves to care too much what the Europeans "think" of us because clearly they aren't too concerned about what we think of them, and they should be.
I wasn't going to post this again here, but since Lee thought it merited "Comment of the Day" status on his site, I thought, what the hey?
This is what I wrote earlier tonight on his site in response to his post about the possibility that Musharraf has a "high value target" in his sights as I type:
Here's Deb thinking out loud (er, sort of)...
Musharraf desperately (I'm talking DESPERATELY) wants Bush to win re-election...He knows that if Kerry wins, it's a distinct possibility that he will "reevaluate" our relationship with Pakistan because Musharraf is, well, you know, "not democratically elected"...Even if Kerry doesn't bow to the far left's pressure to "reevaluate" Musharraf, he will likely reevaluate the "support" we're giving the man that quite literally keeps him alive (by virtue, I'm sure, of intelligence--highly expensive intelligence no doubt--that we give him that keeps him one step ahead of the assassins)...So there he is, desperate to see Bush in office for four more years, surrounded by fanatical freaks only too eager to get their mits on his nukes, and he knows full well where OBL and Al Zawahiri are (c'mon, does anyone doubt that he knows), he just has to figure out a way to ensure that he can give them to us without having it look like we "took" them...He sees what happened in Spain, realizes that 8 months is too long to let these monsters continue operating if it could swing the election away from Bush in any way, realizes there's at least a chance the anti-Bush media in the U.S. and abroad would spin it such that it's "Bush's fault" that we were attacked, or that another ally was attacked because he failed to nab these guys sooner, and realizes he better get on the stick and smoke these guys out but quick...
One thing is certain, Kim Jong Il will look like a veritable Boy Scout compared to the guys who could get their hands on Pakistans ready-made nukes if Musharraf falls. I'm quite certain Musharraf and Bush have contingency plans all drawn up in case that happens, but not so very sure that Kerry (being the arrogant fuck that he is) would follow them if it should come to pass that it's his option to do so someday (I imagine they, uh, push the limits of Kerry's precious "International Law" perhaps even involving us literally destroying the nuke sites from the air upon hearing of Musharraf's untimely demise, innocent life on the ground be damned, at least I friggin' hope that's what they entail).
I just have one thing to say about Kerry's' approach to fighting terrorism, his "law enforcement" way...I watched a movie based on the Achille Lauro tragedy today, and it reminded me of what happened when the ship's hijackers (and Leon Klinghoffer's murderers) were caught. Our planes diverted the Egyptian airliner they were on (heading back to Arafat's protective embrace) back to Italian jurisdiction, but when we demanded that they be released into our custody, we were told that would be a violation of "International Law." We were further told that their leader, Abu Abbas could not be held for any crime, even though we had intercepted conversations he'd had with the hijackers. And how did all that turn out? Well, let's just say that both Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, two of those involved, ended up in IRAQ! So much for putting terrorists in front of judges and messing around with pesky "rules of evidence!"
Which brings me back to today...Remember Madrid? Well do you think it's any accident that they've got so many suspects so damn fast? Of course they do! They've probably known that these guys with "ties to terrorists" were in their midst for months. Heck, we already know they knew about at least one of the guys, right, why not most of them? But they had to have "evidence." They have no Patriot Act, they worry about shit like "international law," and they run everything past lawyers who tell them if their cases will stick. This is what we'll have with John F. Kerry! No more taking it to the terrorists, no more military involvement. Nope! Instead, we'll sit and wait for them to come for us, and then when they do, we'll appoint the best attorneys our tax dollars can buy to help them get off on some pesky civil rights technicality.
Because remember, it was the lawyer in Bill Clinton that kept him from nailing OBL's ass to the desert floor when he had the chance, which is why we're sitting here to day hoping and praying that Musharraf knows something we don't...YET.
Mark Steyn nails it, again:
As the PR guy for the Islamic Army of Aden said after blowing up that French tanker: "We would have preferred to hit a US frigate, but no problem because they are all infidels." Commissioner Keelty is confusing old-school terrorism blowing the legs off grannies as a means to an end with the new: blowing the legs off grannies is the end. Old-school terrorists have relatively viable goals: They want a Basque state or Northern Ireland removed from the UK. You might not agree with these goals, you might not think them negotiable, but at least they're not stark staring insane.That kind of finely calibrated terrorism just enough slaughter to inconvenience the state into concessions is all but over. Suppose you're an ETA cell. Suppose you were planning a car-bomb for next month nothing fancy, just a dead Spanish official plus a couple of unlucky passers-by. Still want to go ahead with it? I doubt it. Despite Gerry Adams's attempts to distinguish between "unacceptable" terrorism and the supposedly more beneficial kind, these days it's a club with only one level of membership. That's why so many formerly active terrorist groups have been so quiet the past couple of years. In that sense, Bush is right: It is a "war on terror", and on many fronts it's being won.
If Islamic terrorism were as rational as Irish or Basque terrorism, it would be easier. But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.
So the choice for pluralist democracies is simple: You can join Bush in taking the war to the terrorists, to their redoubts and sponsoring regimes. Despite the sneers that terrorism is a phenomenon and you can't wage war against a phenomenon, in fact you can as the Royal Navy did very successfully against the malign phenomena of an earlier age, piracy and slavery.
Or you can stick your head in the sand and paint a burqa on your butt. But they'll blow it up anyway.
Lee has a post over at Right-Thinking.com about the predictable response to the Madrid bombings (i.e., "SEE, we never should have allied with that terrorist George Bush! We should have 'dialogued' with the poor oppressed attackers instead!"), and one of the commenters made an EXCELLENT point. The writer--who goes by the name "Othello"--says:
A related (grotesque) irony going on here, is how the pomo deconstructionist transis of the left (interchangeable with "the apologists for Islamic terrorists") have been lecturing conservatives and Western traditionalists for a generation now, excoriating us for our failure to understand "The Other" and see the world through his/her eyes, instead of cramming everything into our corrupt patriarchal Judeo-Christian worldview.
And yet: now that the survival of the West depends upon genuinely comprehending how "The Other" thinks, all the left can do is blather on about "we must dialogue ... violence solves nothing," in effect, cramming everything into their overprivileged, cloistered, morally bankrupt and breathtakingly sanctimonious worldview which they have acquired through generations of depending upon someone else to do the hard work of soldiering and dying and keeping deadly evil far from their doorstep so that they could live their lives of liberty and luxury unmolested.
They accuse conservatives of viewing the Islamist through Western glasses, when in fact it is they themselves who are doing exactly that. The Muslim terrorist is not interested in dialogue. As for violence, that is his mode of political speech; he will use no other; and he will be stopped by no other.
Those who fail to understand the necessity of armed force in this conflict are not merely naive, they are dangerous; they are a rock around all our necks. Let's hope to God we are strong enough to swim to shore in spite of them, because I don't see them falling away any time soon.
This is for you Jason, that is, assuming you really wanted an answer!
First of all, however, it's important to note that working towards and achieving victory are two different things. My point is that you cannot possibly hope for the latter if you are not full-throttle engaged in the former.
So here goes. Victory over terrorism by (let's be specific shall we) Islamic radicals bent on destroying Western civilization as we know it, would mean that those who would carry out attacks against us--wherever we might be would
- Have no money
- Have no material support, even if they can get their hands on enough money
- Have no safe harbor
- Have no means of communicating with each other without being seen or heard
- Have a reasonable expectation of FAILING 99.9999999 percent of the time
Do I think we can get there? No.
Do I think we can work so hard on trying that eventually forces beyond the control of the terrorists take over and work in our favor? Yes.
What do I mean? Well, if we keep hunting the terrorists who already exist, and they persist in killing themselves (or getting killed by us), they need to recruit more and more people to serve their cause. To do this, they need to
a) Find ways to appeal to a broader range of people
b) Find ways to recruit, train and plan while remaining under our radar
The more we tighten our grip on the communities most "friendly" to terrorist messages and activities, the more they have to step outside their own community to recruit. The more they have to step outside this community, the the more it's going to cost and the harder it's going to be to conceal their activities. The more money, time and effort they have to put into recruiting, the less they're going to have left over for planning and executing terror attacks.
These forces are powerful Jason. If an "army" has to spend all of its time finding soldiers and figuring out how to train, pay and equip those soldiers IN SECRET in order to fight against an "army" that does not have these concerns, it is doomed.
It won't happen overnight. It will take years, but we will win. Terrorism has never and will never work. The only reason it is taking as long to put down this particular type of terrorist is simply that there are so damn many of them.
But we're working on that, and as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather we were working on it in their neighborhood than in mine!
If you quit becuase you can't win easily, then you deserve to lose. I'm quite sure this is the mantra of our enemy, and if we don't make it ours too, they just might beat us.
Something to think about.
Oh, and Jason, since you bring up the Civil War, I suggest you take a gander at your history books. How well was Lincoln doing at about this point in his campaign for reelection? The Civil War was at a stalemate, people in the North didn't care that much about keeping the union together and couldn't give a fiddler's fart about freeing the slaves (abolitionists excluded of course), and were convinced that Lincoln had led them into (get ready for it) a "QUAGMIRE."
Then what happened Jason? Well, the Confederacy made a few key blunders, Lincoln was able to get soldiers to re-up by promising them each 30 days of leave if they'd re-enlist, and suddenly the North started to feel like maybe, just maybe they could win. This was all it took and guess what....
LINCOLN WON IN A LANDSLIDE.
All this after being himself convinced that he'd lose at this same time in his campaign.
What's my point? It's early dude. Don't count your chickens. There are many cards to be played and few easy come-backs for Mr. Kerry if they are. What's he going to say, for example if
- We do find WMD
- We capture or find the remains of OBL
- There's a jobs recovery and unemployment dips down even further
What then Jason? What's going to make Kerry better than the President? Do you think Americans will seriously vote him out of office just because they want gays to marry or because they want to abort fetuses at full-term?
I think not.
...and knock some sense into him!
Hopefully without realizing it, Brian Klug has written the definitive anti-semitism denial piece for (surprise surprise) the Nation magazine.
Tellingly titled "The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism," the article is endlessly long, and seems to be working overtime to disguise itself as something OTHER than a feeble apology for the recent surge in flagrant anti-semitism in Europe (amongst other places). It's worth reading though, if only to remind yourself that there really are (what's the Curmudgeon's word for them? Oh yes...) custardheads out there who (are either stupid enough or work overtime to inhibit rational thought and ignore reality in order to) agree with him.
Thankfully, Roger Simon isn't one of them. Instead, he's written a response to Klug that easily falls into the "exactly what I'd say if I had the time and the writing ability to do so" category.
Come with me to Montfermeil, Mr. Klug I just finished an article in The Nation by Brian Klug called The Myth of the New Anti-Semitism. It is a lengthy review of some recent books by Abraham Foxman, Alan Dershowitz, Phyllis Chesler and Paul Iganski & Barry Kosmin (I have only read the Dershowitz) about the recent rise in what some now term Judeophobia. On the surface Klug appears to be attacking those who conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism but at heart it is yet another salvo in an old war whether there should be an actual Jewish state.He lets the cat out of the bag about two-thirds of the way through the article:
The argument, understandable though it is, makes several questionable assumptions. For one thing, the alternatives are not black and white: either preserving the status quo or annihilation. There are a variety of constitutional arrangements in between. For example, Israel could continue to exist as a sovereign state but cease to define itself, in its basic laws and state institutions, as specifically Jewish. Or there is the so-called one-state solution: a binational homeland for Palestinians and Jews. The tragic impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has renewed interest in this proposal among some Arab and Jewish intellectuals. And although this view lacks a significant constituency in either community at present, attitudes may well change.
Now interestingly, until a very few years ago, I might have agreed with Mr. Klug. Or at least seen his point. Unfortunately, his dream of Arab-Jewish comity doesnt even remotely mesh with the facts on the groundor regrettably with the religion of those with whom he is asking Jews to share their country. With the exception of Turkey, where Jews are a tiny minority, there is not one Islamic nation in the world where Jews live in anything remotely like equality (and we have all seen what just happened in Istanbul). And as Im sure Mr. Klug is aware, this discrimination is made sacred and permanent in the Koran via dhimmi law under which all Christians and Jews are second-class citizens. Who does he expect to alter that? Yasir Arafat? Sheik Yassin?
Ah, but Mr. Klug is probably saying, that can change. Really? Well, I suppose anything can (and probably will) but right now my personal experience is to the contrary. Im not sure the extent Mr. Klug likes to do research in the street, as they say, but as a novelist I find it helpful. On my recent trip to France to gain background for my next book, I was taken to Montfermeil, one of the infamous suburban cit ringing Paris where the Moslem immigrants live. These are the housing projects where the police dare not go, even to prevent gang rapes, and where the obscenity Nique ta mere, juif! is scrawled on the walls. (Note it says juifJewnot sionisteZionist).
Do go read the whole thing.
Being Jewish myself, I've learned that it's not only a real time-saver, it's also potentially life-saving to BELIEVE people when they tell me they hate me and want me dead. I sure don't sit around trying to deconstruct what they might really mean or comfort myself with a belief that all I'd have to do to save myself from some raving islamofascist is a button that says "Down with Zionism!"
Oh, and if anyone out there still thinks that the "New" anti-semitism doesn't really have implications for ALL of us in the Western World, GUESS AGAIN!
[Thanks to Peter and Ruth for the links referenced in this piece]
I received a copy of a letter that was sent to the President by my pals over at Activistchat.com, and I'm reprinting it here (hopefully with their permission) because I think everyone should remember Iran because maybe if we do, he will as well!
Dear Honorable President George W. Bush: There are several hundreds of thousands of Iranian-American Voters in the United States. Your success in the next election depends on the number of votes that NEW IMMIGRANTS will cast. People of Iran also expect "Regime Change" in Iran; sooner than later!Many of Iraq and Afghanistan's difficulties come from Tehran. The
Ayatollahs have always been the center of trouble, acting on and
preaching a fundamentalist view of the world that has made many
individuals blind, brainwashed and suicidal.The removal of the Ayatollahs in Iran will ease Iraq's transition to
democracy and will bring peace to the region. The people of Iran are
only asking for moral support, as they are ready to remove the troubled
ayatollahs with their own sweat and blood. Everyone can see that the
regime is not reformable, yet the EU continues to buy time in an effort
to stabilize the Euro ($$), which calls for the continuation of
lucrative oil contracts at the expense of millions of Iranians,
stability in the region, and world peace and growth.The following is our request concerning your stance toward The Islamic
Republic of Iran.Please consider using these points in your State of Union Speech
tomorrow.1. THERE IS NO OPENING WITH THE CLERICAL DICTATORSHIP:
The people of Iran, who demand freedom, are fit, ready and moving toward
Non-Violent regime change. No action from the US State Dept, or
diplomats will halt this progress. President Bush, you have been right
in your assessment to this point, and must not be distracted or swayed
from your moral support for the Iranian freedom movement by empty
diplomatic maneuverings or agendas. If you give the deceitful,
duplicitous, oppressive clerical dictatorship any credit or covering of
an ostensible "opening" or "thaw" in relations with the US in your State
of the Union, it would be A. Untrue, and B. deeply harmful, undermining,
hurtful and counterproductive to the cause of liberty -- a cause that is
advancing with or without the approval of the Middle East desk of the US
State Dept. or Mr. Colin Powell.1. THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRANIAN AMERICAN VOTERS IN THE US:
Dear Mr. President, we support your just and true assessment of the
aspirations for liberty in Iran, and we will continue to support you for
your re-election so long as you stay true and faithful to the cause of
liberty.You have the power to encourage the people of Iran in their
determination to take their deserved place with the decent nations of
the world, and rid themselves of the terror masters who brutally hold
onto power -- or you can listen to the lies of the State Dept.
functionaries who wish to deprive Iran of her democratic destiny, and
continue to secure the tyrants. If you give any acknowledgment of
"progress" with the clerical dictators, you will get freedom activists
in Iran killed by emboldening the tyrants in their oppressive strategy
and tactics!Join The "BLOG-IRAN" Grassroots Campaign
"Activists, Bloggers & Web Surfers Uniting For One Cause"
In Unity With ActivistChat.com
Remember this ad slogan for Virginia Slims cigarettes? It was supposed to encourage women to take advantage of something feminism had won for them--the ability to smoke in public without being shunned by society.
Well, Hamas might just be using a similiar approach in its recruitment tactics lately, only their definition of "smoking" in public is a bit different...
David Frum has some interesting things to say about the subject in his latest blog entry:
Feminism, Hamas Style
A Breakthrough for Palestinian WomenThe Palestinian radical Islamic group Hamas has just deployed its first female suicide bomber, Reem al-Raiyshi, a 22-year-old mother of two. Kind of puts the American debate about women in combat in a new perspective doesnt it? Who says fundamentalist Islam is hostile to the aspirations of women?
But this breakthrough for Islamic feminism has some interesting aspects that arent being reported, not yet anyway. One question that immediately comes to mind: What happened to the suicide-bombers husband? According to early news reports, Raiyshi was married. Yet while she swears in her suicide video that she loved her soon-to-be orphaned three-year-old and 18-month-year-old, she had nothing to say about their father.
Is he alive? While the 800 or so Israeli casualties since September 2000 have mostly been women and children, the overwhelming majority of the 2000-plus Palestinian casualties have been men of military age. Yet one has to think that if Reem al-Raiyshis husband numbered among the casualties of Arafats terror war, his devoted widow would have mentioned him.
Is he a prisoner? Again, one would think that al-Raiyshi might have had a word or two to say.
So how to explain why he went unmentioned? Might he have divorced and abandoned her under Islamic law and, still following that law, taken custody of her children? If so, could her abandonment and shame and the loss of her children party explain her willingness to kill and die? Could the twisted imaginations of the local Hamas chiefs have pointed suicide-murder out to her as a solution to her problems a way to erase the shame of being discarded, a way to redeem herself in the eyes of her family, a way to acquire glory in the eyes of her children, and even a way to earn them some money: for Saudi money still continues to flow to the families of suicide bombers.
Its a very striking thing how the Palestinian groups have profited from their own oppression of their local women. First they deprive them of all hope in life then they exploit that hopelessness to make killers of them.
My friend Peter sent me a link to a great piece over at Broadsword.
Here's a sample:
Choosing Sides
We have yet to choose our own side. As a society of Western values, we have never shown so much solidarity with the causes for which we have decided to fight and die. It doesn't mean that we have to stand up and reciprocate that we hate Arabs. After all, we did no such thing with Japan, Germany, and Italy, nor even the Soviet Union. We gave them names: Fascists and Communists. But those were definitions which defined societies. They were not definitions which portrayed only a slim portion of the society itself. We didn't say "We are at war with the S.S." which is akin to us saying "We are at war with the terrorists". We went to fight Fascism and Communism, not "The KGB". Sides are not defined by specific groups within societies, but by the society as a whole. That is what we are afraid to say, save for a select few who are furious that the obvious can no longer be stated because of a Leftist agenda which seeks to literally destroy everything we have ever made.When people call out the reasons we are fighting the societies which proclaim themselves, on their own and with their own loud voice, to be our enemies, they should not be reprimanded. Just as the Muslim world finds solidarity in their hatred for the West, Jews, and Israel, so too we should be allowed to find our own solidarity with those of us who oppose everything they stand for. The reason we are fighting this war is not because nineteen hijackers crashed into a burning building and a handful of others cheered, but because the entire Muslim world not only cheered, but then turned around, pointed at "The Jews" and said that it was their fault, denied they ever did it, denied that it ever could be them, screamed that they hated us anyway, danced in the streets, printed up posters about the heroes who did the deed all while denying they ever really did, and then increased their threats to tell us that if they didn't get more capitulations that it would happen yet again.
Targeting "the terrorists" is about as useful as targeting only "the S.S." It serves no purpose, denies the reality, and only means that we are still publicly uncertain as to what the Arab world says when it states that it is against everything we believe in.
...to figure out who this week's Guardian UK guest columnist is based upon the following excerpt:
In truth, this is a religious-economic war. The occupation of Iraq is a link in the Zionist-crusader chain of evil. Then comes the full occupation of the rest of the Gulf states to set the stage for controlling and dominating the whole world. For the big powers believe that the Gulf and the Gulf states are the key to global control due to the presence of the largest oil reserves there. The situation is serious and the misfortune momentous.
Hmmm...It could almost be anyone on the loony left, or pretty much any number of dozens of European leaders (and many of their citizens).
But if you guessed any of them, you'd be wrong!
Thanks to Lee for the link.
Haleh from Activistchat.com pointed me to an article by Michael Ledeen in NRO in which he discusses the Bam earthquake, U.S./Iran foreign relations and the puzzling fact that we fully support the Iraqi people, but not the Iranians!
Read the whole thing, he has some great points. But even though I agree with him wholeheartedly, I do have to accept that selling action in Iran of any kind (because all kinds cost money) will be hard to sell to the American people. If the majority of us are not already terrified of the mullahs getting their filthy mits on THE bomb, then I'm not sure they'll be swayed by the human rights arguments. And I'm certain the Michael Moore, Deanie-Weenie crowd won't be swayed even by that because they don't seem to care about it even in the case of Iraq! According to them, we should have let the inspectors deal with Saddam, and the Iraqi people's suffering be damned (because well, at least it was "legal" dude...).
Aftershocks The Bam earthquake showed the Western world at its best (rescuers, doctors, money, medicine, and food poured into Iran) and the mullahcracy at its worst (no national leader dared set foot in the disaster zone for four days, and then only when the army and assorted thugs could protect the mullahs against the rage of the locals). When some Americans prepared to leave, they were begged to remain. The Iranians feel safer with us than with their own tyrants.Look again at the scenes in Bam. The destruction of that once fabulously beautiful city is a symbol of what the regime has done to Iran, once a wealthy and prosperous and creative country. Look at the many reports on the awful degradation of Iranian society, now leading the region in suicide and teenage prostitution, its standard of living a pitiful shadow of what it was before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, its infrastructure in tatters, its armed forces distrusted by the country's leaders, its students under virtual house arrest, its newspapers and magazines silenced, its talented moviemakers and writers and scientists and artists fleeing to the West whenever they see a crack in the nation's walls. Look at the damning human-rights reports. Read the harsh condemnation of the mullahs' relentless censorship from Reporters sans Frontires," which calls Iran the world's greatest predator of free press. And listen to the cries of the Bam survivors as they ask why this had to happen, why no help arrived until long after the disaster struck, and why the mullahs preferred to see thousands of them die, rather than accept humanitarian assistance from the Jews.
And then ask our leaders what in the world we are waiting for, and why we insist on believing that a regime so demonstrably evil deserves to have good relations with the United States, and why a people so demonstrably on our side, and so demonstrably worthy of freedom, does not deserve our full support.
OK you "tolerant" bunch...Perhaps you could take a few moments off from
- Insisting that Israel is an apartheid state
- Throwing yourselves bodily (and indiscriminantly) between the U.S. government and members of the so-called "religion of peace"
- Foaming at the mouth in horror at the prospect of Christian kids praying at school
- Being "offended" by the mere sight of the 10 Commandments in a public place
- Fighting for the rights of atheists who don't want to say "under God" while saying the Pledge (who are we kidding--they don't want to say the Pledge period)
to defend these people!
It seems to me a teensy weensy bit inconsistent (read: hypocritical) to preach "tolerance" while essentially ignoring (or even supporting, however "inadvertantly") the systematic, pervasive and persistant persecution of Christians in the Muslim world.
If you are a regular on this blog, you know that I bristle every time some libtard says that 9/11 was "our fault" or that we "brought it on ourselves" blah blah blah...
So it may come as a shock to you that I'm starting to think there will be a next time--another 9/11 magnitude attack--and it will be largely our fault.
Will it necessarily be here, on the mainland of the USA? Not necessarily, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we can only be severely hurt--destroyed even--by an attack on our soil. We are (whether we like it or not) part of a "global economy," and a large-scale attack on our interests abroad could wreak havoc on our economy such that our society would be brought to its knees in short order. To pretend this couldn't happen rather easily could be our undoing.
Here's why I say all this...
Were you aware, for example, that Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist organizations have infiltrated high-seas piracy rings (and have even started some of their own)? Were you aware that they have been hijacking tankers and other commercial vessles, forcing the crew at gunpoint to "train" them in navigation, then GETTING OFF THE SHIP and fleeing?
Were you aware that Al Qaeda and its sympathizers in the South Pacific in particular have kidnapped several dive instructors from high-end resorts, demanding at gunpoint to be trained in "going down" but not in coming back up or decompressing? Hmmmm...Wonder why they would do this?
Now picture the damage that would be caused to our economy--never mind the lives lost--if a terrorist detonated a ship in the Suez Canal or Straits of Hormuz (right in their neighborhood after all)? What about the Panama Canal? What if the detonated matter were radioactive? Do you know how long these vital waterways would be closed?
YEARS!
How long would it take for our economy to collapse without the use of these routes?
WEEKS!
What are we doing about this? According to Monsoor Ijaz, Fox News correspondent and terrorism expert (looked for link, can't find one yet),
NOTHING!
Why? Well, gee, I don't know...Maybe because we're too busy paying attention to crap like Kobe-fucking-Bryant and whether he did, or didn't rape some 19 year-old girl. Maybe because we actually "care" who the Bachelor picks to (maybe) be his bride. Maybe because we still don't GET IT that we are AT WAR, and "safER" isn't good enough!
The stability and prosperity of Iraq is vital to our security and self-interest. The long-term benefit to our economy and our foreign policy of a stable democratic country in the middle of that region is massive, well beyond the $20Bil mark. But many are getting petty and complaining that it's "not fair" that Iraq would repay loans made to Saddam by France and Russia and not be willing to repay loans to us.
"Not fair?" Wait a second...That sounds remarkably like a song that might be sung at a Democratic fundraiser by Barbra Streisand! The truth is, no, it wouldn't be fair, IF IT WERE GOING TO HAPPEN! Anyone who honestly thinks that France will get her fucking money back is seriously deluded (France most of all). Remember, asking 'aint getting! Just because they want to be repaid doesn't mean they will be. Not by a long shot. In fact, we'd be missing a great opportunity to turn the spotlight on how petty, bitter, opportunistic the French obviously are if we didn't just "grant" this money to Iraq!
What right do the French have to demand squat? Does anyone think that deals made with Saddam are legally binding at this point? More importantly, what the hell is France going to do about it? Invade? Refuse to sell crap to Iraq?
LIKE WE CARE!
And for the Democrats who insist that we shouldn't spend any of the money because we have concerns at home (health care, etc...), what would they propose? Leaving our military high and dry without what they need to finish what we started? Pulling them out and leaving a gaping power gap in the Middle East? Demanding that the Iraqis PAY us for liberating them?
Sound familiar? Sound FRENCH? Does to me, but then again, I remember what I learned about the French behavior in Algeria, Lebanon and the 13 Colonies! Clearly people like Howard Dean do NOT.
What about translators? Why aren't we putting these people through the most stringent background checks imaginable? And why aren't we surveilling them ANYWAY, from the moment they set foot on the job?
The idea that we have been getting faulty intelligence for months, or have been allowing sensitive information about who we have and who we don't have, what we know and what we don't know, to get out is INEXCUSABLE.
It's time to say it out loud--we are AT WAR WITH RADICAL ISLAM. Period. Enough is enough. Islam is not the "religion of peace." There either are no "moderate" Muslims, or they're in hiding for some reason, which is (newsflash) THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM! It is not the job of the Federal Government to coddle their fears. They either want to step up and defend themselves from the people who are trying to "hijack their religion" (yes, those are sarcasm quotes) or they don't.
I'm not suggesting we spy on every Muslim. Nor am I saying that we should fear every Muslim, but before we allow Muslims into sensitive positions in this country (or abroad, representing our interests or serving in our military), we must work harder to ensure where their loyalties lie, and they ought to understand that they are going to come under as much scrutiny as a German translator would have during WWII.
"Security risk" doesn't just mean allowing terrorists to come across our borders. It also means allowing criminals and the unemployable in as well. Sorry to sound cold, but forcing Californians (or Arizonans or New Mexicans, etc...) to pay for the education and health care of the children of ILLEGAL immigrants is a security risk! There is no way the economies of these states (and thus the nation) can sustain these policies over time, it's just basic Econ 101. Shit, it's basic addition and subtraction!
Arnold thinks he can continue to pretend that these people are not breaking the law, and it would appear that he thinks he can continue to just blame the Federal Gov't for the problem. That's not a solution, that's appeasement wrapped in a thick coating of whining. It is true that the Fed needs to close the borders and take a tougher stance on this? YES. Is that a reason to blow off doing anything about the problem NOW, to the point of pretending it's not as big an issue as it is? NO!
It's really simple. There is NO way that Arnold can help CA fiscally unless he calls this problem by its proper name. No way to do it without raising taxes anyway! It's not enough to just revoke the drivers license initiative. Arnold has to start using vocabulary that makes it crystal clear that circumventing the law (cutting in line) to get into this country is UNACCEPTABLE and will not be tolerated. He should communicate with Vincente Fox himself--why wait for the President?! He took the law into his own hands in Collateral Damage, I think he can figure out how to do it in CA!
He could also go straight to the people--most of whom are against paying higher taxes--and tell them it's THEIR CHOICE TO MAKE! Pay for these people, or have lower taxes. Take your pick. He should play the security card. He should highlight the fact that illegal immigration is NOT just about Mexico, "illegal" is "illegal" is "illegal" whether the person sneaking in is from Mexico or Saudi Arabia (or Cambodia or wherever).
It matters not that they are doing jobs "no American wants to do." If the American companies can't support American workers, that's another problem to look at...WHY? Workers Comp costs? health care costs? Fine, look at it, but recognize that there would be more money to supplement these required expenses (in the form of lower taxes) if the state didn't have to supply those things for illegal employees, their non-wage-earning children and elderly relatives.
If any of these issues has sparked your concern, please write to your Representatives in D.C. and ask them what--if anything--they are doing about these things?
Lastly, I just want to be clear about one thing. As much as these issues worry me, and as critical as I am of the current administration for being (still) too complacent for my taste, I am ten-times more worried about what might befall us under a "President Dean" and I would ask all my readers to consider this. Can things be better regarding Homeland Security and the so-called "War on Terror?" Sure! Always! Are we more likely to get a response and see some improvement under Bush than any of the 9 Democrats? YES, most definitely.
At least the President "gets" that we need to finish up in Iraq, and at least he "gets" that our economic woes are tied--at least in part--to the war on terror. Isolating ourselves will not protect us. Conversely, it makes us more vulnerable.
Call me crazy, but when the PLO killed my Dad's first cousin back in the early '70s, he didn't suit up with a bomb and blow up a bunch of innocent Palestinians to soothe his pain or to make himself or his family "happy."
But then again, we're not Palestinian, as the following makes clear:
JERUSALEM - For mad bomber Hanadi Jaradat, the carnage she wrought yesterday was "like her wedding day, the happiest day for her," according to her family."The only thing that would push her to do that would be to avenge my brother's death," said another brother, Thaher, 15. Thaher said his family was shocked to hear of Jaradat's murderous actions, but not sorry.
"We are receiving congratulations from people," said the grinning teen.
"Why should we cry? It is like her wedding day, the happiest day for her."
Well here's nothing new.
It's Sunday. The day before the holiest day in all of Judaism, Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). The day after 19 Israelis, 4 children amongst them, were slaughtered while eating lunch by the sea.
The attack was described by the attacker hereself as "retribution" for the killing of her cousin/fiance and two other members of Islamic Jihad, a group committed to killing "all the Jews" in Israel and supplanting Israel with an Islamic state "from the river to the sea."
Those who were murdered were committed only to living their lives as normally as possible despite the fact that people like their soon-to-be killer existed and were plotting their untimely deaths.
And where were the members of the UNSC yesterday, when this killer's plot came to fruition? Were they motivated by the horror in Haifa to act?
Nope.
And where are they today, when the Israeli government finally went after the heart of the organization that spawned the hatred and provided the training and materials for yesterday's attack?
Meeting in an emergency session to decide what to do about ISRAEL's actions.
I have to echo the sentiments of the Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. who said that it is "pathetic" what galvinizes the UNSC to act. No mention of the murder of Israeli children. No mention of the outrageousness of the actions of Islamic Jihad, or Syria--the country that harbors them and supports them. Just an emergency meeting to pass a resolution to--no doubt--sanction Israel and Israel alone.
This is sick. These are the holier-than-thou folks who tried to tell us (and are still trying) that we had no business going into Iraq without their approval. These are the people who claim to have the moral high-ground. These are people we should all be more than willing to IGNORE.
Why? Well, by the end of today--no doubt--the US will be asked to agree or disagree with whatever piece of shit resolution they come up with against Israel. The fact that we should veto whatever they come up with ought to go without saying, but the fact that we're even put in this position is beyond absurd.
Who puts the wolf in charge of the sheep?
With any integrity, NOT US.
We are in Afghanistan. How is that different? (It's not)
We are in Iraq. How is that different? (It's not)
Syria harbors Hezbollah, the organization that killed over 200 of our own Marines. How can we say it's "Israel's problem?" (We can't)
Some suggest that we have to abstain or agree to whatever the UNSC comes up with so as to avoid giving the impression that it's the US and Israel against the Arab world. Why bother? It's true, isn't it? Who in the so-called "Arab World" is "with" us? Or, put another way, who's with us us now who would be so easily and completely alienated by such an obvious display of integrity and consistency? Anyone we respect and care about? Doubt it.
It's simple. We have to support Israel in this fight. It's about time they went after Syrian targets, and it's about time we stood by them and told the UNSC, the State Dept. the ISM, Howard Dean and anyone else who thinks we should "not take sides" and told them that WE ALREADY HAVE!
Terrorism, you can't be partially against it. It's that simple.
[Via Country Store]
Arafat says he'd rather kill himself than be exiled.
Okeedokee, sounds good to me, so what's he waiting for? Dr. Kevorkian?
If I hear Fox News, or any other news outlet say "Al Jazeera is airing..." one more time, I'm going to SCREAM.
Who's airing the Bin Laden goat-walk?
Who's airing the last will of no one-gives-a-fuck-whom?
WE ARE!
Would any of us really see this shit on Al Jazeera itself? Maybe a few die-hard satellite TV watchers, but the vast majority of us?
Doubtful.
But for some reason, all the non "Arab TV Networks" feel this driving need to bombard us with these stupid propaganda images over and over and over again, thereby giving free publicity to this monster and his henchmen.
What the fuck for? As far as I can tell, the only "news" about these guys worth knowing is:
- Two of them aren't dead or captured yet
- One of them is rotting in hell
That's it. The rest is pure sensationalism and propaganda. It's bringing down our own stock market, scaring some (easily frightened) people unnecessarily, and causing further pain for the 9/11 victims' families.
I'm fairly sure that other "Arab TV Networks" are airing all sorts of nasty shit day in, day out too, but you don't see Fox replaying that for our viewing displeasure! What makes Al Jazeera's monthly load of crap so much more worthwhile?
So what if it's authentic? So what if it was made yesterday, last week, last month or last year? Unless the guy is pictured holding today's newspaper, standing under a sign that says "Welcome to the tenth rock to the left of the third hill above Kurachi," I don't want to know about it, and neither should you (in my opinion).
Every minute of airtime we give this asshole is 60 seconds too long. How do we know he's not sending messages to his flock of mindless sheep? How do we know he's not just giving us the video equivalent of the finger for not being able to apprehend him? How do we know he's not already worm-food, and his organization wants us to think he's not to mock us and make us look feeble.
I have to tell you, if it's any of the above, he's doing a damn good job!
Why aren't we giving equal airtime to home-video footage of the 9/11 victims?
Why aren't we hearing their wills read aloud?
Why are we more intent on recognizing (and thereby rewarding) such vermin, over and over and over again?
Freedom of the press my ass! This is nothing more than freedom to be a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing, pandering MORONS.
Shit, Madonna tongue-kissing a couple of girls was more newsworthy than this.
Can somebody please explain what "semi-intentional murder" is?
Apparently, it's the best the Iranian "government" can do in charging the two psychopaths who tortured Zahra Kazemi to death.
These are the charming people who are "holding" the Al Qaeda "prisoners." Why do I have the feeling they are not receiving the same degree of "hospitality," but are more likely being served tea and cakes in an effort to "semi-intentionally" reward them?
[Via Lee]
Oh, this is rich!
And you thought "American Idol" fans were excitable. They've got nothing on the millions of Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians backing their national favorites on "Superstar," the show's knockoff in the Arab world.Competition went smoothly until last week, when front-runner Melhem Zein, of Lebanon, was eliminated in the semifinals. Angry fans in the audience pelted each other with chairs or anything else they could find, and the two remaining contestants fainted. The live broadcast came to a halt.
Conservative groups say the show is yet another example of American culture infecting the Arab world.
"We urge the concerned official and popular parties to put an end to this sad comedy, said a statement from the Islamic Action Front, part of the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood political movement. It said the show "facilitates the culture of globalization led by America to change the cultural identity of the people."
Ours is also the culture that--within hours of 9/11--publicly admonished people NOT to take out their anger and frustration on Arab Americans. Ours is the culture that prosecutes so-called "hate crimes," we don't reward them by referring to the perpetrators as "martyrs" and creating billboards, murals and t-shirts in their honor.
Meanwhile, in Iraq--where power, water, even food have been scarce or rigidly controlled by a homocidal maniac for more than three decades--people begin to whine, complain and get violent if coalition forces fail to get power back on after their own countrymen take it down in an act of sabotage.
(sarcasm) Yeah, the day our culture really "infects" theirs will be a sad one indeed.(/sarcasm)
[Via Vinny]
Anyone who doubts for half a second that the BBC is a cesspool filled with apologists for anti-semitism (as well as anti-Americanism) must be on Qualludes (or illiterate).
Here's a sample from their latest snivelling, grovelling piece of verbal vomit:
Interpreting Egypt's Anti-Semitic Cartoons
The use of anti-Semitic imagery in the Egyptian media may seem bizarre, racist and anachronistic to outsiders.But it is not based on any historical hatred of Jews as a race.
It has more to do with the need to be seen supporting the Palestinians, even if only in a purely symbolic way.
That means that if and when real peace comes, the Egyptian media are likely to quickly forget their anti-Semitic line.
Reeeeally???? Hmmmm...Right. No tradition of anti-semitism in Muslim countries. Guess that's why the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was so tight with his buddy Adolf. I suppose that's why five Arab/Muslim nations went to war against the Jews in Israel (not the "Israelis", the JEWS) within 24 hours of Israel being named a "state" by the UN. Wow! That's some pretty quick handywork on the part of those crafty Europeans! Wish they could make the trains run with such precision.
Don't get me wrong, the imagery being used did originate in Europe--the I-M-A-G-E-R-Y--but why go out and snatch it up if you have nooooo tradition of hatred for Jews? This is the best a people can do to garner support for a cause they seem to be unable to give two shits about themselves?
As Jaaaaaaack would say, "Go sell crazy somewhere else!"
....to IRAN!
Seriously. One of my readers IM'ed me tonight to bring to my attention that perhaps we're all so wrapped up in Iraq, the California race, gay marriage, Hillary's latest abomination, that we're missing the fledgling revolution right under our noses--the one that actually HAS a chance if we pay more attention--yeah that one.
So, I'm making it my goal to post something about Iran each week, to keep the conversation going. If we really want a more stable world, we have to get rid of the mullahs and the ayatollahs EVERYWHERE.
And for those of you who are going to write to me and whine about "tolerating" the religious practices of others, or not "butting in" where we don't belong, where the hell DO we belong if not right at the sides of people desperately crying out for ALL kinds of freedom, religious and otherwise? Religious freedom isn't about banning nativity scenes from school pagents or town squares, it's about not imprisoning people for saying "Ayatollah, I don't wanna know ya!"
So, as a group fellow bloggers, let's do a better job of reporting/commenting on this important issue. Let's stop whining about the "hearts and minds" we're not likely to ever win over (i.e., those in the Arab world), and focus on those who would give us all of the above in a heartbeat if they could without getting thrown in prison.
This has been a public service announcement from your neighborhood Department of Clue.
I didn't realize there were multiple kinds of "terror," but according to a Sunni cleric who recently spoke at a recent "European Council for Fatwa and Research" in Stockholm Sweden, there not only are, some of them are permitted by Islamic law.
Here's how this (can't think of any adjective vile enough to suit him) guy explains the suicide bombings in Israel:
Jihad and Denying its Connection to Terror
The London-based Arabic language daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported at length on the research by Sheikh Al-Qaradhawi, who classified terror according to the following categories: colonialist terror, state terror, international terror, political terror, terror that is permitted by Islamic law, terror that is prohibited by Islamic law, and martyrdom operations. The following are excerpts from the report:
Martyrdom Operations"The martyrdom operations carried out by the Palestinian factions to resist the Zionist occupation are not in any way included in the framework of prohibited terrorism, even if the victims include some civilians."
"This is for several reasons:"
"First of all, due to the colonialist, occupational, racist, and [plundering] nature of Israeli society, it is, in fact, a military society. Anyone past childhood, man or woman, is drafted into the Israeli army. Every Israeli is a solider in the army, either in practical terms or because he is a reservist soldier who can be summoned at any time for war. This fact needs no proof. Those they call 'civilians' are in effect 'soldiers' in the army of the sons of Zion."
"Second, Israeli society has a unique trait that makes it different from the other human societies, and that is that as far as the people of Palestine are concerned, it is a 'society of invaders' who came from outside the region - from Russia or America, from Europe or from the lands of the Orient - to occupy Palestine and settle in it""Those who are invaded have the right to fight the invaders with all means at their disposal in order to remove [the invaders] from their homes and send them back to the homes from whence they came This is a Jihad of necessity, as the clerics call it, and not Jihad of choice Even if an innocent child is killed as a result of this Jihad - it was not intended, but rather due to the necessities of the war Even with the passage of time, these [Israeli] so-called 'civilians' do not stop being invaders, evil, tyrants, and oppressors"
"Third It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar Al-Harb [the Domain of Disbelief where the battle for the domination of Islam should be waged] is not protected. Because they fight against and are hostile towards the Muslims, they annulled the protection of his blood and his property."
"Fourth, the Muslim clerics, or most of them, have agreed that it is permissible to kill Muslims if the army that attacks the Muslims hides behind them, that is, uses them as barricades or human shields, and sets them at the front so that the fire, arrows, or spears of the Muslims will harm them first. The clerics have permitted the defenders to kill these innocent Muslims, who were forced to stand at the head of the army of their enemies Otherwise the invading army will enter and annihilate their offspring and their harvests. There was no choice but to sacrifice some [of the Muslims] in order to defend the entire [Muslim] community Therefore, if it is permitted to kill innocent Muslims who are under coercion in order to protect the greater Muslim community, it is all the more so permissible to kill non-Muslims in order to liberate the land of the Muslims from its occupiers and oppressors."
"Fifth, in modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms. Therefore the experts say that the Zionist entity, in truth, is one army."
"Sixth, there are two types of Fatwas: Fatwas concerning a situation of calm and choice, and Fatwas concerning a situation of distress and necessity. It is permissible for a Muslim, when in a situation of extreme necessity, to do what is prohibited to him [in circumstances allowing] choice Thus, one of the clerics has espoused the rule: 'Necessities permit prohibitions.' Our brothers in Palestine are, without a doubt, in a situation of extreme necessity to carry out martyrdom operations in order to unsettle their enemies and the plunderers of their land and to sow horror in their hearts so that they will leave, and return to the places from whence they came"
"What weapon can harm their enemy, can prevent him from sleeping, and can strip him of a sense of security and stability, except for these human bombs - a young man or woman who blows himself or herself up amongst their enemy. This is a weapon the likes of which the enemy cannot obtain, even if the U.S. provides it with billions [of dollars] and the most powerful weapons, because it is a unique weapon that Allah has placed only in the hands of the men of belief. It is a type of divine justice on the face of the earth it is the weapon of the wretched weak in the face of the powerful tyrant"
'Those Who Oppose Martyrdom Operations and Claim that they are Suicide are Making a Great Mistake'
"Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will discover the huge difference between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination, or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death."
"In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: 'Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise.'"
"While the [person who commits] suicide dies in escape and retreat, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation dies in advance and attack. Unlike the [person who commits] suicide, who has no goal except escape from confrontation, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah"
Wake up America. This is probably the belief system of not only far-away Muslims, but some who live right here amongst us. Kinda makes you wonder whether we're allowed to use "any and all means" to get rid of THESE INVADERS!
[Via Vinny]
For those of you who still insist that "both sides" in the Arab/Israeli conflict are "just as bad" when it comes to killing, here's an interesting perspective that just might (if you have any intellectual integrity at all) convince you to look at "terrorism" in a new light.
An Apology Prof. Stephen Berger, Tel Aviv Medical Center and Liad Bar-EL ===Following the latest atrocity in Jerusalem, Secretary of State Powell urged the Palestinians to issue some form of denunciation.
Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas complained that only the Palestinian side is ever required to denounce terror.Predictably, the Palestinian denunciation later mumbles that they "deplore the murder of civilians on both sides."
Perhaps the Palestinians have a point, and so to set the record straight, I do hereby denounce the following in the name of the Jewish People:
1. All Jewish suicide bombers who have ever acted against Arabs.
2. All Arab buses blown up by Jews.
3. All Arab pizza parlors, malls, discotheques and restaurants destroyed by Jewish terrorists.
4. All airplanes hijacked by Jews since 1903.
5. All Ramadan feasts targeted by Jewish bombs.
6. All Arabs lynched in Israeli cities; all Arab Olympic athletes murdered by Jews; all Arab embassies bombed by Jews.
7. All mosques, cemeteries and religious schools fire bombed or desecrated by Jews in North Africa, France, Belgium, Germany, England or any other country.
8. The destruction of American military, governmental and civilian institutions in Kenya, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - along with the murder of U.S. Marines and diplomatic personnel.
9. All Jewish school books which claim that Arabs poison wells, use Christian blood to bake pita, control world finance, and murdered Jesus; or that Arab elders meet secretly to plot a world takeover.
10. And I am particularly ashamed at the way my fellow Jews attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon and civilian aircraft on September 11th, and danced in the streets to celebrate the act.
And for those of you who are going to start whining about bulldozers and tanks, ask yourself this: Can you see a bulldozer coming? Can you hear bullhorns announcing their approach? What about tanks? Can you spot a suicide bomber in a crowd though? Or a sniper?
Not only are tanks and bulldozers (and uniformed soldiers) easier to spot (and therefore AVOID), they are apparently easier to stop in the first place. Don't agree? Do the words "CEASE FIRE" have any meaning for you? They sure don't for the terrorists.
Lest any of you fall pray to the delusion that this middle-east "cease-fire" is actually REAL, or meaningful in any way, I suggest you read the following:
Fatah Claims Responsibility For Fatal Shomron Attack 14:11 Jun. 30, '03
Shooting Victim Pronounced Dead On The Scene 13:46 Jun. 30, '03
Driver Gravely Wounded In Shomron Shooting Attack 13:38 Jun. 30, '03
FM Warns of Dahlans Plans 14:25 Jun. 30, '03
And if these don't sufficiently convince you, just check out this lengthy list of headlines you'll never see in U.S. or European papers.
I would like one of the (what is it you call them Dave? Ah yes...) "barking moonbats" who have been defending the Palestinians lately to justify this shit:
Gunmen Kill Israeli Girl After Truce Talk
JERUSALEM--Palestinian gunmen who crossed from the West Bank killed an Israeli girl and wounded her sister, just minutes after the Palestinian premier met with militant leaders and failed to persuade them to stop attacks.As part of a cease-fire package,Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas offered the militant Hamas a political role in his government, a participant in the Tuesday talks said, but no agreement was reached. [Emphasis mine]
Doesn't this blatantly contradict all of his assertions that "terrorism is wrong?" If it is "wrong," then presumably he'd agree that it is MURDER. What leader offers murderers a role in his government?
Gee, I wonder how far away eardrums would shatter if a radical Israeli group started sneaking into the West Bank, dressed as civilians (i.e., minus the military uniforms that usually identify them as combatants), began shooting at (with the intent to kill, not defend against) innocent little Palestinian 7 year-olds, and then Sharon offered them a seat in his government rather than a seat in a FUCKING JAIL CELL?
These same people who want Sharon tried for war crimes have nothing to say about this? And they say there's no double standard? They say they're not morally equating things that aren't equal? Since when is a 7 year-old an "occupier" or an "oppressor?"
Wait, there's more disgusting news to come...
Israel has been demanding that a cease-fire be the first step of a crackdown to dismantle the groups. Israel TV reported Tuesday that Israel would accept a cease-fire of three to six weeks. Israel officials were not available comment.Abbas has said he would not order a crackdown, but prefers a voluntary cease-fire. [Emphasis mine]
What part of the "Road Map" did this asshat not get? Does he need a flashlight too? Are two hands not enough to find his ass? Would he like a seeing eye dog perhaps? "Voluntary?" Since when was Hamas part of the Road Map? Last time I checked, they vowed to do everything in their power to THWART PEACE!
Here's what he's SUPPOSED to be doing--what he AGREED to do in fact:
"Road Map" for Peace in the Middle East
(excerpted from the full text of the plan as released by the Palestinians)
SECURITY--Palestinians declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere.Rebuilt and refocused Palestinian Authority security apparatus begins sustained, targeted, and effective operations aimed at confronting all those engaged in terror and dismantlement of terrorist capabilities and infrastructure. This includes commencing confiscation of illegal weapons and consolidation of security authority, free of association with terror and corruption.
Where in there does it say "palestinians will talk endlessly with terrorists, treating them as statesmen deserving of all the respect and license due to diplomats from a foreign power, and will offer bribes such as positions in the government in exchange for even a temporary cessation to violence"?
I don't see that language anywhere.
What I do see, however, are a lot of BARKING MOONBATS posting bullshit on this site about how the poor wittle palestinians are just helpless...
Well, which is it?
A) Abbas is the leader in charge, worthy of US and Israeli respect and attention, capable of striking deals like the one described in the full text quoted from and linked to above, and fully capable of enforcing them, OR...
B) He's powerless, helpless, incapable of doing anything remotely resembling living up to his agreements vis a vis the Road Map, and had no business entering into such agreements in the first place!
If you select choice B, remember, you MUST justify why he released the plan above, signed on the dotted line, shook hands in front of thousands of cameras and millions of viewers around the world, attesting (disingenuously I suppose) to the fact that he not only planned to live up to his promises, but--more importantly--was capable of doing so. It's implicit, you can't agree to that which you KNOW you cannot do. If you do, you are a liar by default.
If, as you people claim, he knew he was helpless, then why didn't he resist some more? Why didn't he say "I won't sign on until you help me be a worthy partner"?
Why not? Simple. Because it's ALL BULLSHIT. Neither he, nor any palestinian leader who has preceded him (uh, wait, only one) has EVER made good on a single promise in their lives. Ever. Now, say what you will about the Israelis, but they KNOW how to live up to promises. They ARE capable of making HUGE concessions and sacrificing territory far more valuable (and plentiful) than the pile of rocks known as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Don't believe me? Who controls the Sinai right now? And all the oil in it--oil discovered, drilled and developed as an ongoing resource by the ISRAELIS at huge expense to themselves? (Hint: NOT Israel)
I rest my fucking case.
[Via Lee]
I never really bought into this notion of "innocent Palestinians who really want peace," but I was willing to play along, if for no other reason that I hoped (kind of like I hoped there was a Santa Claus until I was about ten) that they might materialize suddenly and prove me wrong.
I think comments like this one put the matter to rest for once and for all though:
Hamas ridicules US Senator's call for US troop deployment
The Palestinian resistance group, Hamas,
has ridiculed a call by US Senator Richard Lugar for dispatching
American troops to the West Bank and Gaza Strip to fight Hamas.
"It seems the senator's tongue functions much more swiftly than
his mind does," said Hamas' spokesman in Ramallah, Hasan Silwadi.
"Doesn't he know that Hamas exists in every Palestinian home?
Doesn't he know that Israel, with all its military might and Nazi-like
brutality couldn't defeat Hamas?"
As for Israelis being like "Nazis," that's pretty funny talk from a group of people whose Grand Mufti allied himself with HITLER during WWII! Seems to me it wasn't Arabs or Muslims being gassed and put in ovens by the millions. It wasn't Jews buying up copies of "Mein Kampf" faster than they could be printed (still, to this day). So tell me again, who are the Nazis?
Whose culture is it that actively seeks to dominate the world? Whose wants to "kill all the infidel," and who has zero tolerance for anyone of any faith other than theirs residing in the entire middle-east (and really the planet as a whole)? Who seeks "purity" in this manner? Who uses vicious racist propaganda and tales of "apes" "pigs" and "blood libel" to breed a seething hatred in their people, from the very young to the very old? (Hint: NOT the Israelis)
Seems to me we have a little case of the pot calling the kettle black here. Or, if you are into pop-psychology, you might say "someone's projecting a little."
Kin and I were back and forth on IM today talking about this, his most recent post. If you're like me, and think Ms. ASS-Hat-shwari is a liar and a coward, you'll enjoy it.
Snippet:
[Ashwari's words italicized]
Assassination as a political tool is a particularly repugnant form of extrajudicial execution that inflicts tremendous pain and anguish while generating spirals of revenge. We are now in a new cycle of violence, clearly evident in the bus bombing in Jerusalem on Wednesday followed by even more helicopter attacks in Gaza City.Except of course the targeted killing of terrorists isn?t really assassination is it. There are two accepted definitions of assassination. The first is killing by surprise for political reasons. Unless of course you consider defending your citizens political, I don?t see how this qualifies. Unless of course you subscribe to the Palestinian leadership?s viewpoint that the lives of your citizens isn?t worth crap except as a political tool. The second definition is to destroy or injure treacherously. I don?t see any treachery in dropping a rocket on someone from a military vehicle that?s clearly marked. Dressing up as a woman and blowing yourself up in a crowded market on the other hand. No double standards here?nope?keep moving?nothing to see.
I'm glad someone else had the time and inclination to fisk this bitch, cuz I sure don't. It would take me hours and a large bottle of extra-strength Tums just to stomach thinking about her for that long.
Remember that song? For some reason it came to mind when reading this brilliant post over at Dr. Horsefeathers.
Here's a snippet:
The iron law of Arab violence is very simple. The longer one waits to suppress it with military force, the greater the actual amount of force and violence required to end it. The only way to end it at low cost is to do so with overwhelming superiority and unambiguous determination at the very start, the moment it raises its head. The "restraint" strategy favored by the entire world when it comes to Israel--including by Israel's own leaders - does not offer an alternative to using force to suppress Arab violence. It is merely a delaying tactic that makes the amount of force actually needed to achieve the goal several orders of magnitude higher.Every time Israel responds to suicide bombings and similar atrocities with restraint, it is simply making the ultimate death toll of Palestinians required to end the barbarism so much higher.
Go. Read. Discuss. Now.
And God bless him for asking!
In his latest post about the galaxy of difference between Hamas and the Israelis, and our government's hypocrisy in dealing with them, the Vin man, Von Sheisterhaus himself (hehe, inside joke), outdoes himself (IMHO).
Here's the gist, but do go read the whole thing, it's brilliant.
Let them do what they have to do
It's surprising how we'll sell out our allies, and I really feel like that's what we're doing with Israel at this very moment.After days of discussion and negotiation, Hamas comes out and says they won't disarm and will continue their armed struggle, solidifying their desire to continue armed combat by blowing up a couple of buses. Farbeit from these cowards to continue that armed struggle in anything that resembles a military action. No. Their idea of armed struggle means they're armed, and you struggle to get away from the bus that's burning around you.
A lot has been made of Israel's assassination attempt on one of Hamas' leaders earlier this week. Frankly, I was cheering. I was begging for them to eliminate him and his whole crew of terrorist croneys. Suddenly everyone is backing the Palestinian line on this one as if Hamas was suddenly some legitimate multinational organization whose legitimacy requires discussion in the international forum.
Are we kidding?
When we launched firebombs into the caves of Afghanistan, it wasn't to bring Osama Bin Laden to the negotiating table. It was to kill him.
When we launched our military initiative on Iraq 3 days early by bombing a building thought to have Saddam and his government, we weren't doing it to bring him to the negotiating table. It was to kill him.
Hamas blows up a bus. Hamas blows up a bus. Hamas blows up a bus. Hamas blows up a bus. Hamas blows up a bus. Hamas blows up a bus. Hamas blows up a night club. Hamas shoots kids playing basketball in a park. Hamas blows up a pizza place.
Israel bulldozes the houses of those people and takes a missile shot at the car of the leader of above mentioned organizatin.
Israel is wrong. On what planet?
Over at LGF there's a debate raging over whether or not Charles and many of his commenters are "racist" because they keep referring to the Palestinians as "savages."
First of all, I don't think "savage" has any racial implications, unless you grew up watching a lot of "B" western movies, but what do I know. I tend to look to the dictionary for my understanding of words, so here goes:
savage (sa-vij)
adj.1. Not domesticated or cultivated; wild: savage beasts of the jungle.
2. Not civilized; barbaric: a savage people.
3. Ferocious; fierce: in a savage temper.
4. Vicious or merciless; brutal: a savage attack on a political rival. See Synonyms at cruel.
5. Lacking polish or manners; rude.
n.1. A person regarded as primitive or uncivilized.
2. A person regarded as brutal, fierce, or vicious.
3. A rude person; a boor.tr.v. savaged, savaging, savages
1. To assault ferociously.
2. To attack without restraint or pity.Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved [Emphasis mine]
Hmmmm...Sounds about right to me!
Still don't think so? Still think there's some kind of specific reference to "arabs" or "muslims" or some other race or creed implied in the definition above?
If so, I suggest you re-read the definition, then look at this. Read the whole thing. Don't just look at the pictures--compelling evidence though they are--the really scary stuff is in the eye-witness account.
"This wasn't savagery" you say? "This was mob violence, nothing unusual," really? Then look at the pictures again and ask yourself, what kind of creature would actually believe that such bloodshed has a purpose? What kind of human being delights in soaking his hands in the blood of another human being for the sole purpose of amusing his fellows in the street?
Then also consider a culture that glorifies suicide bombers. Consider what it takes for a person to spend days, possibly weeks or months contemplating the cold-blooded murder of possibly dozens of total strangers, all of them civilians who have never taken up arms against this person, ever. Focus your mind on what kind of person would be able to do this, also knowing that his actions would undoubtedly bring further violence on his friends, neighbors, parents, children, etc... Most importantly, have you ever heard of an American, or an Israeli for that matter, doing anything resembling these things in the course of the current global war on terrorism?
Show me the Israeli rocket aimed at a schoolbus full of children. Show me the tank rolling over a pizza restaurant filled with mothers and their babies. Show me the IDF soldiers dancing in the streets, pulling body parts out of blown up vehicles and holding them aloft for the world to see--totally disregarding the privacy and pain of the victims and their families. Most importantly, show me the ecstasy on their faces as they wantonly destroy Palestinian lives and homes.
Tough call eh? Right. You can't. Because it's NOT THERE.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Intentions matter. If your intention is to rid the world of a given people, solely because you hate that group, solely because you are racist, then YOU are the savage, not your victim. No matter how hard your victim fights back. No matter how many of his family members, neighbors or countrymen take up arms against you, you are the racist and you are the barbarian if you delight to see him coming because you know it will give you more excuses to kill him in return. Even if your victim kills you, it is with reluctance because he did not set out to "kill" you for that action's own sake! He set out to stop you from killing him! There is a difference, and civilized people know what it is and can appreciate it.
That is, if we stop to think about it from time to time.
James Lileks says it all in his most recent bleat. If you haven't read it already, go, read, now.
Here's a teaser...
I haven't written much about the "Roadmap to Peace" for the same reason I wouldn't write much about attempts to crossbreed a llama with a vacuum cleaner: I don't think it's going to work. I never thought it would work. The only question is how many dead Israelis it will take before the point is made, for the 3,234th time.The top-of-the-hour radio news played today's news just as you'd expect - everything shoved through the tit-for-tat template. Israel attempts to take out a terror leader; Hamas "responds" with a bombing. As if they're equal. As if targeting the car that ferries around some murderous SOB is the same as sending a blissed-out teenager to blow nails and screws through the flesh of afternoon commuters so he can bury himself in the heaving bosom of the heavenly whorehouse. Cycle of violence, don't you know.
I'm serious. Go read the rest. It's brilliant.
[Via Lee]
Senator John McCain weighs in on Israel's right to defend herself:
"I believe that if anybody came to my hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, and set off a bomb on a bus and killed 18 people and injured a hundred of them, my citizens would expect us to respond," McCain said."You want to call that a cycle of violence, you can call it what you want. But these acts of terror, organizations funded by the Saudis, at least encouraged by [PA Chairman] Yasser Arafat, are inexcusable in their tactics and in their results are horrendous."
What, so it's possible for Palestinians to support them MORE than they already do? How is that possible? How is it possible that people could evidence their reverence for hatred and murder more than
I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you get the drift...
But of course, there's no mention of any of this. Just alarmed journalists, reporting in apparent shock and dismay, that Hamas is gaining more of a following with every Israeli rocket attack. Implication? That Israel is bringing terrorism on itself!
PR Score (1: barely making an impact, 5: getting their point of view out there equally 10: total point of view domination)
Israel = 0
Hamas = 10
Why aren't the same reporters canvassing the population in Jerusalem, or Tel Aviv, or anywhere in Israel for that matter? Wonder how much support Sharon is gaining for attempting to do that which Abbas is clearly either unwilling or unable to do? Never mind, I know the answer already...
Here's a thought, if the Palestinian people want peace so badly, why not demand that their PM and President DO SOMETHING to stop Hamas from hijacking the peace process? How exactly was he planning to carry out his part of the road map, eh? By "negotiating" with Hamas, the same group that has already openly insisted that it plans to do everything in its power to continue the violence until every Zionist is dead or gone from Israel? If he was planning on trying to physically stop these monsters from killing any more Israelis, he's sure taking his sweet time about it. Seems to me he's spent more time in the last few days threatening to resign than anything!
Wake up America! Wake up world! If there were a mandate for peace amongst Palestinians, it wouldn't be so easy to win them over to the "dark side" of supporting groups like Hamas. When 3,000 Americans died on 9/11, people didn't start wantonly attacking Muslims in the streets en masse. Nor did they run and sign up to be members of the KKK, or even Pat Buchanan's ship of fools. Sure, we wanted something done, but we didn't automatically decide that "something" was the wanton slaughter of innocent women and children! Hamas doesn't specifically target Israeli military members. If they did, one could possibly rationalize their so-called "retaliations." Instead, they specifically target innocent civilians, and they make no apology for it.
Israel does not do this. Israel targets terrorists--men and women who have devoted their lives to killing and spreading hatred. There is no magic moment when they cease being terrorists and revert to being average, everyday civilians again, just because they're riding in a car with their wife and child, or having lunch in a restaurant. If Osama Bin Laden were found, but just happened to be getting life-saving dialysis treatment at the time, would we wait until he was done to drop a bomb on him?
I'm guessing not.
The problem starts with the definition of "peace." For those of us who live in the West, and for Israelis who live by Western standards, "peace" means the absence of war, terror, violence, and the presences of open and tolerant society based on the rule of law.
"Peace" in Palestinian lingo simply means the absence of Jews in the Middle East.
Until their definition changes--cease-fires, concessions, "Road-Map" aside--we'll never see ours come to pass in the region. Period.
Turned on Fox News this morning, hoping to get a refreshing dose of non-bleeding-heart liberal coverage of the last few days of Middle East violence, and what did I see?
I think not, how about you?
I feel like I'm playing that game on Sesame Street...Where objects or words are put on the screen and the voiceover sings:
"One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong...One of these things is not like the other. Can you tell before I finish this song?"
After today's heinous attack by Hamas on innocent Israeli civilians, peacefully minding their own business, riding on a bus, Yasser "Me? A terrorist? Naaaah!" Arafat condemned the bombing and actually called it a "terrorist" attack. However...
Shortly after the blast, an Israeli helicopter raid killed seven Palestinians, including two Hamas members, in Gaza City--a strike Mr. Arafat also condemned.
Another thing that these Islamomaniacs consider "the same" is the meaning of the words "retaliate" and "attack." Well, let's take a look at this situation, shall we? Hamas bombed the bus today. The rocket attack on Rantisi was yesterday. So, for "retaliation" to have the meaning it's been given in the dictionary, the bus attack would not only have to have taken place after the rocket attack, it would have to have been conceived and plannned afterwards as well. That's because the perceived injustice--the one being retaliated against specifically--would have to have taken place in order to inspire the planning, right? If not--if it were planned two weeks ago (for example)--how could the bus bombing be called "retaliation" for this rocket attack in particular? Are we to believe Hamas has a dedicated line to Miss Cleo or something?
Let's dispense with the bullshit shall we?
It takes at least two weeks to plan a bus bombing of this magnitude. For starters, I'm sure that securing the disguise the bomber wore--ultra-orthodox Jewish garb--in the West Bank is no easy feat. Then there's the building of the bomb itself (at least a day to do it right and in secret), then there's the selection and training of the person, the selection of the entry point and attack target, time and date, and finally, there's that "yippee, I'm going to heaven to get laid!" video to be made. At a minimum, we're talking a week folks. Certainly not 24 hours.
So clearly, calling todays' attack a "retaliation" for yesterday's attempt to get Rantisi is either extreme confusion, or really effective PR. Especially when you consider that not ONE news outlet did the math I just did. This is astounding folks. Here we live in an era where terrorism expert talking-heads pop-up like gophers on a golf course every night to teach John and Jane Doe all about the ins and outs of bomb building, terrorist recruiting, training, etc...And yet not ONE reporter is responsible enough to even question the use of this term in their report? I'm not asking for op/ed here. The length of time it takes to plan one of these things is a matter of documented fact. The reporter wouldn't have to make anything up. Just posing the question for once might be a nice change of pace.
It's simple really. The Palestinians are accountable to no one when it comes to the "truth." They can lie to their own people, and they can lie to us, and who's going to stop them? There is no freedom of the press in the West Bank or Gaza. They control all the media that goes in or out of the place, Western media sources especially, and since no one seems wiling to question the veracity of the crap they spew, it can pass as "truth" out here in the rest of the world.
So they tell us this is "retaliation," and no one questions it, and some people (I call them "asshats") believe them, and next thing you know they've suddenly equated their apple of brutality with the orange of Israel's self-defense! Not only that, they've suddenly--and with our tacit permission--equated the value of a monster like Rantisi with the value of the 16 innocent souls who perished today.
As long as reporters continue to allow language to be used so carelessly, refusing to call "terrorists" by their proper name, preferring instead to call them "militants," "fighters," or "commandos," and refusing to put the word "retaliation" in quotation marks (at a minimum), they are just as guilty of perpetuating the cycle of violence as Hamas or Rantisi.
Words have meaning! Hamas knows this. They are the only ones not being careless in their choice of words. They know our hot buttons. For example, they know the words "violation of human rights" will get our attention. They also know that "retaliation" is more palatable than "attack" because it implies a response to an equivalent evil. Morally equating two things that aren't alike is crucial to the success of the real war these terrorists are waging--the war of words. They know that getting Washington to do what they want will be a matter of words, not of deeds. The killings are a bonus for them, and merely fodder for media reports that will paint them--again, with words--as the victims. That's why they quickly claim responsibility, and that's why they quickly explain their actions. They know that just enough people will be just far enough away to read the words and see the story their way, and that's what they want. As long as they can keep people believing that they are the poor little victims and Israel is the bad guy, otherwise strong men like George Bush will be pressured--with words again--to appease them, to use the words they've selected, and to follow the agenda they've set.
It must stop. I urge all of you to do your own translations from now on. If the media sources won't do it for you, don't be lazy. Go back to your Sesame Street days and sing the little song and remind yourself that there is a difference between good and evil, right and wrong, murder and self-defense. And while you're at it, write a letter to the President at president@whitehouse.gov urging him to do the same. Seems lately he's mixing up the fruit in his bowl too!
(Otherwise known as the "Road map to peace" in the middle east)
William Safire has done a great job of summing up the situation at hand.
After 1,000 Days
by William Safire, New York Times Op-Ed columnistWASHINGTON, June 9 -- "We will not allow anyone to drag us into a civil war," declared the Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas yesterday.
The three terrorist groups, acting jointly, sent a trio of suicides dressed in Israeli uniforms into an Israeli Army post near Gaza. They killed four soldiers before being shot dead themselves. The terrorist Front then released a video showing the killers posing with assault rifles and a Koran, and informed the world that "the blood of Palestinians says that we are unified in the trench of resistance."
Could there be any more dramatic declaration of Palestinian civil war?
But how can there be a civil war if Palestinians are not killing Palestinians? Simple: the rebel Front kills Israelis, forcing Ariel Sharon to order retaliation against terrorists, and Palestinians, both terrorists and bystanders, are casualties by rebel Palestinian design.
The rebels know that no government under sustained terrorist attack can afford to remain supine. Israel must continue to strike back until the new leadership of the Palestinian Authority takes control of the killers within its own population.
No honest American could possibly sit there and advocate that Israel just put up with being relentlessly attacked my extremists without doing anything themselves to stop them. Just let some radical group blow up ONE school bus here and watch what would happen!
Safire concludes with a final sobering thought--one with which I wish I didn't have to agree:
But no comprehensive outside imposition will bring durable peace to the Middle East. It will follow the Palestinians' victory over a terrorist minority that dragged them into civil war.
By now--I'm sure--you've all heard about the asshat who's suing the state of Florida because she wants to keep her drivers license picture which currently shows her wearing a veil. She claims that forcing her to have her picture re-taken without the veil is a violation of her civil rights because wearing the veil is part of her Muslim faith. Never mind that
On a lighter note, here are a couple of funny takes on the entire situation. They seek to answer the question, if this chick wins, who'll be next?
Perhaps the caped crusader?
Nah. Can't have any "crusaders," might offend Muslims that way.
What about this scenario?
Yeah. That would probably be OK. He hates Bush, right? Sure. No problem.
Lee pointed me to a really amazing blog. You should all instantly bookmark it! It's called Powerline and, with the exception of the fact that you can't post comments (bummer), it's a daily must read.
Two posts in particular, the latest about the tragi-comic so-called "Road-Map" for Peace in the Middle East, and an insightful piece entitled "BBC: Saddam was just kidding" about the supposedly suspicious lack of WMD evidence found in Iraq so far.
Here's a sample:
As of 1998, there was an inventory of substantial quantities of chemical and biological weapons that Iraq admitted possessing. For years, the U.N. tried to get Saddam to prove that he had destroyed those inventories, but he was unable to supply such evidence. Why would Saddam destroy his weapons and then perversely refuse to provide documentation, when his failure to do so kept the U.N. sanctions in place? And what about the chemical suits that U.S. forces discovered in several abandoned Iraqi military positions, along with written instructions for the use of chemical weapons? Do the liberals really believe that Saddam trained and equipped his soldiers to use weapons that he didn't possess?
Go. Read. Now.
Every so often you read an article that hits it right out of the park. This one from Michael Harty is just such an article.
"If the Palestinians Want a State, Let Them Earn It."
By Michael Harty
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 22, 2003
Wasef Mansour is a diplomat with the Palestinian mission in Morocco. On May 7, 2003 MEMRI (1) reported statements Mansour made during an online discussion at the Islam Online website in April of 2003. Among the many slights against Israel and America, the Palestinian also said, "we know that Bush is no stronger than Hitler was in his time or Hulago in his time, and his fate will be no different from the fate of the tyrants who preceded him." (2)That's gratitude for you. We've provided over six billion American dollars to the Palestinians, yet they continue to insult us after all that assistance. And where is the money? They take our money in one hand, and then give us the finger with the other. Their advocates and representatives lobby effectively on our televisions and in our newspapers, but apparently with only one of their two tongues. If the average American knew what was being said in Arabic behind our backs all these years, we'd turn them out like an unshaved, unemployed and ungrateful houseguest. Arab/Islamic newspapers print calumnies against us, their mosques exhort colonization to overwhelm the Western Infidels, and their terrorist brothers plot mass murder. Must our pursuit of kindness walk hand in hand with blindness? It is a vile form of welfare that the United States and others are carrying the ungrateful Palestinian leaders in one of the world's biggest papooses. It is time to stop casting pearls before swine.
Consider that the Palestinians joined Saddam in two wars against the United States. They betrayed their Kuwati hosts and openly sided with Saddam during Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in Gulf War I. While their clever talking heads were on TV achieving victim status, their populations cheered every Scud that fell on Israel. They claim a victim's innocence, yet they send their children to fight a man?s war as rock slingers and suicide bombers, and then praise the acts in elementary school pageants. Palestinians hold rallies where they dress their children as military combatants wearing mock bomb belts strapped to their tiny bodies. Palestinians perpetuate intergenerational hatred, by filling the minds of their young with vile invectives concerning America. They blame the Jews for their poverty and ignorance with racially stereotyped imagery. For years the Palestinians have called for the death of America, and in May when Colin Powell arrived for peace talks, Palestinian mobs were burning American flags. Palestinians were even caught on camera celebrating the fall of our mighty towers on September 11, 2001.
Why are we pursuing their interests for them?
If the Palestinians want a state, let them earn it. It's time these Muslims stood on their own two feet and took care of themselves. They are not children. They are not victims. If they hate the Jews and want war, we should let them learn from the consequences of such a disastrous choice. We should not shield them from the repercussions while enabling their atrocities through the excuse that they're victims. If they are unable to build a respectable society with their own hands, how can they ever be expected to behave as a mature state in a community of nations? A culture truly mature enough for the privilege to govern themselves, would not sacrifice their young to sympathetic cameras and wait for the labor of others to provide them a state. They would do as countless millions have done before them and build one themselves. If the Kurds can achieve a self-reliant autonomy while navigating precariously through centuries under the ethnocentric policies of the Turks, the Persians, and the savage thuggery of the Iraqis, then why can't the Palestinians do it with six billion American dollars and an international army of reporters, cameras and activists? What is it that keeps them twiddling their thumbs in "the camps" instead of getting to work building a country and earning some self-respect? To say it's because of "the Jews", is tantamount to saying you earned a failing grade because the teacher doesn't like you.
Read the whole thing. It's about time someone had the guts to come out and say what needs to be said in terms and using such a sound rationale that idiotarian bleeding-heart "liberals" cannot so easily refute.
If you are being accused of harboring, aiding and abetting ruthless terorrorists, don't just deny it, deny the very existence of such groups in the first place!
That's what Bashar Assad is doing now with Al Qaeda! Yup, according to him, they are probably just as imaginary as the Easter Bunny (they just carry explosive eggs I guess):
KUWAIT CITY (AP) - Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview published Sunday that he doubts the existence of al-Qaida, the terror group blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks and recent strikes in Saudi Arabia and Morocco."Is there really an entity called al-Qaida? Was it in Afghanistan? Does it exist now?" Assad asked, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Anba.
Osama bin Laden, the Saudi-born Islamic extremist who heads al-Qaida, "cannot talk on the phone or use the Internet, but he can direct communications to the four corners of the world?" Assad said. "This is illogical."
I don't typically like to do this. I want people to come here and make comments, however ridiculous, without worrying that I'll publicly rip them a new one, but every so often, someone shows up so thoroughly impacted with putrid, fermenting shit that they are literally begging for a new rectal orifice, and James Huges is just such a reader.
In response to a really old post about statistics of the so-called "Intefada," Mr. Hughes spewed forth this idiocy:
Isarael will have to choose at some point if it would like a democratic Israel including the West Bank or a religeous Israel without the West Bank.The current choice (occupation and settlement building) results in terrorism. That is Israels choice.
More importantly, "Sir," does your little statement extend to all victims of terrorist attacks, anywhere? Did the victims of 9/11 "choose" their fate? What about the people in the Murrah building? Was there something they could have done to prevent Tim McVeigh from blowing them up? Did the postal workers who died from Anthrax "choose" their fates? What about Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro way back when? Was there something he, or the governments of Italy, the US AND Israel could have done to save his life? Do you really think so?
Or are you strictly speaking of Israelis living within the borders of the state of Israel? Are you making any distinction between those who agree with Sharon's policies and those who don't? Are we talking about Israeli Arabs and Christians too, or just Jews? Do the little children--who can't even vote yet, and are NOT taught to hate Palestinians--have a "choice" too? Should they get down on their knees and beg for forgiveness from the kids their own ages (some as young as 3) who would just as soon kill them as talk to them? Because from the time they can walk and talk, Palestinians are taught to hate and want to kill them you know, even before they are old enough to understand why!
Are you also aware (sounds like you're not) that Israel is NOT a theocracy? It is a Jewish state, but only insofar as Jews are allowed to move there and become citizens automatically, and they may serve in the military. ALL Israelis, of every religion (and they are all represented, by the way) are allowed to run for office, to go to school, to study whatever they want, read whatever they want, write whatever they want and work at whatever profession (again, except the military) they choose.
Why aren't non Jews allowed in the military? Well, think about it! If Israel weren't surrounded by hostile neighbors, most of whom are hostile to Jews specifically, perhaps non-Jews would be allowed to serve, but as it is, it's neither prudent nor humane to draft people (and they do have conscription there) who might be quite hostile to the notion that they might die in the service of a country they'd like to see disappear.
Perhaps someday this distinction might change, just as our military changed and allowed Japanese Americans to fight for the US during WWII, but even so, they were not DRAFTED into the military for the obvious reason that their affinity might be elsewhere. It's pure logic and common sense.
Why a Jewish State? Because Jews have been forcibly kicked out of just about every country on Earth, and if they didn't set up a country of their own, they'd never be safe. Every Arab country has either expelled or killed off the vast majority of its Jewish population, but apparently this doesn't bother you. Muslim countries, I guess, are OK with you, even though they ruthlessly oppress their OWN people, as well as those who aren't Muslim in the first place. Israel allows freedom of religion in Israel, Saudi Arabia does NOT.
Do you know who the terrorists are? They are groups like Hamas who said the following just the other day:
"We will not stop our resistance as long as one Zionist continues to breathe our air," Hamas, which has vowed to wreck a U.S. peace plan for the region, said in a statement.
Have you read their charter? Do you know what they want? They don't want a separate Palestinian state. Neither do they want to simply "return" to Israel and live in freedom and democracy. They want to kill every Jew, Christian, Druze, or other non-Muslim in Israel, then they want to run it as a Muslim theocracy, like Iran. Are you OK with THAT?
You sit there smugly and proclaim that Israel is the undemocratic one. Israel is the oppressor in your view. Has Israel razed to the ground the Dome of the Rock, or any mosque for that matter? Yet these Palestinian "victims" you defend are hard at work demolishing any archeological evidence that Jews ever set foot in East Jerusalem, or the West Bank areas for that matter.
What about those schools? What are Israeli kids taught about Arabs or Muslims? Are they taught that they are "apes and pigs" who drink the blood of Jews for breakfast? No. But that's exactly what Palestinian children are taught about Jews--that they are inhuman, blood libeling swine who must be killed, even if it means dying yourself in the process.
What happens to an Israeli who kills a Palestinian in cold blood? He, or she, is arrested and brought up on murder charges and, if convicted (which is not unlikely if there is evidence), he or she will spend the rest of his or her life in jail. What happens to suicide bombers, or Palestinian gunmen who kill innocent Israelis in cold blood, even those still residing in their pregnant mother's womb? Streets are named after them. T-shirts are printed with their faces on them. Parades are held in their honor, and their family receives a big fat check from whoever the terror-sponsor du jour might be.
How could Israel possibly absorb a population that hates it so much? HOW? How would this not be suicide? Either you know nothing about the history of this region, or you just don't care if Israel survives at all. I'm guessing it's some combination of both.
In which case, shut the fuck up, you have no idea what you're talking about.
I have more rights than you do!
What? You haven't heard? Well, you obviously haven't been reading the Saudi papers lately. According to them:
Arabs and Muslims are sometimes treated as if they were not humans and to whom principles of justice and equality do not apply.This is why so many Arabs and Muslims are now in American prisons without trial on the mere suspicion of having links with terrorism.
It is why American Muslims are treated unfairly while American Jews enjoy more rights than ordinary Americans.
Among them:
Heard of that Right of Return that the Palestinians keep bitching about? Well, they got the idea from us, but originally it was the right to return Blockbuster movies as late as we want to without paying a late fee. Since Yasser Arafat's kind of movies are ones that Blockbuster won't rent due to their whole "No NC-17 or Child Pornography" campaign, he changed the goal from returning movies to flooding Israel with a Jew-hating Arab population.
[Via Idiotarian.com]
"I'm a tolerant, peacful man who has nothing against Jews...Oh no, I refer to them as the 'People of the Book' and the 'Children of Abraham,' it's the Israelis I can't stand, really...Trust me."
"I am a:"
a. Christian
b. Hindu
c. Sikh
d. Muslim
If you chose "D," Muslim, you are wrong, probably dead wrong (pun intended, sorry), but thank you for playing "What's my line?" anyway!
[ViaLGF]The Palestinian Authority's Mufti in Jerusalem is threatening that if Jews set foot in the Temple Mount, there will be a "bloodbath."Ahmed Abdel Rahman, a senior political advisor to Arafat, said: "This could be the trigger for a third intifada. How else can we interpret the stupidity of Israel's police minister, who announced last week that Jews would be allowed to visit the al-Aqsa mosque?"
Rahman was speaking at a memorial ceremony held in Ramallah for three Palestinian journalists killed in the current violence.
He described statements made by Police Minister Tsachi Hanegbi to this effect as idiotic and naive.
Hanegbi said last week that Jews and non-Muslim tourists would soon be permitted to visit the Temple Mount, which has been closed by Muslim religious authorities since the outbreak of violence more than two years ago.
The PA Mufti in Jerusalem, Ikrimah Sabri, warned over the weekend that allowing Jews to enter the Temple Mount would result in a bloodbath.
As Charles says,
The ever-tolerant religion of peace. The mere presence of Jews in a place usurped by Muslims means violence and death. And the world gives them a pass for this appalling bigotry and hatred.
"...you'll find my policy of breeding hatred and fanaticism into our youth."
Well, Arafat might not have used these exact words in his recent private memo to George Bush, but he might as well have.
He did offer to
"renounce fanaticism in the educational curricula and spread the spirit of democracy and enlightenment and openness."
So, let me get this straight...He has to offer? This doesn't go without saying in Palestine, liberal poster-child for "zionist victimization and torture?"
Well how would anyone know otherwise? Have you seen any investigative reporting on 20/20, or any other mainstream media outlet about what goes on in Palestinian schools? In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the proof that Fox News isn't as hard-line conservative as liberals claim is that they have yet to do an exclusive story on this topic, and instead keep a correspondent in Gaza and the West Bank, dutifully reporting the Palestinian propaganda on cue.
The Palestinian schools, financed by Europe, are open sewers in terms of the hatred they seed--hatred not just of Israel, but of all Jews and all their friends. Dr Ahmad Abu Halabiya, former acting rector of the Islamic University in Gaza, speaks the message: "Wherever you are, kill the Jews, the Americans who are like them and those who stand by them."
If such a story aired, or was even covered in the mainstream visual media at all, I must have missed it. Kind of like that flock of pigs that just flew by.
Hold the phone! Earlier today I blogged about the so-called "Man of Peace," new Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen, and I commented that he was not the olive branch kind of guy we should be shaking hands with, but little did I know he was worse than I thought!
Steve sent me this article about Mazen's involvement in the Munich Olympics massacre!
Read it and weep, literally.
Before you get too excited about the prospect of handing over the so-called "road-map" for middle-east peace to Abu Mazen, wouldn't it be a good idea to take a long hard look at this guy?
Who is he anyway? It's not good enough just to say that he's not Yassir Arafat! Tempting though that may be, it just doesn't cut it.
MEMRI has an excellent summary of Abu Mazen's political and personal profile, and if you care about achieving peace in the region, it would behoove you to read it before demanding that the leader of the Free World recognize the guy as a legitimate force for peace.
Here's just a sample of the things he stands for:
Permanent Status Issues JerusalemAccording to Abu Mazen, like any other Palestinian city occupiedin 1967--and particularly the Haram Al-Sharif, that is, the area of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, must be strictly Palestinian. Thus, he rejects any proposal of joint sovereignty over the Haram, such as Israeli sovereignty over the area beneath the Haram or the concept of "divine" sovereignty over the entire area.
In an article he wrote for the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat,(5) Mazen said: "...At Camp David... the Israelis and the Americans began to send up test balloons regarding solutions concerning Jerusalem... Since we categorically rejected all these proposals, at the end of the summit they dropped the bomb of their demand for sovereignty over the Haram, claiming that the remnants of the Haykal Suleiman [the Temple] lie in or beneath the plaza of the Haram Al-Sharif. [Emphasis added]
"Claiming?" This man has just said--essentially--that Muslims have more of a right to a place where they "claim" Mohammed rose to heaven than Jews have a right to a place where a building is known (even by world-reknowned archeologists) to have stood--a building they are prohibited from excavating by the Muslims in question!
They also demanded the right for a certain number of people to pray at the Haram each day, or each week. Naturally, we rejected this as well, but we agreed that they could pray near the Western Wall, without our recognizing any [Israeli] sovereignty over it, based on the 1929 decision of the British Shaw Commission. The commission acknowledged that the Western Wall belongs to the Muslim Waqf, but the Jews were permitted to pray near it provided they did not blow the Shofar."(6)
So, exactly how can neighbors "accept" and "respect" each other peacefully when one not only denies the heritage of the other so completely, it openly rejects any concept of freedom of religion for VISITORS from that neighboring state?
But wait, there's more...
The Palestinian Refugees and the "Right of Return"In Abu Mazen's view, peace cannot be reached without giving every Palestinian refugee the right to return to his home. In an article in Al-Hayat,(9) Abu Mazen wrote: "It should be noted in this matter--and we clarified this to the Israelis as well--that the right of return means a return to Israel, not to the Palestinian state, because the lands of the PA, which in the future will be the State of Palestine, were not [party] to expelling the refugees, but [were the land that] absorbed them. There is not a single refugee who left Gaza, Hebron, or Nablus. All the residents of these cities remained in them, and took in refugees from the neighbor[ing cities], to the extent that 70% of the residents of Gaza are refugees, as are 40% of the residents of the West Bank. When we talk of the right of return, we are talking about the return of refugees to Israel, because it was Israel that expelled them, and because it is there that their property is..." [Emphasis added]
He expressed a similar view in his interview with the PA daily Al-Ayyam(10) "It is natural that every refugee return, to his home, and anyone who doesn't want to will be compensated."
"Compensated?" By whom? Israelis? And how would Mazen decide who had a "home" in territory that is now part of Israel? Who would verify this information? And what would happen to "peace" if the Israelis (rightfully) said "NO FUCKING WAY" ?
But the WORST PART OF ALL is Mazen's Holocaust denial. How anyone could expect to reach anything resembling peace with a man who would say things like the following is beyond me:
Zionism and Holocaust DenialThe truth of the matter is that no one can verify this number, or completely deny it. In other words, the number of Jewish victims might be 6 million and might be much smaller--even less than 1 million.
Really Abu? So where did all those living breathing human beings go then?
First, many of the Jews remained alive; some were rescued by the Zionist movement [which encouraged] their emigration to Palestine, and some [survived because of] the peoples of the world that managed to protect them and take them away from the Nazis, as the Soviet Union did by sending two million Jews to its eastern republics.
Sure, where Stalin most likely had them slaughtered and buried in mass graves...Can you imagine? Mazen is suggesting that the Soviet Union was somehow a haven for Jews!
In addition, hundreds of thousands of live Jews were found in the concentration camps when the Allies liberated the territories [ruled by the Nazis]."
Actually Abu, it was more like thousands, not hundreds of thousands, and even some of those "found alive" died shortly therafter from disease and irreversible starvation. Ask their relatives and other survivors how "alive" they were when the war ended, not to mention who was living in their homes, who stole their money, their possessions, their jobs, their entire families...
"Second, the extermination of the victims was not carried out only in the concentration camps and gas chambers. Some of the victims fell as a result of their participation in wars and battles, and also due to starvation and disease that struck all the peoples of Europe.
Since when did Hitler allow Jews to fight alongside Germans? And timing matters Abu! When did the other "peoples of Europe" (kindly souls that they were) starve? Were they forced into ghettos and work camps? Were they prohibited from having enough money to buy food, even if it was avaiable? Were they fed a diet of bread and water for years even though others around them ate caviar, drank wine and stuffed themselves silly on delicacies from all over the world, sometimes right under their noses?
In addition, the concentration camps were not only for Jews, but held people from all over Europe, among them fighters, intellectuals, scholars, prisoners of war, and opponents of fascism..."
True, no one--least of all Jews--disputes this, but it's intersting that most of these fighters, intellectuals, scholars and prisoners were still JEWISH ONES. What's your point? That it's not so bad that the Jews were systematically exterminated if they had some company before they died?
"Regarding the gas chambers, which were supposedly designed for murdering living Jews: A scientific study published by Professor Robert Faurisson of France denies that the gas chambers were for murdering people, and claims that they were only for incinerating bodies, out of concern for the spread of disease and infection in the region."
Yeah, there you go. Cite a FRENCH professor. That's definitely credible. They don't have anything against Jews. No, not at all. I don't care what he "claims." Was he there? Who the hell is he? Some frog professor? Yeah, let's base our beliefs on what some rabid anti-semitic Holocaust denial expert has to say. And since when do "gas chambers" have the ability to "incinerate" anything?
Tell me again how this "road-map" is going to work?!
I just don't understand why Bush is even entertaining the notion of shaking hands with such a man, and I can only conclude that the much wiser Israelis know that Mazen will fail and, therefore, aren't that concerned that he'll get his wishes met over time. And they certainly don't dare oppose him or they'll be accused of holding up the peace process. I can't imagine what it's like to have to put up with this shit year in, year out.
If the Israelis wanted to roll on into Arafat's compound like we did in Bagdhad, arresting every one of his cronies, Mazen, Hamas and other terrorist group members, I wouldn't bat an eyelash.
The question is, will we hear it? Will we heed it?
LGF reprinted a letter received Kathryn Jean Lopez at the Corner from a guy known only as "IDF Guy."
The letter suggests (correctly I think) that the disgusting (but predictable) display of hatred by Hamas in Tel Aviv yesterday was as much a message for the U.S. as for the Israelis.
Let's pay attention:
[Mike's Place] is one convenience store away from the extremely well-secured American embassy. It is owned by two Israeli/American brothers--Assaf and Gil and caters almost exclusively to American expats--tourists, long term residents, embassy staff and even American forces ages 18-80 (literally). Assaf plays the blues in a band called Southbound Train, a band that has given many of us who have spent time in Israel a desperately needed taste of home. He is also a consummate bartender in the "Sam Malone" style.They throw one heck of a Fourth of July party.
Mike's Place started in Jerusalem where it was the bar of choice amongst a generation of American kids spending their junior year abroad at the Hebrew University. Mike's was one of the only bars to have survived the horrible blow that the Jerusalem (and Israeli) hospitality industry has encountered since the intifada started. Their expansion to a second Tel Aviv location on the beach at a time when there are almost no new bar openings defied conventional wisdom, but was a natural as many of us "seculars" find ourselves spending more time in Tel Aviv.Do any of you out there know the Talking Heads song "Heaven"?...well that is Mike's Place...everyone knows you, they're always playing your favorite song, but in the end nothing really happens--and that's precisely what is so great.
I really don't know what to say... so many people I know (myself included) have had so may great times there. People have met their wives there. It's the only place where you can see a yeshiva student from LA, an African-American soldier, and an Israeli just back from Thailand sharing a stage belting the lyrics to Sweet Home Alabama "where the skies are so blue." Mike's had become a really important and unique part of the thriving and important live music scene in Tel Aviv that keeps many of us grounded. Hebrew not spoken here, yet frequented by Israelis who love the Americans that hang out there and American culture.
I wish I could have waxed more eloquent for your readers, but at this point I'm still waiting to go through that inevitable wince we all get when we first see that the names of the victims have been released. I just hope my buddies are OK. ...
I don't want to make any accusations about why this bomb went off here and why now. But whoever bombed it knew exactly what this place was and what kind of people were in it. It should give Americans pause to think.
I have to echo Charles's sentiments: "Tell me again how this road map is going to work?"
By the way, he also found the link to the web site for Mike's Place.
If you're Palestinian, how do you celebrate the confirmation of your first Prime Minister ever? How do you show your enthusiasm for the pending publication of the so-called "road-map" that should take you on the journey to sovereign statehood?
You kill some Jews, that's how! Wouldn't want them to actually believe you really want peace after all!
So where's the protest? Where's the outrage from the peaceniks who--you'd hope--would be shocked to see a people so obviously standing in their own way?
Vinny has some thoughts on the subject.
3 people died in a suicide bombing today in Tel Aviv at a nightclub. One dead animal who had the bomb strapped to him in an attempt to kill as many Jews as possible.
- No human shields.
- No Rachel Corrie-type human shield idiots.
- No outcry from the left.
- No outcry for peace and justice.
- No outcry to Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.
- Just some dead Jews. Legitimate targets of a regime whose actions are defended at every turn as legitimate resistance.
Because a Jazz club is a major threat.
Spot on Vinny. I do expect to hear some protest though, if only from PETA over the insensitive use of an animal by Hamas to kill those filthy humans.
I'm sorry, I know I've already posted about this,but it makes me too damn happy not to keep celebrating. Maybe we can create a new holiday around this event? Not sure what to call it, but I know what the title of the holiday theme song could be:
Saudi long suckas!
Remember that worthless piece of science fiction known as the "Oslo Peace Accords?" Remember who signed them for the U.S. side, thereby bearing witness to the notion that members of the PLO could not be arrested and tried for crimes committed before the Oslo accords?
Yeah, Billy No-Nuts Clinton himself.
True to form, those "distinguished" gentlemen of the Palestinian Cabinet (wait, must stop laughing before I can finish thought...) are demanding Abbas's release effective immediately.
Of course, the Palistinians have no case. Witnesses cannot be held accountable for contracts signed by others, and Abbas did commit a crime against an American (murder, to be exact), but when were these scumbags ever interested in "truth?"
Clinton may not have signed our rights away, but he opened the door to allow crazy mixed up lunatics to think he had, and he should have found someone else in the room with a pen!
On the upside, you know that road map Tony Blair is always harping on? Looks like someone's getting lost on the way to Statehood...
Well, the "religion of peace" was at it again today--slaughtering innocents on a Haifa bus, and blaming other people for it. Lovely.
And what do these "peaceful" folks say when asked why they felt compelled to destroy so many lives?
"We are sending the clear message that the will of resistance will continue until the elimination of the occupation," a-Zahar said. "This is a clear message for the government that Israeli crimes, Israeli aggression will be answered by a well-effective resistance from the Palestinian side." Hamas spokesman, Mahmoud a-Zahar
Israeli crimes? Israeli aggression? What crimes would those be? What aggression would that be? Oh sure, they'll say the crimes are the killing of innocent Palestinians (an oxymoron if I ever saw one). They'll say the "aggression" is evident in the "incursions" into Gaza and the West Bank.
All bullshit. Total and complete GARBAGE. Here's what they really mean, from Hamas's own charter:
Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors. [Emphasis added]
"Eliminates?" But, but, the Hamas spokesman insisted that the bombings would stop if Israel withdrew and resumed peace talks. Doesn't "eliminate" mean "get rid of completely?"
Well gee, let's take a look at the Hamas view of "peace negotiations" shall we?
Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences--Article Thirteen
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."
There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility.
There you have it folks! The TRUTH, we need only see it! They don't want peace, they want to kill every Jew in Israel. They want to remove Israel from the map entirely. They are USING OUR IGNORANCE against us, and we are letting them.
Just once, just ONE FRIGGIN' TIME, I'd like to see a waste of space mainstream journalist call them on it!
Well, when he's a hairy monkey-man like this one, I'd suggest boiling hot waxing of his back hair--perhaps one hair at a time--by someone he'd find really repulsive...Perhaps Harvey Fierstein, in his Dame Edna get-up of course.
What do you guys think?
[Via Kathy Kinsey]
James Lileks hits it out of the park again. Apparently, he saw the same video of last Friday's sermon in a Baghdad mosque that I saw, and here's what he had to say about it:
I just saw a video of one of the sermons, carried on prime-time TV in Iraq. Same old same old, with a twist: Usually the text says that the very trees will cry out there is a Jew behind me, kill him. This video had a new version: even the stone will say "a Jew is hiding behind me. Come and cut off his head."
And then the mullah pulled out a sword. That's the detail you don't get in the transcripts: these men of God are packing heat - granted, it's medieval-style slicy heat, but heat nonetheless.
"And we shall cut off his head!" he shouted, waving the sword. "By Allah, we shall cut it off! Oh Jews! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Jihad for the sake of Allah! Jihad for the sake of Allah!"
Playwright Harold Pinter, speaking at last weekend's rally, said "The US is a nation out of control," and "unless we stop it, it will bring barbarism to the entire world." He said America was "a country run by a bunch of criminal lunatics with Tony Blair as a hired Christian thug."
When Blair shows up in the pulpit cleaving the air with a scimitar, let me know. When US television broadcasts a speech with Billy Graham hosting an Excalibur replica from the Franklin Mint Collection, demanding the decapitation of Muslims, let me know. When George Bush grips the podium and beseeches American rock formations to give up the location of non-Christians so we can slit their throats, and it's carried live on national TV by presidential order, drop me a line.
It takes a particularly rarified variety of idiot to look at a Jew-hating fascist with a small mustache - and decide that his opponent is the Nazi.
Many bloggers have been posting about Daniel Pearl today because it is the anniversary of the day we learned that he was dead--murdered by Islamomaniacs he meant to "interview."
Daniel's death was awful. His family, his friends and his colleagues are devastated. His child will never know him. But ask yourself, could his death have been avoided? Was there really a "story" to be found in the first place, or did Daniel--an American and a Jew--make a huge mistake when he thought he could walk away unharmed from a meeting with people who made no secret of the fact that they were sworn to destroy everything he stood for?
Daniel wanted to interview people he suspected were members of Al Qaeda. He was researching links between that group and the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. Members of Al Qaeda and Richard Reid expressed hatred of Jews and Americans with virtually every sentence they uttered, so why did Daniel think he was different? He was not in America, interviewing prisoners behind bars, protected by police. He was in Pakistan, a known hide-out for Islamic extremists, a place where madrassas teach anti-semitism as part of the core curriculum, where mobs danced in the streets when Americans died the previous September, where Osama bin Laden is revered as a god.
Daniel, being a highly intelligent, well-traveled journalist surely knew where he was and whom he wanted to meet, so what enabled this expectant father, this devoted husband, loyal son and friend to get into a cab, alone, to meet such people?
I do not think Daniel had a death-wish. With all that he had to lose, I have to think someone as smart and caring as he was believed he would be back in his hotel room that night. But it's important for us--as we look back on his death--to be mindful of the assumptions that might have made that belief possible. He might have assumed that the people who lured him with a "story" cared more about telling that story than about killing one more American or one more Jew. He might have believed that somehow, he was different from the Americans and Jews they claimed to hate, that--as a journalist--he was worth more to them alive than dead.
Perhaps he even believed he could be a conduit for dialogue between the terrorists and the rest of us, so we could better understand the "root causes" behind 9/11, so we could somehow stop the violence without being violent ourselves. I don't know. None of us will ever know, unfortunately, but I refuse to believe he was just ignorant of the danger, and I refuse to believe that he thought he, alone and unarmed, could triumph over whatever danger lay in wait for him.
We do know what Daniel perhaps did not. Daniel's captors didn't care about telling any "story." They made some prisoner exchange demands after capturing him, but in all liklihood had already killed Daniel before making them. What they did care about, so much they took the time to capture it on tape, was showing the world that they could, and they would, kill any Jew or any American they could find.
Are we going to listen? Or are we going to betray Daniel's memory by continuing to insist that Islamists only hate Israelis, or the US government, or George Bush, or Imperialism, or any other "thing we individually are not?" Every Friday, in mosques around the world, and even right here at home, Muslim clerics repeat the "story" that Daniel Pearl overlooked. At the top of their lungs, they praise Osama. They praise Hamas. They praise every "true muslim" who heeds the call to Jihad, the call to "kill Americans and Jews wherever you find them," not just in Israel, and not just in the Arab world.
If you march for peace, if you think "war is bad," if you drop everything and head to Baghdad to become a human shield, if you burn George Bush in effigy, you are not "creating dialogue" with this enemy, you are failing to listen to the legacy of Daniel Pearl, and the 3,000 plus souls whose deaths put him in Pakistan in the first place.
Unless you are Muslim, or prepared to become one, live under Sharia law, turn your back on your entire Western way of life and support terrorist actions, you are a target--at home, and abroad, every day of your life.
The US doesn't need to go to Iraq to paint the bull's-eye on your back. As long as you are who you are, and not who they are, they will hate you. They say so every day.
Daniel got the message, in the most permanent way possible, and then the tape his killers made repeated it, so we would be sure not to misunderstand as he perhaps had.
But unlike Daniel, we have a choice. Are we going to ignore our enemies because we don't want to see them, because we don't want to have enemies, or because we don't like violence in any form? Or are we going to honor the memory of Daniel Pearl by listening to the story he did manage to tell us?
[Via Idiotarian.com]
Dr. J uncovers some information about what Syrian kids are learning in school (from Facts of Israel)
"It is reported that Syria's official 2002 school textbooks call for Jihad (holy war) and support for the elimination of Israel. By age 15, Syrian children may find in their Islamic studies textbooks that Jews deserve to be liquidated: 'Co-existence with them or having them as neighbors, is an enormous danger that threatens Islamic and Arab existence with destruction and extinction Their criminal intention should be turned against them by way of their elimination.'"
Yeah, I can see why the anti-war folks want us to wait for countries like Syria to agree before taking action against reknowned Jew-hater Saddam Hussein (who supports Hamas with $25K checks for each suicide bombing perpetrated against Israelis). Makes total sense (heavy sarcasm).
[Via Susanna]
A couple of weeks ago, I wrote expressing my disappointment in the Muslim community and their lack of vocal response to the most recent diatribe from Osama Bin Laden. Well, today Susanna reports that a voice has finally been raised in a piece entitled "Memo Osama bin Laden, from a fellow Muslim: Go to hell!"
When the prophet Muhammad and his companions fought in the name of Islam, Allah made them victorious and glorified them in this world. They made Islam the currency of human civilisation for more than a millennium. You and your men, on the other hand, face nothing but defeat, global ridicule and contempt. You run and hide like rats in caves and dungeons. You live in the dark. Your faith neither enlightens you nor enables you to live in the light, and you have made Islam the currency of hate and violence.
Let me tell you that I would rather live in America under Bush at his worst, than in any "Islamic state" established by ignorant, intolerant and murderous punks like you. The US - its Patriot Act notwithstanding - is still a more Islamic (just and tolerant) state than Afghanistan ever was under the Taliban.
Not exactly the outpouring of outrage from thousands I was hoping for, but it's a great read, and it beats the hell out of nothing!
Well, what do you know! MEMRI reports that an Iranian defector has given credible information linking Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Al Qaeda, as well as several other terrorist groups.
But taking out Saddam has nothing to do with the war on terror, nah, 'course not! (heavy sarcasm)
The London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat reported that senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards official Hamid Reza Zakiri recently defected. In an interview with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Zakiri disclosed information regarding the cooperation of the Revolutionary Guards and Iranian intelligence apparatuses with Saddam Hussein's regime, terror organizations such as the Palestinian and Egyptian Jihad organizations, Al-Qa'ida, and Hizbullah. Zakiri also discussed the 1998 political murders in Iran, which were committed by the Iranian security apparatuses, and stated that Iran has nuclear installations.
Just wondering...Since human shields claim to give a shit care about the lives of "innocents," why aren't they forming a line around Arafat's compound, or at the border where the West Bank meets Israel? Aren't innocents being killed in Israel by suicide bombers all the time? Whose quitting their day job to hop a plane to stand in their way?
Do the human shields hold the Israeli populace more responsible for the actions of their government than the Iraqis? But why? I mean, the posters say that "At least Saddam was elected," so wouldn't that make them responsible for his torturous treatment of their neighbors, the Kurds?
What about the other way around...Since the human shields and the protesters used a lot of poster board calling for someone to "Free Palestine" (although they weren't very specific as to which part they wanted freed, so I have to assume they meant all of it, including the part I like to call "Israel"), I would expect to see them marching in Palestinian funerals and forming human walls around residential neighborhoods in the West Bank. Why don't I? I mean, they can't possibly be afraid of being Westerners in the midst of an Islamic fundamentalist death cult, now could they? Naaaaah! These are the "innocent people" who "freely elected" Arafat as their leader! These are the people who "just want peace!"
Well, I have a theory. Maybe there are no human shields in "Palestine" because they know that the combattants in question aren't really going to care if "human shields" get caught in the crossfire, and might even blow them up on purpose, just for being non-Muslim Westerners!
So what's different in Iraq? Do these idiots assume American forces will be more deterred from bombing innocent people if a few hundred human shields are standing in their way? Well gee, if that's true, I guess Americans aren't really the "murderous terrorists" the human shields and protest marchers say we are.
Dr. J. thinks he has a little too much time on his hands, but I think he's hilarious! He's created his own little MasterCard-esque cartoon about going to the Haj that cracked me up. Go check it out! (You have to scroll down a bit to see it).
[Via Misha]
John Hawkins over at Right Wing News has a great interview with Mark Steyn. It's a must read for so many reasons. What he says about the reason "Continentals" (as he calls non-British Europeans) are anti-Israel, and what he thinks will happen if we're successful in Iraq are just further examples of his ability to slice through the crap and get to the heart of the matter.
On the Euro-hatred of Israel:
John Hawkins: There is a profound difference in the way that most Americans and most Europeans seem to view the conflict in Israel. What do you think accounts for that difference?
Mark Steyn: You have to differentiate between the British and the Continent. The British aren't anti-Semitic, but they're hot for Arabs. The British ruling class looks at the Arab and sees a desert version of his own most cherished myths: look at the Prince of Wales all togged out in his Lawrence of Arabia get-up just to have dinner with one of bin Laden's brothers. The Continentals are something else. Some just don't like Jews and resent having been unable to express that opinion honestly these last 50 years. But with the others the psychology's a little more complicated. Almost every European country was tainted by the Holocaust and Nazi occupation, but for the sake of the post-war settlement the world agreed to pretend only Germany was to blame. Not so. In France and Holland, the locals eagerly herded Jews onto those eastbound trains. In Belgium, industrial production went up under the Nazis. After half-a-century, the Continentals are sick of this guilt trip. They need to see Israel as the aggressor for their own psychological health. That's why that wacky Dutch broad who's married to the big Eurobanker keeps comparing Sharon to Hitler and Likud to the Nazis. It's a way of evening the score - "Sure, we had Hitler, you have Sharon; we have Auschwitz, you have Jenin." It's their way of belatedly taking a moral shower, a way of saying, "See, the score's one-one now. You're as bad as us. Let's just call it a draw and move on."
So true, but wait, there's more!
John Hawkins: Let's say that things go well in Iraq and that we dispose of Saddam in short order with a minimal number of American and Iraqi civilian casualties. What do you think our next step in the war on terrorism should be?
Mark Steyn: The next step should be to quarantine the Saudis. The US has a moral distaste for imperialism, which is fair enough, but, on the other hand, when it scuppered the British and French over Suez in 1956, all it did was deliver the Middle East out of western influence and into the hands of what it thought were pliable strongmen. That's no more morally superior than western imperialism and in practical terms it's been a lot worse. We need to reform the entire region. To those cynical Europeans who say, "Oh, it's absurd to think Arabs can ever be functioning members of a democrat state", I'd say, in that case why are you allowing virtually unrestricted Muslim immigration into your own countries? So I'd say: after Iraq, Iran won't be far behind; we then quarantine Saudi Arabia and explain the realities of life to Egypt and Syria.[Empasis mine]
From your lips to God's ears Mark, that's all I can say.
Yesterday, we heard from the ghost of Osama Bin Laden again--extolling the virtues of suicide bombing, admonishing "all Muslims" to attack Americans, their allies, and Jews, wherever they might be, and once again calling for "holy Jihad" even if it means temporarily allying with "secular" Muslim governments.
Since the tape was released, we've heard from so-called "experts" of every stripe, anti and pro-war alike. We've even seen the Pope's emissary show up in Iraq to plead with Saddam to cooperate in the name of peace.
But where are the American Muslims? Why have they not stepped up, in public, to denounce OBL's calls for violence and death? Whether they oppose or support the war isn't the issue, they must surely oppose bin Laden's position, right?
If that's true, let's hear it! Or perhaps you think they don't "owe" their fellow Americans vocal support? Why not? Put another way, if Ariel Sharon went completely postal and started calling for Jews everywhere to rise up and kill Americans, and had hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of Jews all over the world rallying and chanting his name, carrying his photo, and elevating him to "God-like" status, would you not expect American Jews to stand up and say "NO FUCKING WAY does this man speak for us!"
I would, and I'm a JEW! But I'm an American FIRST, and no matter how much I support Israel, and no matter how much I care deeply about Jews around the world, if someone decided to turn my religion into a death cult bent on the wanton murder and destruction of all non-Jews, you wouldn't be able to shut me up I'd be so busy speaking out against that person.
So where are they? Forget "they," how about ONE prominent Muslim for a start? What do we hear instead? We hear all about how worried they are about themselves--about becoming victims of "backlash." But I've counted fewer than half a dozen violent cases of backlash against Muslims in America since 9/11. To be sure, all of those were abhorrent and the perpetrators have been rightly punished, but in a nation of 200+Million people, I'd hardly call this evidence of "backlash." I'd call it a few demented racists, period.
We've heard--ad nauseum it seems--how we have to be sensitive to Muslims, and how theirs is the "religion of peace." We've heard that "Jihad" is a struggle of the heart and mind, and that to say otherwise is "offensive." I have personally witnessed--not once, but twice--Arab males waltz through airport security without so much as a second glance, while I--a 5'2" white 30-something female who looks more Irish than Jewish--have had my bags taken apart, my shoes examined and my whereabouts prior to travel questioned. I have no proof, but I am convinced that the security workers were afraid to question the Arab/Muslim passengers, perhaps because they were trying to be "sensitive" to their cultural differences.
And even if we had racial profiling, would it not still behoove the Muslim community to denounce bin Laden publicly? They are in this country, they aren't going to be hauled away in their sleep by militants and never heard from again. If they disagree, and think they are in danger even here, then all the more reason they should come forward and help in the fight to uncover terrorist cells in America!
Even Japanese internment--horrible as it was--didn't stop Japanese Americans from speaking out against the Emperor of Japan, nor did it stop them from volunteering to fight alongside those whose culture was persecuting them.
I don't buy any of their arguments. I don't think non-Muslims should just know that Muslims are loyal because they live here. Mohammed Atta was living here too, so were most of the other 9/11 terrorists. There are radical mosques right here at home, are non-muslims supposed to ignore the hate spewing from their Imams' mouths every Friday?
I am 100% certain that Jews would never get away with this--in America or anywhere else. Shit, we're accused of worse just because Israel has the "gall" to defend herself against constant attack by Muslims bent on her destruction.
Enough is enough. It's time to start telling the Muslim community in this country that they need to put up or shut up. If they are so keen to have their "civil rights" protected, then perhaps it's about fucking time they said something--anything--other than "Well, yes, Osama is a dangerous man, BUT..."
He either IS or he ISN'T speaking for them. If he is, then I cordially invite them to leave. If not, then I'd like to hear it. I certainly can't--as a non-muslim--be expected to defend Islam if they won't, that's for sure.
This is interesting...so-called "rights groups" want Palestinians to be given gas masks to protect them in the event that Saddam fires scuds armed with chemical/biologial weapons over their heads at Israel.
I don't get it? Why would they need gas masks to protect them from WMD Saddam "doesn't have?" Hmmm...Curious...
Seems to me those $25,000 checks Saddam sends the families of suicide bombers could cover quite a few gas masks. So could the millions Arafat has stashed away in his Swiss bank accounts (stolen largely from the EU, not that they care). So if they want to go and buy gas masks themselves, that's fine with me.
I guess I don't understand why they don't just ask Saddam to give them a jingle when he's about to launch his scuds. Then they could be dancing in the streets, cheering him on with their masks already on!
One thing you can bet on though, if the Palestinians don't get masks, and scuds fall on them courtesy of Israel shooting them out of the sky as they speed towards Tel Aviv, the next sound you'll hear will be the voices of the palapologists raised in outrage at the "wanton murder of innocent civilians" by the Israelis.
You simply must check out the pictures and captions in this post over at Idiotarian.com.
They say a picture's worth a thousand words, but when you ADD words to a picture, then what's it worth?
Can you say "B-U-S-T-E-D!!!"
Alternate title: "Pot Calls Kettle Black."
So let me get this straight...The folks who--without UN permission mind you-- unabashadly control and use their next-door neighbor as a training and staging ground for terrorism are accusing the US of colonialism?
Interesting...And we're supposed to let UNSC member countries like Syria decide how to "protect" ourselves?
Over the last couple of days, I've been arguing with Norm about the definitions of "Patriotism" and "Treason." We can't seem to agree upon what constitutes either, and whose guilty of what, but I like to think that he will agree with me that Sheikh Dr. Ali Al-Tamimi , an American citizen, can NEVER call himself a "patriot." Here's what he had to say about the shuttle tragedy:
"... The whole world heard about the shuttle crash. Undoubtedly, the heart of every believer leaped with joy at the disaster of his greatest enemy. In my heart arose some thoughts that I would like to share with my brothers: First, the name of the shuttle, Columbia, is from Columbus, who discovered the American continent in 1492 following the fall of Grenada, the last of the strongholds of Islam in Andalusia. It is known that with the discovery of the two American continents, the Byzantines, that is, the Christians of Europe, exploited the resources of both these continents in order to take over the Islamic world. With the fall of the Columbia, a thought arose in my heart that this was a powerful sign that the supremacy of the West, and particularly that of the U.S., which began 500 years ago, is about to fall precipitously--Allah willing, as happened to the shuttle."
"Second, the shuttle crew included an Israeli astronaut, about whom the Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. said that he bore with him all the hopes and aspirations of the Israeli people. Thus, these hopes and aspirations burned up, Allah willing, in the fall and burning of the shuttle. Third, CNN announced at the beginning that the shuttle fell near the city of Palestine, Texas. I said to myself: Allah is great; thus, Allah willing, will America fall in Palestine. Similarly, Texas is the state of the stupid president George Bush Jr., about whom we hope, Allah willing, that, like the shuttle fell on his country, his idiotic policy will collapse the foundations of his country on his head. Fourth, in the president's eulogy, to the American people... he quoted from the Book of Isaiah... I said to myself: Allah be praised, in this book there is a prophecy regarding the coming of the Prophet Muhammad and the destruction of the Jews at the end of time... Anyone who sought to elevate the Jews on whom Allah has cast humiliation and misery... will be struck by humiliation and by divine wrath..."
My husband just sent me this link with the subject heading "F'n hypocrites!"
Apparently, a play written in Cincinnati by playwrite Glyn O'Malley about the lives of the 17 year-old female suicide bomber who blew herself up last year, and one of her 17 year-old female Israeli victims, has been "killed" before O'Malley had a chance to finish writing it!
Anticipating criticism, O'Malley held a reading of the parts he had so far in front of an invited audience that included Muslims.
To the playwright's surprise, he said, Mr. Dabdoub was accompanied by 10 other Muslims, and the discussion after the reading was filled with rancor. "It was hardly a debate," Mr. O'Malley said. "It was more like an attack, and I was the object of this fire. They said the play was worse than an F16 fighter-bomber in the damage that it would do and also that it was poison. The fact that I was called anti-Islam is very dangerous. People get killed for that."
Mr. O'Malley continued, "There was one man who said--chillingly--that suicide bombing was `the same as "Give me liberty or give me death." ' To my mind there is nothing about adult men strapping bombs onto kids--male and female--and sending them off to kill themselves and murder others that resonates even remotely with Patrick Henry's now axiomatic saying about the American Revolution."
Right here in America, while demanding free speech and the protection of civil rights for THEMSELVES, the Muslim community of Cincinnati has issued a Fatwah calling for the death of Mr. O'Malley.
...before those ignorant maniacs in the West Bank, Gaza and Saddam's inner circle started dancing for joy over the Columbia disaster. Lee has some of the hateful commentary from the Palastinians in his latest post, as well as a link to a few "kind words" from their sponsor, Saddam Hussein.
Naturally, they claim it's Allah's revenge for the evil deeds of the Israelis and the Americans--in particular the Israeli destruction of the Iraqi nuclear plant. I love the point Lee has on his site, that Allah was so enraged about that he took 22 years to exact his revenge?
Ben Shapiro backs up what I've been trying to tell terror apologists for over two years!
Still think the Islamists hate us because of our foreign policies? Well, that's not it, but don't take my word for it. If you still haven't read the article I posted yesterday, go read it, and then come read this.
Here's an excerpt:
Khamenei's Paper's Response to the Liberal Protest in Iran: Iranians Who Fight for Reform, Liberty, and Human Rights are Fighting Islam
"Today, those [in Iran] who spread slogans such as reform, liberty, political development, democracy, [and] human rights... are fighting [the] religion [of Islam], and... with their demonic and colonialist theories, [they] call for separation of religion and state or support people who pursue these principles. They must realize that they are moving in the opposite direction from the path of Imam [Khomeini], and, as the Imam said, 'Maybe these people do not realize that the words against religion and against Islamic values that come from their mouths are the same words coming from the mouths of people like Bush, Sharon, Jack Straw, and others in power in the dictatorial colonialist regimes."
If you still want to ignore what such people are saying loudly and clearly from the top of every minaret, that's your right...In THIS country anyway.
It is to laugh.
Saudi Arabia is running out of water.
Little of the water is reused. Only a third of all Saudi households are hooked up to sewage treatment plants. Sewage from the rest is pumped into lagoons, where it is left to evaporate or leach into the ground. As a result, the ground water below several of the country's biggest cities is polluted.
The country's wheat program