Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Core European Attitude
This thru IsraPundit.
Donnchadh O Liathain (not Jewish I presume...) writes a beautiful, skewering piece on the "Irish 'Friends' of Israel" (nested quotes mine - ed).He exposes the sickening attitude of this Irish group and its European counterparts towards Israel: Be Good, act properly(= the way we say), and we can stomach you. Else, you're Bad.
Israel, as it exists today and has existed since 1948, is to the European elite a pariah, a rogue state. To Europe's chattering classes, the very idea of Israel is wrong. God forbid that anybody in Europe should oppose Israel because it is full of Jews. No, all that is behind us. Europeans say it is the policies of the Israeli government that are so abhorrent to them. If only the Israelis would be good and treat the Palestinians properly, all would be well.
Essentially, the bare minimum is for Israel to return to the pre-1967 armistice lines so that an independent Palestinian state could be created in the West Bank and Gaza. All members of the European intelligentsia agree on this. The IFOI constitution reflects this. Every act of Israel is judged on the basis of this master plan.
But
The Arabs gave up their rights to the terms of the UN plan for the partition of Palestine the day they denounced the UN plan and attacked Israel. Thereafter, under international law, all bets were off. Israel won the wars of Independence, of 1956, of 1967, and of 1973. It had always been willing to make peace with its neighbors. It is not Israel's fault that it is still at war.
But as I've said before, that all happened so long ago it is prehistoric. Tyrannosaurus Rex still roamed the earth then. In other words, it is irrelevant. Just give them their own country and all will be well.
Thank God (or Herzl, Ben-Gurion and the rest of the pioneers) that the Jews have their own country. Now "all" they have to do is keep it. No matter what.
The following article was written two weeks after the opening shots of WW4, when the Twin Towers were brought down by Muslim terrorists. The author could not foresee how G.W. Bush's war on terror would force to the surface the true enemy and his allies. Which makes his essay all the more valuable.
Many nations work to fill our body bags. But Iran, according to a State Department report of 1999, is "the most active state sponsor of terrorism," training and arming groups from all over the Mideast, including Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and Hezbollah. Nor is Iran's government now "moderating." Five months ago, the world's leading terrorist groups resolved to unite in a holy war against the U.S., which they called "a second Israel"; their meeting was held in Teheran. (Fox News 9/16/01)
What has been the U.S. response to the above? In 1996, nineteen U.S. soldiers were killed in their barracks in Saudi Arabia. According to a front-page story in The New York Times (6/21/98): "Evidence suggesting that Iran sponsored the attack has further complicated the investigation, because the United States and Saudi Arabia have recently sought to improve relations with a new, relatively moderate Government in Teheran." In other words, Clinton evaded Iran's role because he wanted what he called "a genuine reconciliation." In public, of course, he continued to vow that he would find and punish the guilty. This inaction of Clinton's is comparable to his action after bin Laden's attack on U.S. embassies in East Africa; his action was the gingerly bombing of two meaningless targets.
Conservatives are equally responsible for today's crisis, as Reagan's record attests. Reagan not only failed to retaliate after 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon were slaughtered; he did worse. Holding that Islamic guerrillas were our ideological allies because of their fight against the atheistic Soviets, he methodically poured money and expertise into Afghanistan. This put the U.S. wholesale into the business of creating terrorists. Most of them regarded fighting the Soviets as only the beginning; our turn soon came.
For over a decade, there was another guarantee of American impotence: the notion that a terrorist is alone responsible for his actions, and that each, therefore, must be tried as an individual before a court of law. This viewpoint, thankfully, is fading; most people now understand that terrorists exist only through the sanction and support of a government.
Mr Peikoff makes points that seemed to have been adopted by the US government without hesitation. I hope it does the same with his conclusion:
The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who conspire to kill them.
This is great reading, particularly considering the prescience that it seems to emanate. Please read it all.
WorldNetDaily: Are mainline churches anti-Semitic?
You don't say?
For nearly 2000 years now, Christians have been told that the Jews killed Christ (Mel Gibson was only the latest celebrity to rehash the old deicide yarn).
They have been told that the Jews were the Chosen People, that is, until the Messiah came and they chose to ignore him. It is now the Christians who have replaced the Jews, just as the New Testament has replaced the Old Testament as the Bible.
Most Christians don't act upon the Church's old teachings anymore. But two millennia of indoctrination almost equals a genetic cell structure change. You can't just undo this by stating that things are now different, the Jews are really quite ok, etc.
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, a monitor of the mainline denominations, says that of the 197 human-rights criticisms issued by the churches between 2000 and 2003, only 31 percent were aimed at countries other than the United States or Israel.
About 37 percent of the statements criticized Israel while 31 percent were directed at the United States.
"Great attention to the United States may be expected from churches that find their homes there," the report says. "But the dramatic focus on Israel as opposed to many more repressive regimes, including other U.S. allies known for human rights abuses (such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt), must be challenged."
This score is a lot better than the UN, where just about all criticism and censure is directed at Israel, and none at all at countries like N-Korea, most Arab countries, China, etc, well, you know who they are.
But still.
Diane Knippers, president of the IRD, contends an "extreme focus on Israel, while ignoring major human rights violators, seriously distorts the churches' message on universal human rights."
"We cannot find a rational explanation for the imbalance," she said in a statement. "We are forced to ask: Is there an anti-Jewish animus, conscious or unconscious, that drives this drumbeat of criticism against the world's only Jewish state?"
The report says, "Given the dramatic unwillingness of the mainline churches to criticize states around Israel for their human rights abuses – not only the connections to worldwide terrorism, but also the oppression and brutality toward their own people – it is not unreasonable to ask whether anti-Jewish animus may play some role in the churches' skewed human rights advocacy."
"What has it accomplished for the Palestinian people?" Powell asked. "Has it produced progress toward a Palestinian state? Has it defeated Israel on the battlefield?"
No. Israel was not defeated on the battlefield. Israel was not defeated in any way that really matters.
But.
Israel is now more than ever before a pariah. And even though the Americans pay lipservice to fighting terrorism even when they are 'Palestinians', in practice any and every action Israel takes in response to acts of terrorism puts the Israeli's more on the defensive. So the Arabs gain ground.
An example of this is the ruling of the kangaroo court in The Hague (aka ICJ). No matter that a majority of judges on this esteemed panel comes from non-democratic countries. No matter that Arabs are allowed to sit in judgment of Israel. The International Community treats this ruling as if it actually has meaning, and takes action against Israel accordingly. Any pretext will do, you know.
So it's nice of Powell to declare a Palestinian state for all intents and purposes a non-starter:
At the same time, Powell said President George W. Bush desperately wants to help create a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people to live side-by-side in peace with Israel.
"This will only come about when terror is ended," he said. "And the intifada has spawned terrorism and it has not achieved anything in these years."
In the meantime, Powell said, the economy of the Palestinian people has deteriorated as well as life in general for the Palestinians, while Israel has built a fence to screen out attackers.
But there's no denying that Israel's position in the world has become more isolated, more damned. The fact that this was achieved through horrible and needless sacrifice means nothing to the despotic ruler of the Arab Palestinians. It simply doesn't touch him or his cronies at all.
This happened 2 days ago. It is the direct cause (if not the sole reason) for the recent incusion into Gaza by the IDF.
Two little boys, playing in a "Sukka", kind of a ceremonial hut, were killed by Muslim terrorists.
Psychotic Muslims firing makeshift rockets at random, in the general direction of the Israeli town closest to Gaza, Sderot. I've been ranting about this for some time now.
"After the rocket fell, a man, maybe 20 years old, took the boy in his arms. He was in shock. He ran with the boy, he didn't know what to do," said Zina Shurov, 48, a neighbor.
"I saw one little child without his legs. We tried to help the other one but it was too late," said neighbor Haviv Ben Abbo, who rushed to the scene when he heard the boom.
Remember, the Arabs doing this aren't really aiming at anyone. They just kind of hope the rockets will hit someone, anyone. It is terrorism in its purest form.
Hamas took credit for the fatal attack. A Hamas leader in Gaza camp said: "We will keep firing rockets, we will continue jihad until all of Palestine is returned."
And what does Sharon do?
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Sderot mayor Eli Moyal and said that the IDF's response would be harsh. Sharon was quoted by the media as ordering the army to "do everything to stop Kassam fire." But media analysts voiced doubts that the army would do anything dramatic or creative.
The International Herald Tribune is a subsidiary of The New York Times. Important to keep in mind when reading this ridiculous article by Idiotarian-of-the-year wannabe Jonathan Powers.
And where is the source of the threat that makes Iran, a country that has never started a war in 200 years, feel so nervous that it must now take the nuclear road? If Saddam Hussein's Iraq, with its nuclear ambitions, used to be one reason, the other is certainly Israel, the country that hard-liners in the United States are encouraging to mount a pre-emptive strike against Iran's nuclear industry before it produces bombs.
The United States refuses to acknowledge formally that Israel has nuclear weapons, even though top officials will tell you privately that it has 200 of them. Until this issue is openly acknowledged, America, Britain and France are probably wasting their time trying to persuade Iran to forgo nuclear weapons.
The supposition is that Israel lives in an even more dangerous neighborhood than Iran. It is said to be a beleaguered nation under constant threat of being eliminated by the combined muscle of its Arab opponents.
There is no evidence, however, that Arab states have invested the financial and human resources necessary to fight the kind of war that would be catastrophic for Israel.
I know what you're thinking: This guy can't be serious. Well, he's bloody serious. It gets a lot sillier still after this.
Moral equivalence. Ignorance of history (definition of history being anything older than 2 weeks). It never seems to end.
I take great issue with the article by Jonathan Powers in the IHT of September 22nd. In essence, mr Powers draws a moral equivalence between Iran and Israel, where no possible comparison can be made.
Israel is a Western oriented democracy. It has (presumably) had nuclear weapons since the 70's, and the country is about as likely to use them as is the United Kingdom. A key difference is that the UK does not have multiple enemies sworn to its destruction!
Iran on the other hand is a theocracy, a dictatorship whose leadership is responsible to no one. Its president is already on record as saying that the Arab/Muslim world can suffer a nuclear exchange with the Jews. Israel would be destroyed, whereas the Muslims would "only be damaged". Iran is a sponsor of world terrorism, arguably the world's foremost. Even if Iran would not use its nukes against Israel (or other perceived enemies) directly, further proliferation is inevitable. It would be easier than ever before for terrorists to aquire a nuclear weapon.
I find it incomprehensible that a sane person would designate Israel and its nuclear capabilities as the cause of the Iranian nuclear aspirations.
Israel has NEVER been a threat to Iran, while the reverse can obviously not be maintained.
I have no illusions as to your willingness to fully retract the outrageous comparison between two countries that could not be more different. But you have definitely lost another reader.
Regards,
You should write them too. Let them know what you think of their inability to see any differences between Israel and Iran.
You'd think that The Muslim News is perhaps not the most neutral and unbiased source for this type of news. But all they really did was report on the statements of respected (well, not by me obviously) British politicians and former cabinet members.
Two former cabinet ministers, who resigned from their posts in protest against the Iraq war, identified the failure to act against Israel as a leading cause of terrorism.
"There is deep anger in the Middle East about the perceived double standards," former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the meeting on 'Alternatives to Bush's war on terror.'
He said that a "blind eye" was turned to implementing UN resolutions against Israel and that peace must be brought to the people of Palestine.
I agree that peace should be brought to the people of Palestine. Ever since war was brought upon them by the Arabs in 1948, Europe's been quite lacking in zeal in this respect. <sarcasm>I am glad these noble Labour politicians finally see the light</sarcasm>
Please read this idiotic piece in its entirety.
I know I've commented on this before. I am in danger of becoming repetitive.
I also know that the children murdered here (not by "Iraq bombs", as the BBC puts it, but by the Psychotics that make them, place them and detonate them) would otherwise probably have grown up to become Jew-haters. But they should have had the chance to grow up at all. Preferably into sane, rational Iraqi's.
But the children were murdered. By people who just need to murder and slaughter. If there are no Jews or other infidels at hand, blow someone else up.
Your own children if need be.
It is impossible to imagine what it takes to perpetrate such an atrocity.
It is not impossible to see what needs to be done about it.
The liberal media and politicians never tire of claiming the source of terrorism (my term of course, they call it 'militantism' or 'activism') is the hopelessness and desperation of the people that spawn the terrorists.
The fact that many terrorists (suicide bombers included) come from Britain, France, Belgium and other W-European countries (born and raised there) does not make the claim invalid to the idiots.
So when the US went to Afghanistan and captured a Danish Muslim (Danish mother, Algerian father), they put him Guantanamo for two years, made him sign a paper saying he wouldn't do it again and released him. After which he immediately stated
"I am going to Chechnya and fight for the Muslims," he said.
This coming from a man who just spent two years in an American jail for fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Talk about a rebel with a cause: "Infidels are alive. So I have a cause!"
What DOES seem to be a common factor among all the men and women wanting to murder other people in far away places these days is their religion.
They are all Muslims.
Again: Not all Muslims are terrorists. But just about all terrorists are Muslim.
It's not that weird when you give it some serious thought. After all, they already chaired the UN Human Rights Commission. They have the necessary experience. They are acceptable to all other members (except Israel of course, but they will never be on the Security Council so the point is moot). After all, all Arab countries are eligible to serve on the SC, most recently Syria has served on and even chaired it. Israel's position in the SC (and the UN in general) on the other hand is somewhat different...
Thus, without membership in a regional group, Israel can never be elected to serve a term on the Security Council or, for that matter, to the other most important bodies of the UN system, such as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the World Court, UNICEF and the Commission on Human Rights.
The Charter of the United Nations proclaims "the equal rights...of nations large and small." But only Israel, among all the UN members, is denied the right to belong to any regional group.
Israel can NEVER be on the Security Council. It is the ONLY country in the world that holds such a pariah status.
At Party A's national convention, a prime speaking slot went to an infamous racial inciter, one with an ugly history of Jew-baiting. At Party B's convention, a leading speaker recalled with empathy the many pre-9/11 victims of terrorism, such as Leon Klinghoffer, whom the killers "marked . . . for murder solely because he was Jewish."
Party A's presidential nominee said nothing about Israel in his convention acceptance speech. Party B's nominee, on the other hand, made a point of referring to "our good friend Israel" -- and his campaign later distributed that portion of his remarks to its national email list.
Increasingly, Party A is the political home of those who demonize Jews, such as the South Carolina senator who claimed that the war in Iraq was launched to "take the Jewish vote." Conversely, Party B has driven out the anti-semites in its midst, and is now where the most ardent philo-semites in American politics are concentrated.
So which party will American Jews vote for in November?
If you know your political tides, the answer won't surprise you: Jews will almost certainly vote overwhelmingly for Party A -- the Democratic Party -- just as they have for more than half a century. They will do so notwithstanding the Democrats' willingness to indulge a race-baiting hustler like Al Sharpton. Notwithstanding John Kerry's uncertain trumpet in the war against radical Islamic terror. Notwithstanding the Bush administration's unprecedented support and friendship for Israel.
I know, Jews can be really stupid. Thickheaded.
Please read it all. And if you're an American, please vote Bush in November.
The following are excerpts from a show on Saudi Iqra TV about the Arab public's attitudes toward Jews:
Interviewer: Would you, as a human being, be willing to shake hands with a Jew?
Interviewee 1: Of course I wouldn't be willing to shake hands with a Jew, for religious reasons and because of what is happening now in Palestine, and for many reasons that don't allow me to shake a Jew's hand.
Interviewee 2: No. Because the Jews are eternal enemies. The murderous Jews violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me.
Interviewee 3: No, the Jew is an enemy. How can I shake my enemy's hand?
Interviewer: Would you refuse to shake hands with a Jew?
Interviewee 4: Of course, so I wouldn't have to consider amputating my hand afterwards.
Interviewer: If a child asks you who "who are the Jews," what would you answer?
Interviewee 5: The enemies of Allah and His Prophet.
Interviewee 6: The Jew is the occupier of our lands.
Interviewee 1: The murderers of prophets.
Our eternal enemies, of course.
Interviewee 2: The murderers of prophets, that's it.
Interviewer: If a child asks you who "who are the Jews," what would you answer?
Interviewee 8: Allah's wrath is upon them, as the Koran says. Allah's wrath is upon them and they all stray from the path of righteousness. They are the filthiest people on the face of this earth because they care only about themselves: Not the Christians, not the Muslims, nor any other religion.
The solution is clear, not only to me but to everyone. If only [the Muslims] declared Jihad, we would see who stays home. We have a few countries… there is one country with a population of over 60-70 million people. If we let them only march, with no weapons even, they would completely trample the Jews, they would turn them into rotten carcasses under their feet. There is another country that donated money, saying, "I am behind you, I'll support you with weapons, just wage [Jihad]."
But the cowardice inside us, deep within our hearts was instilled by the Arab leaders, may Allah forgive them. They breast-fed us with it from the day we were born to this very day it has grown with us.
Just for the record, try and keep this in mind: The Jews or the Israeli's NEVER did anything to the Saudi's. There's no rationale for this insane hatred.
And that why there's no hope for any form of normal coexistence. Fear of the Wrath of Israel is what will keep this maniacs under their rocks.
Of course it wasn't rockets that killed the children, and wounded at least 10 others in Sderot. Read on and you find it was 'Palestinian militants' who fired them. The BBC is approaching the depravity of the murderers by using such passive terms for such barbarous acts.
...Israeli media later said the two victims were children aged three and five from the same family.
And the IDF keeps screwing around, lobbing a few rockets back, sacrificing soldiers' lives by entering and then leaving Gaza.
A hundred to one.
That has to be the minimum exchange rate. Murder one Israeli, one hundred Arabs die.
Even if fear doesn't stop them, simple math will, in the end.
In this BBC report something strange happens: A man aboard a Norwegian domestic flight attacks two pilots and a passenger for no apparent reason.
For some odd reason (this news item was unrelated to anything else) I suspected the perpetators background. You had to really read the thing with some focus, but my suspicions were confirmed. Can you guess where the man came from? I won't hold you in suspense any longer, the maniac came from Algeria.
We don't really know anything about a motive," Mr Walla said. "We are not ruling any possibility out."
Not ruling any possibility out. So it's probably 'cause of the Jews then.
In this article at WorldNetDaily new evidence is presented that the sponsoring by Iraq of Jew-killers didn't end with the dragging-from-the-hole of ole' Saddam.
Remnants of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime may be seeking to fund terrorism against Israel by continuing the payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers that Hussein previously provided, a document recently seized in Iraq and obtained by WorldNetDaily indicates.
The family of the 'martyr' even gets a Certificate, kinda like for 25 years of loyal service.
Military analysts experienced in Iraqi affairs told WorldNetDaily the document appears indeed to be post-Hussein, although it is unclear whether it was printed while Hussein went into hiding or after he was captured in December 2003.
While in power, Hussein paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as much as $25,000 a piece. The checks were thought to provide major financial motivation to underprivileged teenagers who could help their cash-strapped families with the payments that would be issued upon completion of a suicide mission.
And just to remind why they're so poor in the first place:
The Palestinian Arabs had it better than most other Arabs until they started waging war on the Israelis.
Arafat is a multimillionaire, perhaps even a billionaire, filthy rich from money stolen from the people he professes to fight for.
...And CNN recorded a ceremony in Gaza on July 18, 2002, in which a check and martyrdom certificate were granted to the family of a killed terrorist from Khan Yunis.
The mother proudly showed off the certificate to the cameras. But the document in view, which is signed by "President Saddam Hussein" and identical to those issued while Hussein was in power, is different from the certificate recently captured in Iraq. The new certificate calls Hussein "Mr. President Commander Freedom Fighter Saddam Hussein," lacks any official Iraqi state affirmation, and is signed by the "Iraqi Sector Command," a reference that has been used to refer to Iraqi insurgents.
National Security Adviser Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland was quoted Monday by the Maariv daily as saying Iran will reach the "point of no return" in its nuclear weapons program by November, rather than next year as Israeli military officials said earlier.
Concern about Tehran's nuclear development intensified last week when Iran's Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said Iran has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.
The declaration came in defiance of a resolution passed three <blah blah blah>...The group's 35-nation board of governors warned that Iran risked being taken before the UN Security Council, which could impose sanctions. <blah>
Iran denies <blah blah blah>...Israel and other countries, including the United States, doubt that.
Israeli leaders have implied they might use force against Iran if international diplomatic efforts or the threat of sanctions fail to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons.
Might? Is there any choice? Or alternative?
There's some good news too though.
Speculation has also been fueled by recent Israeli weapons acquisitions, including bunker-buster bombs and long-range fighter-bombers.
Recent Israeli weapons purchases could be crucial in a possible strike.
In February, Israel received the first of 102 American-built F-16I warplanes, the largest weapons deal in its history. Military sources say the planes were specially designed with extra fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran.
In June, it signed a $319 million deal to acquire nearly 5,000 US-made smart bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" that can destroy six-foot concrete walls, such as those that might be found in Iranian nuclear facilities.
But of course, the entire planet, under the aegis of the UN would then be up in arms. Not against Iran of course, oh no. Against the agressor. Against Israel. As it was in 1981, when Israel destroyed Saddam's hope for the A-bomb.
After Israel attacked the Osirak reactor in Iraq, it came in for worldwide criticism. Arab opposition to an Israeli strike against Iran - particularly if it appeared to be unprovoked - would likely be widespread and intense. It could lead to attacks against Israeli and Jewish institutions abroad and condemnations from the United Nations.
Arab opposition? Should this stop the Jews? Of course not. Which would you prefer? An Iran with nukes, using them the same way they now use every other weapon at their disposal, of the chagrin and embarrassment of the impotent UN directed at you?
The disease that is the US State department can be recognized by one foremost symptom: Its inability to criticize its major business partners (countries like Saudi and China) in an unqualified manner. In this op-ed at IsraelNationalNews, Jeff Jacoby shows the hypocrisy of Colin Powell at its premium.
"Freedom of religion does not exist," the department states in its report on Saudi Arabia. "It is not recognized or protected under the country's laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and non-citizens practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. Islam is the official religion and all citizens must be Muslims."
The report notes that "conversion by a Muslim to another religion is... a crime punishable by death if the accused does not recant..... The government prohibits non-Muslim religious activities. Non-Muslim worshippers" - millions of foreign-born Christians and Hindus work in Saudi Arabia - "risk arrest, imprisonment, lashing, deportation, and sometimes torture for engaging in religious activity that attracts official attention."
That is clear enough as far as it goes, but Ambassador John Hanford, whose office compiled the report, took pains to reassure the Saudis that it would go no further. Asked at a press briefing whether the listing of Saudi Arabia should be seen as a "pressure tactic," Hanford replied:
"Oh, no, no. Uh-uh. No. These designations are ones that we make with a certain degree of sorrow because these are valued relationships, particularly in a case such as Saudi Arabia. But the US Congress has laid out for us a standard that we feel we must follow."
Secretary of State Colin Powell likewise did his best to allay any Saudi worries. "This is not to punish them, or in any way to show displeasure," he assured Al Arabiya, the Arab satellite channel. "One should not see this as anything but two friends talking to one another about a problem of mutual concern."
This is truly sickening. Two friends. Mutual concern. MUTUAL?! IT IS NOT A CONCERN TO OIL LEECHES!
And let me remind you that is is not oil that makes Powel and his minions treat the Arabs with velvet gloves. It is jobs. Jobs with companies that make money from the Arab. Companies like Bechtel, Halliburton, Aramco. With jobs that Powell and many others at State will one day covet.
Over at National Review, Michael Ledeen makes the point that I've been making for some time now: The brutal murders by sawing the heads off innocent and helpless people are not meant for blackmail or extortion. They are not meant to make as afraid.
They are meant to impress other Arabs and/or Muslims. And it seems to be working too.
The beheading films are recruitment tools. They've been around for a long time, part and parcel of the first generation of "jihad" home movies, circulated mostly in North Africa to excite homicidal fanatics and lure them into the Islamist bands. The main difference between then and now is that their marketing and distribution have improved, thanks to their comrades at al Jazeera and al Arabiya, and the Internet.
We should have no trouble understanding this and drawing the proper conclusions. A movement that draws its foot soldiers from people who dream of beheading one of us is clearly a barbarous phenomenon, one that puts the lie to the notion that our enemies in this terror war are human beings driven to desperation by misery and injustice. Not at all: The recruiting films are aimed at subhuman homicidal maniacs who revel in bloody brutality.
And what do we do in the West? We try to explain it away by finding excuses, reasons even where there cannot possibly any. THERE IS NO REASON TO TORTURE PEOPLE TO DEATH. As a matter of practice. The only reason is demented depravity, which appeals to equally sick individuals (which sadly can be found in abundance in the Muslim Middle-East).
Given the human capacity to rationalize most any ghastly behavior, some of the killers' supporters — even in the Western intelligentsia — include misguided souls who are so confused they can accept and even justify barbarism in the name of the cause of the moment. There is nothing new in invoking ends to justify dreadful means. But in this case, the means — the beheadings — define our enemies and their followers.
In a way, it serves as a compliment that we wonder to ourselves "What did we do that so upset these people that they do these horrible things? There MUST be a reason?". I hear a lot of people think this way. But when I ask them to thing of something that could make THEM act this way, towards innocent people who have NOTHING to do with whatever conflict you're in, they fall silent. We are incapable of imagining ourselves so debased.
For Al-Zarqawi, it's no big thing. And many, many others admire him for what he does.
It is the difference between barbary and civilization. Between them and us.
Ledeen makes another very good point.
It follows that there is no policy that will successfully end their jihad against us short of total surrender and mass conversion to their brand of Islam. They see us, quite explicitly, as animals who deserve slaughter. The terrorists' recent response to Tony Blair's statement that he would not negotiate with them was eloquent: We are not interested in negotiations, they said. Either the British withdraw or we will slaughter the hostage.
We have to win this conflict, this war. We have to kill all those who see us this way. They are not Germans that - in the end - are really quite like us, and we can live together again. This evil has to be eradicated.
It should be clear by now what Iran's nuclear aspirations are, and where I stand on the subject. If I thought it could be done safely (for the surrounding nations I mean), I feel that Iran should indeed have its nuke. 10 megatons detonated over Tehran at 1500 meters altitude.
US presidential candidate John Kerry (or in this case his wife) has a different view:
Last February, WorldNetDaily reported that Iran's official Mehr News Agency had received an e-mail from Kerry's campaign pitching the candidate as one who will "repair the damage done" to international relations by Bush.
Yes, once again, Kerry is doing what he always does – what he has done ever since he came to the attention of the American people in 1971 and, in fact, what first brought him to the attention of the American people.
He is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
But, this time, the enemy is not a group of communists in black pajamas with conventional weapons. This time, the enemy is a soon-to-be nuclear-armed jihadist nation with one goal in mind – destroying the "Great Satan," otherwise known as the United States of America.
And what is the effect of this?
It should be of grave concern to every American that among Kerry's top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans who have been pushing for dramatic changes in U.S. policy toward Iran.
I'm talking about Hassan Nemazee, 54, an investment banker based in New York, who has raised more than $100,000. Why is he betting on Kerry? Read Teresa's lips.
I'm talking about Faraj Aalaei, who has raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the Kerry campaign. Why is he betting on Kerry? Read Teresa's lips.
I'm talking about his wife, Susan Akbarpour, whom the Kerry campaign also lists as having raised between $50,000 and $100,000 for the campaign. Why is she betting on Kerry? Read Teresa's lips.
A lot of money flowing into the coffers as a direct result of saying what the Mad Mullahs want to hear. No matter that six months after this idiot would become president, Israel would become Iran's nuclear testing ground, and the US would effectively be barred from the Gulf. No matter. Kerry would be president. And that is all that seems to matter to him.
What it takes to be a really good Muslim: Al-Zarqawi
If you need more proof of what it takes to become a Muslim that the rest of the Islamic world admires and respect read this BBC article on the Arab world's premier Psychopath (and THAT is saying something!): Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi
When he was in his teens, it seemed that Zarqawi was destined for a life of petty crime. He was known as a bit of a thug, a lowlife.
Funny that, "a bit of a thug". Well, he's sure gone places in the world!
The whole article stinks of "Of course we don't support the kidnappings and sawings-off-headsm, BUT...".
The BBC refrains from drawing a moral equivalency, something they are very prone to do. They don't need to, this time, every Jordanian they interviewed did it for them.
"Why are the British worried about this one man, and not about the thousands of Iraqis who have been killed or injured?" asked Mr al-Hami.
Iraqis have been killed too, says Zarqawi's brother-in-law.
Most ordinary Jordanians I spoke to in Zarqa insisted they did not support the current wave of kidnappings.
But they did point to that same double standard.
"All the people here in Jordan and the Middle East are against kidnapping the foreigners," said one man I spoke to outside a newspaper shop in Zarqa.
"Our religion does not want these things to happen in Iraq."
"But all the people want to dismiss Americans and British from Iraq, because Iraq is an Arabic country.
"The foreigners, they killed more people than the kidnappers. The American jets killed 200 or 300 daily."
So that makes killing innocent people, with no relationship to this conflict fair and reasonable.
And I take back what I said about the BBC: They DO draw a moral equivalency. No scare quotes around "...that same double standard". They (like Al-Zarqawi's brother-in-law and the rest of Jordan) must feel that acts of war are morally indistinguishable from dressing a healthy, vibrant, innocent person in an orange overal, putting him on his knees and then saw his head off with a knife. A more deliberately brutal and tortuous death is hard to imagine.
But then, "He was known as a bit of a thug, a lowlife." That was all just preparation. He's found his calling in life. Give Zarqawi a living human being and a knife, and he's as happy as a pig in shit.
Zarqawi cannot claim many followers in Jordan, though government buildings here are heavily fortified against any possible attacks from him or other Muslim militants.
But people here do understand what drives him, and most ordinary people I spoke to shared his hatred for America's occupation of Iraq and support for Israel.
I am still too optimistic to believe that the average Jordanian does indeed understand what drives Zarqawi. This would mean they are as demented and depraved as he is. But for the BBC to again place the reason, if not the fault for Zarqawi's behaviour at the feet of the US and Israel is almost as despicable as showing any kind of understanding whatsoever.
I am in good company where my stand on the UN is concerned. Victor Davis Hansen has the following to say:
In response to [recent atrocities perpetrated by Muslim radicals], our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory "the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail"--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian "victory at any cost" rhetoric. Good luck.
A recurring theme. The UN is impotent at best, malignant at worst when evil providence has the interests of various parties coincide. A voting block made up of all Muslim nations (56 of them, nearly a third of all member nations) + their economic dependants in the Security Council ensures stalemates from which countries like Iran profit.
Second, urging democratic reforms in Palestine, as Mr. Bush also outlined, is antithetical to the very stuff of the U.N., an embarrassing reminder that nearly half of its resolutions in the past half-century have been aimed at punishing tiny democratic Israel at the behest of its larger,more populous--and dictatorial--Arab neighbors. The contemporary U.N., then, has become not only hypocritical, but also a bully that hectors Israel about the West Bank while it gives a pass to a nuclear, billion-person China after swallowing Tibet; wants nothing to do with the two present dangers to world peace, a nuclear North Korea and soon to follow theocratic Iran; and idles while thousands die in the Sudan.
The UN is a bankrupt idea: The concept that all nations could resolve their disputes around the negotiating table. The concept assumes that all participating nations would conduct themselves like Denmark, or Tibet. In practice, Genghis Khan-wannabe's make up the majority at the UN. Using the rules against those who would still abide by them, while flaunting those same rules themselves, protected from sanctions by the mass voting of ideologically similar, corrupt regimes.
Deeds, not rhetoric, are all that matter, as the once unthinkable is now the possible. There is no intrinsic reason why the U.N. should be based in New York rather than in its more logical utopian home in Brussels or Geneva. There is no law chiseled in stone that says any fascist or dictatorial state deserves authorized membership by virtue of its hijacking of a government. There is no logic to why a France is on the Security Council, but a Japan or India is not. And there is no reason why a group of democratic nations, unapologetic about their values and resolute to protect freedom, cannot act collectively for the common good, entirely indifferent to Syria's censure or a Chinese veto.
So Americans' once gushy support for the U.N. during its adolescence is gone. By the 1970s we accepted at best that it had devolved into a neutral organization in its approach to the West, and by the 1980s sighed that it was now unabashedly hostile to freedom. But in our odyssey from encouragement, to skepticism, and then to hostility, we have now reached the final stage--of indifference. Americans do not get riled easily, so the U.N. will go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Indeed, millions have already shrugged, tuned out, and turned the channel on it.
The sooner the better, too.
Victor Davis Hansen is always good to read, this time especially so. Please then, read.
This is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this article by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach.
A truly outrageous case in point was the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games of 1972. So casually was this tragedy taken that, amazingly, the games continued the very next day. Unbelievably, the German government released the three captured hijackers a few weeks later, and they promptly returned to a hero's welcome. One must seriously wonder what would have happened had the dead athletes been American, German or British. Would their deaths have been treated so cavalierly? Would these governments have allowed the games to continue before the victims were even buried?
Boteach makes the point that whoever is moving for power in the world, always begins targeting the Jews first. And when you check your history, this turns out to be true.
America today faces the growing evil of Islamic terrorism. But it is an evil that could have been averted. Successive American presidents bear responsibility for not responding to terrorist attacks on Jews.
Jimmy Carter, who still to this day remains one of Israel's biggest critics, viewed Israel as the main obstacle to peace in the Middle East. He didn't see the rise of Islamic fundamentalism coming in Iran or act effectively.
Other American presidents did no better, some a lot worse (although none with as much intentional malignancy as Carter felt, and stil feels). A main theme of this blog has always been: Deal with your mortal enemy as with any other business partner at your peril.
...Reagan also sold AIWAC (sic) radar aircraft to Saudi Arabia, even as that country poured out incessant bile against Israel and promised its destruction. But Reagan's biggest blunder with regard to Islamic terrorists was thinking he could gain the release of hostages by selling the terrorists arms. And with regard to Saddam Hussein, the Reagan administration went so far as to vote to condemn Israel after it attacked the Osirak reactor. Again, had the United States studied Saddam's hatred of Israel, it could have easily served as a warning of the danger he posed to his entire region and the world.
As I've said so often, the US is no friend of Israel. The American people as a whole, in general, is.
It is true that whoever is after the Jews only sees them as his first, and NOT as his only victim.
But for me, it is especially Bill Clinton who will forever be remembered as the president who blew it in the war on terror. He treated Israel and Yassir Arafat as if they shared a moral equivalence and invited Arafat to the White House more than any other world leader – a truly nauseating fact and one that rewarded terror against Jews in particular. Not many years later, the Palestinians – represented by Arafat – would be dancing in the streets as Americans were jumping from 110-story buildings.
As Boteach states, Arafat was given the royal treatment. More violence than ever before was the inevitable result. Clinton never responded the way he should have. The Enemy got more agressive, bolder, and Clinton did nothing. He took smaller attacks lying down. And so, three years ago, the World Trade Center was blotted from the New York skyline. Try and convince anyone that the Jews had anything to do with it. They just always bear the brunt of Evil's onslaught. Boteach calls the Jews "the canaries in the coal mine". Really quite apt, when you think about it.
There's too much to quote here, I'll just show one:
The Swedish Journalists' Union's weekly publication, Journalisten, is regularly filled with anti-Israel invective. A search of its online archives shows 37 Israel stories since 10/98, almost all highly critical of Israel. Jan Guillou (at left) − whose writing lionizes Arab dictators and butchers − was elected president of the Association of Journalists by its 5,200 members.
(Guillou co-authored a book about Iraq in the 1970s, praising Saddam Hussein's prisons as 'better than Swedish apartments,' and predicting that Jews who fled from Iraq to Israel would soon choose to return. A few days after the 9/11 attack, Guillou wrote in Aftonbladet that the New York death toll 'was about one-third of those innocent people killed when Israel attacked Lebanon in early 1980s.' And the day after 9/11, an international book show in Sweden held a moment of silence for the American victims. Guillou, then president of the Association of Journalists, walked out in protest that there was never a moment of silence for Muslims killed by Americans and Israelis.)
Few people can pinpoint the many, many flaws of the UN as accurately as Anne Bayefsky can, as she's shown here and here. Sometimes taking on the UN must seem like a Quixotic enterprise. But I like to look at it more as a long-term goal.
Anyway, here's more of the brilliant Ms. Bayefsky on the UN and its lack of ability to deal with terrorism (although the "lack" has firm roots in the unwillingness of 1/3 of the UN's membership to do anything about terrorism, because they support terrorism, or support states who support terrorism. After all, one Muslim nation can't fault another, no can it?
For eight years the U.N. has been struggling to adopt a comprehensive convention against terrorism. But it cannot finish the task because the OIC continues to hold out for an Israeli exclusion clause. Another round of bogus negotiations is scheduled for early October. No U.N. member state is prepared to change the rules and insist that a vote be called in the absence of consensus.
The upshot is one line on the U.N. website devoted to the definition of terrorism. It refers interested parties to the ongoing discussion over a terrorism convention that "would include a definition of terrorism if adopted."
The U.N.'s inability to identify a terrorist has real-life implications. In the last month, the Security Council has been faced with terrorist acts in Beslan, Russia, and in Israel. A recent bombing in Beersheva, Israel, claimed 16 lives and wounded 100 from a population of under seven million. The hostage-taking in Russia left 326 dead and 727 wounded out of a population of over 143 million. Proportionally, the trauma was as great in Israel.
There's no satisfaction to be gained from the fact that as far as the UN is concerned, Beslan was not a terrorist act because the UN is unable to define terrorism. Some 350 people are still dead, murdered by Muslim Psychopaths. About half of the victims were children. The real outrage should be that some people (in fact, a majority of people) will look to the UN to tell them who is a terrorist, who can build a fence, what dictator can continue murdering and killing and gassing. As long as the UN is either paralyzed or governed by the very worst specimens of the Human Race, decent countries should ignore the organization for the terrorist-enablers that they are.
On September 1 the Security Council adopted a presidential statement on behalf of the council as a whole concerning Beslan. It strongly condemned the attack, expressing the deepest sympathy with the people and government of Russia and urging all states to cooperate with Russian authorities in bringing to justice the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of the terrorist acts.
Of course the council couldn't mirror such calls when it came to Israeli victims, since the perpetrators, organizers, and sponsors of Palestinian terrorism start with Yasser Arafat and end in the protectorates of Damascus and Tehran. What happened to Resolution 1373?
Indeed. This demonstrated more than anything why the UN is inherently corrupt: Even Russia will side with the terrorists and against Israel, separating the issues where no such separation exists, because of economic and financial interests. As long as countries like Russia (but the US has done similar things) and France choose to side with parties they should never, EVER, under any condition side with, their citizens will pay the price. The Jihadists cannot be appeased.
To implement these obligations, 1373 gave birth to a Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC). The CTC then spawned 517 state reports about all the steps being taken to implement the resolution. Among them is the most recent report from Syria — headquarters of Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and others featured on the State Department list of foreign terrorist organizations. It informs the Security Council about "procedures and measures adopted and in force in the Syrian Arab Republic aimed at the suppression....and prevention of terrorist crimes, and...the denial of safe haven, refuge, assistance or any form of help in the territory of...Syria."
A parallel universe, one in which the U.N.'s chief global response to 9/11 — the Counter-Terrorism Committee — has never managed to name a single terrorist organization or individual, or a singe state sponsor of terrorism.
A parallel universe. I wish. But I'm afraid not. No, it's really THIS universe where Human Rights organizations are chaired by Lybia, where countries like Syria can submit reports as mentioned above (and make an implicit exception for anyone murdering and slaughtering in the name of liberation and Allah), and where the leader of the UN would call the deposing of one of the worst dictators of the 2nd half of the 20th century "illegal". Making it clear anything was preferable to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent deposing of Saddam.
Why is ANY decent person in his right mind still talking with/to the UN?
That is 93% of interviewed Iraqi's. This means that statistically, you would need to ask 14 Iraqi's for their opinion on this barbarous practice to find 1 (one) who does NOT support it. Doesn't necessarily mean he's against it. Just doesn't support it.
Then, many Arab commentators warned that the kidnappers' actions could irrevocably tarnish the image of Islam and the Arab world.
And even if support is lacking, why is that? BECAUSE IT TARNISHES THE IMAGE OF ISLAM.
Not because it's bad or anything.
It is clear by now that NOTHING is able to tarnish the image of Islam. A small minority never needed convincing of the vileness of most of the basic premises of Islam. And the rest of the world will only come to love it more, after they've been forced to convert (and submit).
...Indira Dzetskelova, the mother of one of the child hostages in Beslan, Russia, reports that "several 15-year-old girls were raped by terrorists." Her daughter "heard their terrible cries and screams when those monsters took them away."
This indicates that there are two things the massacre in Beslan has in common with the ongoing massacres in Darfur: both, no less than the 9-11 attacks, are examples of Islamic jihad terrorism, and both are characterized by rape.
As I've opined a number of times before, Islam enables its followers to regard non-Muslims as less worthy, worthLESS in fact, non-human. After which it is no big step to rape a child, or shoot it in the back as it tries to flee. Seem non-Muslim females (adult or not) still resemble women enough to arouse this lethal combination of hate and lust. Islam is the religion of mysogyny. Its position on Muslim women is awful enough. I don't care what anyone says the Koran states about women, fact is that women have next to no life under Islam.
What does rape, then, have to do with these religious conflicts? Unfortunately, everything. The Islamic legal manual 'Umdat al-Salik, which carries the endorsement of Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, stipulates: "When a child or a woman is taken captive, they become slaves by the fact of capture, and the woman's previous marriage is immediately annulled." Why? So that they are free to become the concubines of their captors. The Quran permits Muslim men to have intercourse with their wives and their slave girls: "Forbidden to you are ... married women, except those whom you own as slaves." (Sura 4:23-24)
After one successful battle, Muhammad tells his men, "Go and take any slave girl." He took one for himself also. After the notorious massacre of the Jewish Qurayzah tribe, he did it again. According to his earliest biographer, Ibn Ishaq, Muhammad "went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for [the men of Banu Qurayza] and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches." After killing "600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900," the Prophet of Islam took one of the widows he had just made, Rayhana bint Amr, as another concubine.
Emerging victorious in another battle, according to a generally accepted Islamic tradition, Muhammad's men present him with an ethical question: "We took women captives, and we wanted to do 'azl [coitus interruptus] with them." Muhammad told them: "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." When Muhammad says "it is better that you should not do it," he's referring to coitus interruptus, not to raping their captives. He takes that for granted.
Imagine how Muslim men feel about infidel women? I don't believe words exist that would adequately describe their attitude. No need for those words either. Actions speak far louder, like in Darfur, and Beslan.
...But let's face it, performing a late-term abortion on an abomination like this doesn't exactly do any harm either.
A car bomb in the Syrian capital, Damascus, has killed a senior member of Palestinian militant group Hamas.
Izz El-Deen Sheikh Khalil died after the bomb exploded in his car, completely destroying it.
Thing is, with these idiots, you can never be sure if the credit does indeed belong to the Jews. He might well have accidently blown his own sorry ass up. Oh well. Never mind. What matters is, the maniac is dead. Good riddance.
A car bomb exploded in Damascus on Sunday, killing a top Hamas leader Izz El-Deen Al-Sheikh Khalil, Israeli security sources said speaking on condition of anonymity.
According to media reports, Hamas officials are blaming Israel for the assassination.
The Associated Press Jerusalem bureau reported that anonymous Israeli security officials acknowledged the Jewish state was involved in the assassination, a claim not backed up by sources in the Ministry of Defense, the Prime Minister's Office and the Israel Defense Forces.
Israel Radio reported that Israeli officials learned of Khalil's death through the media.
With the exception of the capturing of Nazi mass murderer Adolph Eichman, the destruction of Iraq's nuclear reactor, and some instances of military operations in Lebanon, Israel has never taken responsibility for assassinations and other activities on foreign soil.
So maybe it was Israel after all. Just a drop in the ocean, but still good news.
We search the purses of little old ladies so that recent immigrants from Saudi Arabia named "Mohammed" wearing massive backpacks don't get singled out.
