Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Goodbye note of Van Gogh murderer
The Muslim who repeatedly shot Theo van Gogh, then cut the dying man's throat with a knife pinned five handwritten pages to the dead man's chest with another knife. The following is my literal translation of the Dutch translation of the original Arabic note.
Dipped in blood
This is my final word
pierced by bullets
dipped in blood
As I had thought
I leave you a message
For you.. the fighter
De tree of Tawheed is waiting
yearning for your blood
Make the sale
And Allah will give you way
He will give you the Garden
Instead of the earthly debris
To the enemy too I have something to say
You will perish for sure
Even if you tour the world
Chased by the knights of DEATH
Colouring the streets RED
Against the hypocrites finally I say this:
Wish for death or else shut up and ... sit.
Dear brothers and sisters I am approaching my end...
But the story does not end here.
Clearly the man planned to die, probably in a firefight with police. Dutch police have good firing discipline, and shot the scum in the leg, and then arrested him.
I've been saying it for some time, and now mainstream politicians agree with me: Jihad is here. And it didn't arrive just last Tuesday.
According to Dutch newspaper Het Parool, the Muslim of Moroccan descent - who repeatedly shot van Gogh, then cut the dying mans throat - has religious motives for the assassination of the filmmaker. The man had been subject of a AIVD (Dutch secret service) investigation, and eight people have been arrested at varying locations in cases related to the murder.
BBC reports that
The man suspected of killing Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh is a suspected radical Islamist with alleged terrorist links, the Dutch authorities say.
The man, aged 26, with dual Dutch and Moroccan citizenship, had "radical Islamic fundamentalist convictions," Justice Minister Piet Hein Donner said.
The suspect was allegedly a friend of a detained Moroccan terror suspect.
Samir Azzouz, 18, is awaiting trial on charges of planning a terrorist attack on targets including a nuclear reactor and Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport.
But the suspected killer of Theo van Gogh did not belong to the hardcore group of around 150 suspected militants under surveillance by the intelligence services.
New reports say that 5% of Hollands Muslim population is regarded as "radical" or "extremist". That means there are 50.000 (FIFTY THOUSAND) ticking timebombs walking the Dutch streets.
I predict emigration from the Netherlands is going to increase. A lot. The people leaving won't be Arabic speaker. But the ones replacing them will.
Theo van Gogh is dead. Murdered by a Muslim.
Theo van Gogh (indeed a distant relative of the famous Dutch painter) was a movie director and producer, and a columnist of renown in the Netherlands.
He was a controversial man. Prone to provoke debate, pushing free speech to the limits of a great many people.
Van Gogh abhorred religions, and religious people, but he was not partizan. And the more backwards he felt a religion to be, the more it suffered his withering ridicule. Clearly, Islam had an enemy in van Gogh.
On Tuesday morning van Gogh was riding his bicycle when a man also riding a bike, dressed in traditional Muslim garb passed him on the street. The man opened fire with a sidearm, and van Gogh fled on foot. The killer pursued him, firing, and van Gogh went down. The man then drew a knife and cut the throat of the already wounded van Gogh. When the murderer finished his job, he took out a smaller knife, stuck it through a piece of paper and plunged it into his victim's chest.
The murdered was arrested shortly after, but not before a gunfight ensued in which a policeman was hit (who fortunately wore a bullet-proof vest).
Van Gogh was hated by Dutch Muslims for several reasons. He routinely attacked Islam for all its backwards habits, but most of all for its oppression of women. He recently released a short movie called "Submission", a movie he produced in cooperation with Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, a Somali refugee who left Islam and is now one of Holland's strongest voices against the rise of Islam in the Netherlands.
The movie shows Muslim women dressed in see-through gowns, with evidence of beatings and other forms of abuse clearly visible. There are voice-overs of Muslim women testifying about their suffering, brought on by their status under Islam.
Death threats already existed against Hirsi-Ali, and they have been intensified. She's been in hiding for years now, and is always under police protection.
Van Gogh refused all such protection. He simply refused to believe anything would happen to him. It was perhaps the only naivete he suffered from.
Holland is now abuzz. It turns out that several columnists, researchers and politicians have withdrawn from public life because they either felt or were in fact threatened. Threats by Muslims are to be taken seriously, no one doubts that.
So it seems that one way or another, Muslims are deciding for the Dutch what is still acceptable as 'free speech' and what is not.
Most Muslims interviewed strongly opposed this murder, some were truly horrified. But many also showed understanding, and simply failed to see the basic flaw of equating harsh and offensive criticism of your belief on the one hand with murdering the offender on the other.
This goes to the core of the conflict between Islam and the West. Moroccans (and most other Muslims) in the Netherlands really don't see what's wrong with killing a person who take such offense to a level that is intolerable to them. They may not do it themselves, but they fully understand the man that does. Whereas we can't understand how indignation, no matter how intense, may lead to murder, THEY cannot understand how van Gogh should expect anything else in the end. For most Muslims, this was simply a matter of time.
Like it is for Hirsi-Ali.
Like it is for Rushdie.
Like it is for all the people who simply utter words against Islam and its backwards practices, words that - unlike sticks and stones - hurt no one.
So now it turns out that many people in public functions have long been censoring themselves. Rationalizing it by saying "There are limits to free speech, one cannot simply offend and insult at will". This point may be correct, it is also irrelevant. If a person crosses the line by insulting an ethnic group (like van Gogh did to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike), the offended party goes to court. You file a complaint, and you sue.
Muslims feel totally justified in taking their own measures. And to them there's no disproportion between offensive language and shooting a person repeatedly, cutting his throat and then sticking a note to his corpse with a knife.
Theo van Gogh was 47 years old. He was married with children. He was a talented filmmaker, producer and writer. He never hurt a person in his life. But his opinion was offensive to Muslims. And that gets you killed in the Netherlands these days.
The mother of the 16-year old Arab who murdered 3 Israeli's, wounded many others and died doing it had this to say about it:
The suicide bomber’s mother said Arab terrorist leaders “should have sent an adult who understands the meaning of his deeds” because “it’s immoral to send someone so young.”
The world would be a better place without these people in it. If the only thing wrong, 'immoral' with an atrocity like this, perpetrated by your own son, is that he was too young, then why is anyone still talking to these barbarians?
And they complain they have to wait at checkpoints.
In Yasser Arafat's unrelenting journey, Barbara Plett, BBC correspondent is moved to tears by the sight of Yasser Arafat. Not from revulsion mind you, as any sane person would have been, no, from... I don't know, and I can't even begin to imagine.
...when the helicopter carrying the frail old man rose above his ruined compound, I started to cry... without warning.
In quieter moments since I have asked myself, why the sudden surge of emotion?
I remember how Palestinians admired his refusal to flee under fire. They told me: "Our leader is sharing our pain, we are all under the same siege."
And so was I.
Maybe that gives me some connection to the man whose presidential compound became a prison.
I know what it is like to stare at the same four walls and find them staring back; to watch tanks swing their turrets outside my window; to scan rooftops for snipers during brief hours of freedom between curfews.
I could understand why Palestinians responded to Mr Arafat then the way they did.
Of course she can. For a brief summation of Arafat's accomplishments go here. It's clear I too understand why the 'Palestinians' respond to Arafat the way they do. And why this 'correspondent' responds the same way.
I have YET to see even one non-Jewish person react to the wholesale murder of Jews as this depraved swine does to the sight of this mass-murderer. 'Correspondent' or otherwise.
When the Islamists behead a tearful Englishman or American, it is more likely that his surviving dad or sibling back home will be on television all over the Middle East within minutes damning Tony Blair or George Bush, without a word of censure for the Dark-Age head-loppers. After all, we are not Nepalese who storm the local mosque and put the fear of God into Islamists when they butcher our own. We are more likely to be frightened, turn on ourselves, and condemn some American somewhere who cannot stop "this."
John Kerry has no more secret a plan than George Bush — because there is no secret way to pacify Iraq other than to kill the killers, humiliate their cause through defeat, and give the credit of the victory, along with material aid and the promise of autonomous freedom, to moderate Iraqis. Victory on the battlefield — not the mysterious diplomacy of "wise men," or German and French sanction, or Arab League support — alone will allow Iraq an opportunity for humane government.
There's a lot more, and it's all very much worth reading.
The French are always at the forefront of vileness. So it should come as no surprise that the
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier Sunday urged Israel to restore Palestinian Authority chairman Yaser Arafat's freedom of movement once he is treated, saying it "was not dignified" to keep the Palestinian leader under siege in Ramallah.
"Not dignified". I don't know about you, but for me it's not that hard to keep in mind that Arafat is the leader of the PLO, and has been almost since its inception. The man is directly responsible for thousands and thousands of Israeli and Jewish dead. He is also responsible for thousands of his own people dying, in and around Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. There are few monsters in the twentieth century that are more atrocious than Arafat. They can be counted on the fingers of two hands. But Barnier says:
"Yasser Arafat is the legitimate head of the Palestinian Authority, of the Palestinian people," said Barnier. "It is totally normal that he is being examined in our country and we welcome him."
It is indeed normal that France would be happy to host a psychopath like this. After all, Khomeini was a welcome guest for years there too.
It speaks volumes that the Palestinian Arabs 'elected' this abomination as their leader.
Dignified? Arafat deserves a fate worse than this. To have his skull kicked in and be beaten to a bloody pulp by a mob of screaming maniacs. Too bad only his own minions would qualify for the job.
IMRA has a report about the impact of the second Intifada. Clearly Israel has 'won' this conflict, although it would be better to say the Arabs have lost it, as they have every other conflict they've started with Israel.
But there's a terrible price to pay. Around a thousand Israelis' have died because of Arab violence, most through vicious assinations like suicide bombings and shootings.
But the cost goes much further.
A recent survey conducted by the University of Haifa's Center for National Security Studies. Among the statistics revealed:
A total of 21.8% of Israel's Jewish population has experienced the loss of a relative or friend through terror or war since the outbreak of the Intifada.
More than 1 in 5 Israeli's have lost either a relative or a friend. What does this to a persons state of mind is hard to imagine.
There are many other effects from the ongoing violence perpetrated by the Arabs, and the ever present threat thereof. More about this survey can be found here.
If nothing else proves it, this survey should: The way this war is being fought is costing the Israeli's far too much, and much much more than is necessary. Only because the Israeli leadership is letting its ears hang too much in the direction of foreign parties, the US in particular, has the price gotten this high.
Israel should not wish to fight this war as a war of attrition. There is no need to. If Israel should persist in wishing to be seen as restrained and humane to those who would commit genocide on the Jews, then the victims will be their own. As they have been the last four years. The living are suffering still. It is time to drastically alter the way the Arabs are handled.
The following doesn't have anything to do with Israel, in a direct sense. It just shows how much the Leftist agenda dominates the EU. And Leftist these days means it is to be feared by Israel.
The Italian Christian-democratic candidate for the new European Commission, who among other things said homosexuality is a sin, is stepping down, after it became clear that a new EU commission with this man aboard would not be approved by the European Parliament, dominated by Socialists.
Freedom of speech apparently is a right only available to the Left. To the politically correct.
Saying homosexuality is a sin is clearly hateful and therefore unacceptable to a lot of people.
Saying homosexuality is ok and fine however, is equally repulsive to some others. Why is it ok to say the latter, but not the former?
On Arutz Sheva a scary point is being made: Israel is lost without Arafat! Why? Because Arafat is the only person who stood between the idiotic Israeli politicians and their desire to give away large parts of Israel!
Where would Israel be without Arafat? Former Prime Minister Menachem Begin (of blessed memory), began the giveaway to the Arabs of Egypt, Shimon Peres offered the Palestinian Arabs big chunks of Judea and Samaria, Yitzchak Rabin (of blessed memory) offered more, and even Binyamin Netanyahu offered parts of Israel; while Barak offered 95% of Judea and Samaria and Gaza. Now, Ariel Sharon is in charge of the big giveaway, but it is hard to give away land when there is no one to accept what the Israelis are giving away.
Without Arafat's intransigence and his unwillingness to compromise, there would be little left of Israel today. Arafat saved the land many times over by being intractable about what the Israelis were offering.
If Arafat, G-d forbid, dies, then Israel's liberal establishment will fall all over itself to offer more and more parts of Israel to any weak Arab leader that arises.
I guess it's true in a horrible kind of way: Yasser Arafat saved Israel more than any other person in the last 25 years or so.
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.
