Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Saturday, December 04, 2004
Insanity in the Netherlands
If you think that a few brutal murders and a couple of death threats against politicians and other public figures are enough to make the Dutch re-evaluate their position on Islam, think again. As I've reported here, here, here, here and many other relevant posts, instead of naming the problem and fighting it head on, the Dutch (their politicians, celebrities, journalists, commentators researchers and just about anyone else who thinks he's entitles to an opinion) are falling all over themselves to make Muslim feel more at home here, more secure. Just so (hopefully) they won't hurt us again.
Minister Rita Verdonk of Integration however can top anyone, or at least tries her damnedest. For years now there have been programs aimed at making immigrants become actual Dutch citizens. These programs have all failed miserably, as was shown by a public enquiry, initiated by parliament. So now, mrs Verdonk is drawing up new legislation (Dutch) aimed at 'integrating' native Dutch people.
I repeat: legislation aimed at integrating native Dutch people.
This new legislation's main goal would be to make immigrants feel less discriminated against, and also it would enable Dutch people with little or no education to find jobs easier. The last argument is of course only meant as a justification for those who (like me) feel we should stop placating Muslims who refuse to learn to speak Dutch, insist on marrying imported brides and in some cases, feel justified in shooting film directors and then sawing their heads off.
Already, many political and practical objections have been put forward, and it doesn't look like this will ever become law. But the insanity of even such a proposal seems to be completely lost on the population at large, and on the lawmakers in particular. Many arguments have been offered, but none concerned the basic fact that
a Dutchmen should not have to proof he fits in!
This seems obvious to me. Clearly, it's not all that self-evident to our elected leaders. I think these so-called leaders don't fit in anymore.
Although it has been described by two former FBI counter-terrorism chiefs as a spin-off of a U.S. front for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, led the workshop on "Islam and the American Muslim community" at the FBI's Jacksonville Division All Employee Conference.
CAIR's Florida branch, CAIR-FL, said in a statement that "more than 150 law enforcement agents, including FBI and Joint Terrorism Task Force supervisory personnel, attended the workshop that examined basic Islamic beliefs and concepts, common stereotypes of Islam and Muslims and ways in which to improve interactions with the Muslim community."
Political Correctnes. A disease that only we in the West suffer from. A cancer inhibiting us from using our full potential in the war we are in. Please read it all.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily asks the question: Who do the US go after when (not 'if') terrorists attack with weapons of mass destruction. Traditional thinking has it that you can't strike back at terrorists because you don't know who they are, or even if you do, where they are, what their home base is, etc.
But this is really not accurate. Terrorists ALWAYS have at least one major sponsor, almost always a nation state but certainly someone you CAN get at. Lybia is a prime example of a country that sponsors just about every terrorist in the world. Or at least, it used to. No one claims to be able to look into the mind of Muammar Ghadafi (Lybia's leader) but somehow the man has changed his terrorist sponsoring ways. He has been bombed many times for his actions, and boycotted almost into bankruptcy. But what's more, the West always KNEW he was behind the Lockerbie bombing, and many other terrorist attacks. The US COULD at any time they chose bomb Lybia out of existence.
And this is what the sponsors of terrorism world wide must be made to realize. Farah thinks so too:
The Islamist world and its allies need to know there will be an unprecedented nuclear response to any attack on the United States with weapons of mass destruction. We don't need to be specific about which major cities and installations will be vaporized. But it needs to be clear that the response will be overwhelming, resulting in far greater death and destruction than what is inflicted upon the United States. We need to let the terrorists know that addresses of response have been determined. Those counseling the terrorists that such an attack on the United States is justified should be among the first to experience the horror.
Farah doesn't get specific, and I understand his reason for avoiding naming names. I need to make no such considerations.
If nineteen Saudi's attacked the US not by flying two airplanes into two skyscrapers but by detonating a small nuclear device on Times Square, Mekka should be made into Earth's largest parking lot. And just to be sure, Qum in Iran should be made a good runner up. Every sponsor (and we KNOW who they are) should have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head.
Do they really want to see their cities vaporized? Do they really want to see their religious centers destroyed? Do they really want to see adherents to their ideology and their faith killed in massive numbers as a direct result of their actions?
It's time for our intelligence networks to get busy on identifying the targets of retaliation. They should be numerous. They should be chosen wisely to ensure that as many as possible of the Islamist ideologues and the false prophets of death are killed. They should be chosen to ensure that, if the unthinkable happens, at least it will mean an end to this war. The targets should be chosen to inflict so much death and destruction that this evil ideology we face can never recover.
I think Farah is right. The West does not want to see another attack like 9/11. But if and when it does take place, at least we should use it as an opportunity to make sure NO ONE ever does it again.
In another blistering exposure of the colossal failure that is the UN, Ms Bayefsky proves why the UN is corrupt, and the very concept of such a globa organization, where dictatorships and theocracies on the one hand and democracies on the other speak with equal authority. Sad to say, it is the UN's treatment of Israel that more than anything else demonstrates the bankruptcy of the UN.
Last June, the United Nations held its first-ever conference on anti-Semitism. Though the organization's very raison d'etre rises from the ruins of Auschwitz and Belsen, it has never produced a single resolution dedicated to combating anti-Semitism or a report devoted to this devastating global phenomenon. For those who saw light at the end of the tunnel, this week the prospect of enlightenment at the General Assembly came to an inglorious conclusion. One mention of "anti-Semitism" made it into one paragraph of a general resolution on religious intolerance. Fifty-four U.N. states — of the 153 members that cast votes — refused to support even that.
Guess who those fifty-four countries were? Guess what their state-religions were?
Immediately before voting against concern for anti-Semitism, the same countries refused to support a call for governments "to ensure effective protection of the right to life...and to investigate...all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, including sexual orientation." Anti-Semitism and killing people because of their sexual orientation are acceptable to almost every one of the 56 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
The resolution involving killing homosexuals is only one of many U.N. human-rights resolutions in which the OIC stands with the violator, not the victim. The real question is: How do they get away with it, let alone pass themselves off as seriously interested in human rights, including those of Palestinians?
In the General Assembly, you only need a simple majority to pass a resolution. But (mostly for political reasons) the EU wants the Muslim countries on board, so the resolution is watered down, until it actually has nothing to do with anti-Semitism anymore. It is in fact about, you guessed it, ISLAMOPHOBIA!
Then began EU-OIC negotiations, which weaken and debilitate so many U.N. outcomes. References to Islamophobia and Christianophobia and language accommodating all other religions were added. Islamophobia was taken out of alphabetical order and put first before anti-Semitism.
There's too much here for me to go into it all. You need to read it all. But there's one thing she says that struck me:
In a 1968 appearance at Harvard, Martin Luther King said, "When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism." But Martin Luther King would not find a home at the United Nations or its allied nongovernmental human-rights organizations.
Try and imagine what the present-day Muslim world would do or say to M.L. King, if he made a statement like that.
Brendan Miniter of OpinionJournal.com has a good comment on why the Persian SHOULD abandon nukes, but WON'T.
It was the president, after all, who invested American resources in the task of removing the madman they had next door. It was that madman who waged a vicious war using chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s and thus helped prompt the mullahs to start developing their own weapons of mass destruction. In different circumstances the Iranian government would be heralding a stable government in Iraq as well as Mr. Bush's leadership.
This is something to keep in mind as Europe's latest diplomatic effort with Iran falls apart in the comming months. These aren't different circumstances. The mullahs are pressing ahead with their nuclear ambitions even as Mr. Bush has removed their claim of self-defense. Iran wants the bomb, even as it no longer has a moral case for developing such a weapon.
It may be true that Saddam Hussein prompted Iran to develop their own WMD's, it is no longer relevant. What IS relevant is that they have become THE regional supporter and exporter of terrorism. What IS relevant is that they have the stated goal of annihilating Israel, and think they can afford a nuclear exchange. Iran badly needs to be stopped.
With Saddam out of power, the mullahs have a better set of options. American (or Israeli) pre-emptive action is still on the table, but without a dictator next door sitting on a stockpile of weapons, the mullahs now have the option of dropping their nuclear program with little to fear. What Mr. Bush has given the Iranian mullahs is a chance to rejoin the civilized world, much the way Libya's Moammar Gadhafi has done.
It's hard to imagine how that was going to be possible before March 2003 or how the Iraq war really was going to change the outlook of the Middle East. But America's hard-line policies have shifted the momentum, which is why Iran turned to negotiating with Europe. The mullahs are hoping to benefit from the world that Mr. Bush has created, without paying any price for it--something the Europeans are all too eager to allow.
As they've shown here. So nice to know we're being taken care of. please read the whole thing.
A top Iranian official has claimed a "great victory" over the US after the UN said it would not punish Iran's nuclear activities with sanctions.
Why do the UN and EU put such 'effort' into such a hopeless cause? It must be nobility. Or maybe it's because of the effect the Iranians strove for and achieved:
"We have proved that, in an international institution, we are capable of isolating the US. And that is a great victory," Mr Rohani said.
Which is good for the Europeans as well. Europe seems to feel safe because Iran's latest ballistic toy can't reach Europe. Yet.
No matter that it can easily reach Israel. Europe is not at all sure if that is a bad thing. Anyway, the UN and EU will go to any length to thwart and cross the US. If it's bad for the US, it must be good for France.
Well guess what? Soon there will be nuclear Muslims at the gates, as well as the 'conventional' ones already within them.
Hedy Epstein is a child of Holocaust victims. She survived the war because she was sent to England. Her parents had nowhere to go, and were murdered in Auschwitz.
She now sympathizes with Jewkillers. I publish here the letter I sent to her as e-mail.
Hedy,
All I know about you is from your website, and what I read about your anti-Israel speech at Berkeley University.
It seems that, like a few other Jews who survived the war, you learned from the Shoah to jump at every (perveived) wrong and take action for the (seemingly) oppressed, the kind of action that would have saved your parents and family.
First of all, you are not a holocaust survivor. You do not have any 'Nazi Holocaust experiences'. You were sent to England, and lucky for you. Your parents had 'Nazi Holocaust experiences'. In fact, it was what killed them. Germans, Poles and many others conspired to kill them, and every other Jew, for being Jews.
I can almost HEAR you say 'Who do you think you are, I know this better than anyone'. Well, it seems you have forgotten way too much.
My father was a holocaust survivor. He did have 'Nazi Holocaust experiences', as you put it. So did my grandfather and his surviving brother. Like the vast majority of Jews, they learned a different lesson from those experiences. The rest of my father's family, like yours, did not survive WW2.
It is bad enough for a goy to compare the Israeli's to the Nazi's. It's being done so often in fact it loses any meaning, it's become cheap.
But when a Jew does it, not only does it signify a very confused person, it also lends extra power to the Jewhaters' arguments. Which comes down to empowering those who would not hesitate to commit another Shoah.
So far I've neglected to name any arguments as to why the very comparison between Hitler Germany and present-day Israel is atrocious. This comparison is really too ridiculous to warrant a reaction, but in your case an exception may be worthwhile.
The war against the Jews never stopped. Your parents were not allowed into any country where they would have escaped their doom, and they were murdered. The Jews that had fled to Palestine before the war faced a close personal friend of Adolf Hitler as their most murderous enemy, but the Germans never made it to Jeruzalem, and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jeruzalem had to hide in Syria and Egypt after the war as a war criminal. He was only the most famous Arab to call on Hitler to do in Palestine what he did in Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and all the other death- and concentration camps. Al-Husseini raised an SS-battalion almost single-handedly.
The Grand-Mufti's apprentice and favourite nephew was Yasser Arafat. An Egyptian born and raised.
If you think this conflict is between Israel and the Arabs calling themselves 'Palestinians' (named after a country that never existed, and only invented by Arafat to create a separate identity and ethnicity that also NEVER existed) you are deluded. For more than a century now the Arabs as a whole have been waging war against the Jews, with help in various forms of the West.
Originally, all of what is now Jordan, Israel and the disputed territories was promised - in writing - to the Jews. Now, they've ended up with about 12% of the original mandate of Palestine. And even that will never be accepted by the Arabs. Look at this map. It is not an exaggeration. All of it is Muslim, most of it is Arab. But the 'Palestinians' want the part where the Jews live.
You are siding with the wrong people. You are siding with the allies of those who murdered your family in a war 60 years ago. For all the world, that war is over, but not for the Jews. And not for the allies of the Nazi's.
Wether you are aware of it or not, you are siding with those who, if given the chance, would commit another Holocaust. Think about it. Ask yourself if you really want to be on the side of the moral and philosophical descendants of those who murdered your family.
Interviewer: "In addition to your being the mother of a martyr, it so happened that your son said was martyred on this very day - 'Martyr's Day.' Let's begin with a few words from you to all our viewers today. What are the feelings and emotions of a martyr's mother every year on this day?"
Umm Said: "In the name of Allah the Compassionate and Merciful, Allah be praised for granting my son to me, on this blessed day. I can not begin to explain what this day means to me, how great and significant it is for me and for all martyrs' mothers. I am talking about the martyrs' mothers and all mothers in Lebanon. Whatever I could say about them would not be enough, especially since they paid the price in blood, liberated southern Lebanon, and brought us closer to victory. They granted us a great reward.
"It is enough that they granted us paradise, the greatest thing in this world. I wish a good year to all the martyrs' mothers and our children, may Allah honor them. Allah be praised for having granted us our sons. Allah be praised."
Mothers of Hizbullah Martyrs: We are Very Happy and Want to Sacrifice More Children.
IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WISH, I WISH THE SAME THING. I want to sacrifice ALL of your children and bring them as close to your God as possible.
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.
