Zion. An island of sanity in an ocean of savagery.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
London's bombers missed one
Fucking scumbag Ken Livingstone. I would pay to see him get intestinal cancer. I really would. By now, you might be getting an inkling that I don't like London's mayor, and you'd be spot on. I wrote about him before, here, and here, and here. His Party? Labour. Who kicked him out 'cause he was too extreme, then turned out very popular (Londoners like him alot, even though they're getting blown up by his best friends on subways and buses), then kindly asked him back in. And to draw attention away from this vile piece of shit/best friend Dr Yusuf Qaradawi, visiting London soon to 'enhance relations between the West and Muslim region', he attacks the Jews. Here's how happy Ken was to see Yusuf again:From the BBC interview:
Quinn: One senior theologian whose Fatwas have been used to provide justification for suicide bombings directed at Israeli civilians is Dr Yusuf Qaradawi - the man who the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, welcomed to City Hall last year and described as "moderate".
Ware: Well, although Dr Qaradawi has condemned the London suicide bombings unequivocally here when it comes to Israel he says - and I'm quoting here an interview he gave: "We must all realise that the Israeli society is a military society - men and women. We cannot describe the society as civilian...they are not civilians or innocent".
He's also supported the use of child suicide bombers. During a TV debate in the Gulf - according to BBC monitoring - he said: "The Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation".
Quinn: What's the Muslim Council of Britain had to say about Dr Qaradawi?
Ware: Like the Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin, the Muslim Council of Britain has also described Dr Qaradawi in fairly flattering terms. They've said he's " a distinguished Muslim scholar...a voice of reason and understanding."
...Anyway, as I was saying, to draw attention away from his friends murdering his constituents, he digs into the bottomless pit that is his jewhatred, finds only old stuff but is not discouraged:
...I will gladly welcome leading members of the Israeli government if they come here even though they have done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity in a way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades," he said.
Livingstone, who has a record of diatribes against Israel, also compared Likud to Hamas, saying, "I think the Israeli hardliners around Likud and Hamas are two sides of the same coin, they need each other to drum up support."
According to Livingstone, "They point to the excesses of the other to recruit and support and I don't make any distinction because I believe the taking of human life is wrong, in particular when you think of the illegal invasion of Lebanon, the illegal invasion of Egypt and Jordan in the Six Day War, all these exercises of going into Palestinian refugee camps and indiscriminately destroying homes simply because a bomber came from that area."
Why, for fuck's sake, wasn't he on the bus, in the very seat where Susan Levy sat. In spite of all the tragic loss, some good would have come out of it.
I'm leaving for Portugal Wednesday night. I might still do some ranting though.
In the meantime I want to leave you with this thought. I recently wrote this post (which was only partly meant as a joke). Well, it seems like other people came to much the same conclusion independantly, and decided to act upon it. Please go and visit, I'm sure you'll have a great laugh (if it makes you angry, it will have served its purpose).
Ilana Mercer doesn't write nearly enough on this subject for my taste. But when she does, take notice. Some quotes from her latest at WND.com:
[On Islam] Individualism is, at best, negligible. The ummah – the community of believers or the "Nation of Islam" – is pre-eminent. Infinitely less eminent is the infidel, whose inherent inferiority, codified in elaborate dhimmi jurisprudence, makes him fair game. Responsibility is always externalized. Muslim savagery toward innocents has been felt from Beslan to Bali, from Kashmir to Casablanca. Yet, they'll invariably shift the blame (successfully, I might add) to Israel, America, Russia and other "occupations."
Helping to make the "Islamikazes'" case are countless liberals and libertarians, as well as elements on the American right. They lay the blame for the killers' latest actions exclusively on American and British foreign policy: foreign forays begat the suicide bomber; case closed.
Our adventurous foreign policy might be a necessary condition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one. Muslims today are at the center of practically every conflict in the world. They were slaughtering innocent, pacifist Jews in Israel well before the Jewish state was a figment in the fertile mind of Theodor Herzl (and well before the "occupation" of 1967: in 627, Muhammad decapitated 900 Medina Jews. The women were only raped). Governments, abetted by the Fourth Estate (and a fifth column), have framed strife in Sudan, East Timor, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Kashmir, the Philippines, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, the Balkans and Russia as sectarian or regional. The struggle in these spots, however, has more to do with the overriding refusal of the one faction to abide the others (unless they've been conquered or preferably killed).
How many times does this point need to be made? (Answern of course: As often as it takes) Islam is a warrior religion, or more accurately, ideology. It actively strives (demands from its followers they strive) to become a world dominating force. Rigid intolerance toward anyting non-Islamic is its hallmark. It aims to make one living hell of all the planet as Sudan or Saudi is now, especially but not exclusively for 'infidels'.
Not that our cultural relativists would admit to it, but the concept of truth in Arab culture is extremely elastic. Al-Ghazzali, "the famous 11th-century Muslim theologian, claimed that the lie is not wrong in itself. If the lie is the way to achieve good results, then it is permissible. It is necessary to lie when the truth might lead to unpleasant or undesired results," writes Dr. David Bukay. More recently, Arab sociologist Sania Hamady (Katz, 2002) has documented the low value attached to truth in Arab culture. Feelings, flights of fancy and fabrications are integral to Arab discourse. Lies are also potent political weapons, having successfully achieved the delegitimization of Israel, for instance. Clearly, Muslim leaders have learned that Westerners demand nothing more than a denunciation of terrorism. So they denounce – and get on with the business of Jihad (which is, like Shari'a, an essential tenet of true Islam).
This point was new to me, but it rings so true. Who can forget the Iraqi minister of information during the campaign to depose Saddam? Even while the studio was shaking from the impact of American ordnance, he was insisting the 'Yanks' were being driven from the land. All the world shook its head in bewilderment as this man kept lying against a truth no one could possibly deny.
But the Arabs understood, and empathized. It made perfect sense to them.
Mercer then explains (for those of you who still don't get it) how this same second nature of lying comes in handy when they finally do get themselves to condemn violence and terrorism. The words come out of their mouths, but they don't mean it. Thheir media know they don't mean it. Their people know they don't mean it. And if there was any doubt, they usually say the exact opposite in their own language, openly in their media, which almost no one bothers to translate.
Since two-facedness is both a way of life and a political strategy, there's nothing extraordinary about the countless Muslim leaders who pose as moderates, forswear terrorism, and then do what the Quran commands: "instill terror in the hearts of unbelievers" (8:12).
The Amsterdam districts of Bos en Lommer, De Baarsjes, Oud-West and Westerpark will work together to establish a new institute for Arab culture.
Authorities will begin work on the centre in the autumn, and next year they will look for a suitable building on the city’s west side, H Luiten, the Bos en Lommer council chair, said on Monday.
The institute for cultural studies will be based on the famed Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris.
Its foundation is a response to what the district councils consider the ‘regular negative attention given in the Netherlands and Amsterdam to the Islamic religion and community’.
Luiten said the institute will host debates, exhibitions and educational activities for Muslims as well as non-Muslims.
‘There is not yet a place where free debate can take place on Islam and its various streams,’ Luiten said.
And I am willing to bet you anything that free debate on Islam will be the last thing you'll find there. Islam does not allow itself to be questioned. There is only death for those who dare.
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.
From the BBC interview: 
