PowerLineBlog links to a 2002 documentary video about Muslim/Leftist extremists at Concordia University in Montreal and their suppression of free speech. Watch it.
Time to push back. Hard.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/17/2007 10:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I agree completely. This is ugly stuff and it's going to get worse until the Muzzys realize that keeping on will get them a)seriously hurt and b)deported back to camel land.
I wouldn't want to suggest that Canadian citizens immediately take the law into their own hands, but I would suggest that they start considering what will be necessary to have on hand should they need to do so.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/17/2007 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#4
U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Jeffrey Feltman, who favored putting Jihad al-Bina on the Bush administration 'terrorism list,' owes an apology to the American people as well as to the people of Lebanon.
#5
Yes, gromgoru, I know full well that this is pure anti-Israeli propaganda and am squeamish about posting it - which is why I didn't waste Fred's bandwidth on the text, and I filed it under "Fifth Column". I just figure that people on our side in the war might want to know what the Arabs and Muslims are hearing, especially in the domestic press. This way when we hear the arguments of people influenced by this propaganda, we are ready with a response, maybe even thought out a few moves ahead. Nothing irks me more than debating such important issues in front of others who might be persuaded, and then making our side look flimsy because I'm not prepared to make a good response. But I do understand your displeasure at reading this sort of article. Believe me.
#8
Not always RD. Sometimes I've moments of clarity, when I remember that it's the Martians who keep the House of Saud in power. It's the Venusians who keep India from stamping Pakistan flat. It's the Mercurians who bombed the shit out of Serbia for defending itself against Jihad. It's the Jovians who betrayed the Shah. It's the Saturnians who impose the "peace process" on Israel.
#9
IMHO - Grom - the message is "who's your buddy?"
On RB, I'll guess I'm Israel's best friend and the rest are tied with me. We ARE your best friend without a doubt in American blogs - LGF, etc. may tie, but you will find no stronger friend outside Israel. You need to remember that we are open to criticism, but complaining about enough support is falling on the wrong ears here
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 21:30 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Let me put it this way. If you people find my comment to ryuge post offensive, then maybe --- just maybe --- you should spend some time in self reflection.
Let me give you a hint, it's not Gentiles' place to decide whether the State of Israel has a right to exist.
#14
"Let me put it this way. If you people find my comment to ryuge post offensive, then maybe --- just maybe --- you should spend some time in self reflection."
It wasn't "offensive"-- merely stupid. And adolescent. Ryuge posted an article of the "See what the enemy is saying" genre, just like thousands of other articles here; and you responded like a pouting 13-year-old, whining about Rantburg becoming "a forum for Muzi propoganda".
"Let me give you a hint, it's not Gentiles' place to decide whether the State of Israel has a right to exist."
What the fuck??? No one on Rantburg is presuming to "decide" whether Israel has a right to exist-- and anyone who voices the opinion that it does not, doesn't last long here. Have you not noticed that???
If you're not satisfied with the level of support for Israel you see here on this website, then get the fuck out of here and go find a better one.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/17/2007 22:50 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Let me give you a hint, it's not Gentiles' place to decide whether the State of Israel has a right to exist.
Let me return the hint: there isn't any 'right' to exist. States either exist or they don't. There are peoples (e.g., the Kurds) who a reasonable person might think 'deserve' a state, yet don't have one. There are people who have a state who seem hell bent on throwing it away (e.g., too many to count).
Israel doesn't have a 'right' to exist. It exists. We in the U.S. mainly would like to see that continue.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2007 23:03 Comments ||
Top||
#16
well...that wasn't a very good hint of support for Isral, now was it, Grom? Jeebus. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
or even Israel! PIMF....sh*t
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
Hat tip Instapundit. For those following such things, blogger Sweetness and Light summarizes -- with copious links -- the chronology of the Valerie Plame outing. Herewith excerpts for your delectation:
It was almost certainly Mr. Joseph C. Wilson IV who first "outed" his wife as a CIA officer. And he probably did this in early May 2003 after meeting with top level Democrats and around the time he began to work for the John Kerry for President campaign.
Note that up until at least March 8, 2003 Joe Wilson still contended that Saddam had WMD and that he was involved in the nuclear arms trade. So what happened after March 8th to make Wilson change his tune about the Iraqs WMD and re-write his findings from his trip to Niger? A version in direct contradiction to what he told his CIA debriefers, according to the 9/11 Commission? The answer is easy. The US invaded Iraq in March and after searching for two months, admitted they had not found any stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. And, coincidentally
May 2003: Joe Wilson began to "advise" the Kerry for President campaign.
Why would Richard Armitage have been talking about Wilson and Plame in June of 2003? This was still weeks before Joe Wilson wrote his New York Times editorial, and a month before Robert Novak published his column mentioning Valerie Plame. Armitage brought this up because he is a gossip and it was already common knowledge because Joe Wilson had been calling all of the newspapers trying to get them to run his story about his mission to Niger.
Given the chronology and Mr. Armitages remarks, it seems quite obvious Mr. Wilson outed his wife when he spoke to the Senate Democratic Policy Committee on May 2, 2003 and then to the subsequent reporters at the Times, the Post and elsewhere, when he was hawking his story about his trip to Niger.
Remember, there was much talk within the Kerry camp that Joe Wilson might be the new administrations Secretary Of State. The vainglorious Mr. Wilson surely had his eyes on that prize. And any concern about the secrecy of his wifes job at the CIA was a minor consideration compared to that lofty goal.
#1
what kind of dipshit spends 3 years complaining that the W admin "outed" your covert status, yet testifies this week that she doesn't even really know if she was covert? Lil Ms. Plame, of course. Covert status has a definition in the law and in the CIA biz jargon, and if she really was covert, Fitz would've gone after someone besides Libby. What a farce, and what a preening pair of lib narcisissts in the Wilson marriage. She and her husband have now both lied under oath
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
but bush lied, and people died, and scooter liby is going to jail...
Dont try and confuse us with facts, our mind is made up. /msm
Posted by: abu do you love ||
03/17/2007 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The same kind of dipshit that allows her diplomat husband to name her in his entry in Who's Who. I'm still surprised the CIA didn't pink slip her then -- she clearly doesn't have the brains to work there.
#4
What an amazing non-secret. The fact that seems to have fallen off the table is that Valerie worked as an analyst. She wasn't a deep cover 00-super-secret agent. She had a desk job.
Non-rhetorical question: is the CIA good for anything nowadays?
#5
Might have been the biggest mistake Truman made, in retrospect.
TW, so naive. This whole Plame Game has been a CIA dirty trick. It's all they cna do any more. G_d knows what little bureaucratic tussel with Cheney or Bush they lost and are using this to get even with. All my respect for the CIA has disappeared. Even though there are undoubtedly patriots left in the CIA, they are so outnumbered by the Plames that thes best thing is to dissolve the CIA and start from scratch with DIA amd military retirees.
#7
The absurdity of this whole chapter beggars description. Sadly, while the villainy and bad form is mostly confined to the Wilson/Dem/MSM side, the stupidity is not. The administration's response to the preposterous op-ed was and remains an unfathomable blend of cluelessness and ineptitude.
They could have/should have dispenses with Wilson's silly piece in a few hours - literally. Instead, they walk back from the perfectly well-founded Sixteen Words, start pointing fingers at each other, and then engage in this idiotic gossip campaign (to some extent, which I find uninteresting and unimportant, insofar as Plame's ID was not sensitive).
If one looks back, this was the starting gun for administration bumbling on the political/PR side. They somehow managed to hang on and defeat the worst presidential candidate in a century in '04 - but amazingly that opponent got more than 50 electoral votes.
The whole affair was a one-stop reminder/revelation that many players were not ready for prime time: Rice, Tenet, Hadley, press office ..... Rove? Cheney? Libby? Bush? We've since seen lots of confirmation on that score.
#8
agreed Verlaine, they blew a LOT of opportunities to shut this down in its' infancy. BTW are you attending the St Pat's parade/party in Balboa Park? Should be 10X the antiwar demonstration by Horton Plaza
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
As I read these comments it came to me where the term 'dipshit' must have come from - 'dip(lomatic bull)shit. If not, it could have.
#10
Dang, Frank, didn't really know about, so probably not. Met a guy I've known since 2nd grade the other day - he's been a SD cop for decades, said to call him about something going on today, did so but he didn't get back to me yet. Probably will limit myself to a restrained bit of consumption at a bar near the Mission - just got a call from someone there.
The transcript of al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheik Mohammed's March 10 tribunal hearing runs 26 pages. It was a very polite proceeding - and remained so even as Mohammed's representative offered a lengthy statement in which he confessed to plotting almost every single terrorist attack on the United States since 1993.
The politesse continued when Mohammed's representative read the statement that he "decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan. For those who would like to confirm, there are pictures of me on the Internet holding his head."
And what sentence did Khalid Sheik Mohammed repeat over and over again, on at least seven occasions during his hearing? "Be fair to people," he said by way of offering advice to the four military officers who comprised the tribunal. Be fair to people.
The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed deserves the status of "enemy combatant." You might think that, since Mohammed stipulated almost from the beginning of the hearing that he was an "enemy combatant," there wasn't much to discuss. But Mohammed complained about three bizarre things.
First, he was angry that some evidence was taken off a computer seized by the United States at the time of his capture in March 2003. It wasn't fair, he said, to accuse him of anything because he had a photo of 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta on the computer. "I don't think this should [be] accepted," he said. "There are many hundred thousand Americans who have a lot of picture[s] on their computer." This objection seemed a little beside the point, considering Mohammed later said flatly that "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z." The government rejected the notion that the tribunal needed to hear a witness' testimony on the matter.
Second, Mohammed insisted he never told an Al-Jazeera reporter he was head of the "Al Qaeda Military Committee" and wanted to call a witness who would testify he never said such a thing. (One imagines he fears the wrath of whoever is the head of the Military Committee, either here or in heaven.)
Third, he wanted "several sub-paragraphs under parent-paragraph 3" to be "combined into one sub-paragraph to avoid creating the false impression that there are more allegations or statements against me than there actually are." This, from a man who a few minutes later would freely confess to 31 acts of terrorism or terror plots that led to the deaths of thousands of people.
One thing Mohammed did not do on his own in the course of the tribunal hearing was issue complaints about mistreatment. Rather, it was the American leading the tribunal - an unnamed U.S. Navy captain - who actually chose to open a discussion with Mohammed about whether or not the No. 3 man in Al Qaeda had been tortured following his capture. "You claim torture," the tribunal leader said about a written statement made by Mohammed that was entered into evidence. The statement wasn't released by the Pentagon, so we do not know what it says or when it was made.
Mohammed gave a peculiar answer - peculiar because he insisted on speaking in broken English and his meaning is hard to decipher. He seemed to be saying he could not recall whether he was tortured or not. "I, ah, cannot remember now," he said. His immediate next words don't appear in the transcript. They were redacted, presumably because Mohammed mentioned the location of his secret detention prior to his incarceration at Gitmo. (He didn't arrive at Gitmo until September 2006.)
In any case, Mohammed seemed far less concerned about his own treatment than the treatment of other detainees. Throughout the tribunal hearing, he kept going back to the issue of others captured in Afghanistan. "I will not regret when I say I'm enemy combatant," Mohammed said, "but there are many detainees" who don't deserve the title, according to Mohammed. "I'm saying for you to be fair with people," he said.
Be fair with people.
Still, the tribunal leader persisted with his line of questioning about torture. "Now, what you have told us about your previous treatment is on the record of these proceeding[s] now," he said, "and will be reported for any investigation that may be appropriate." This 26-page transcript tells me a few things.
First, there is such a thing as unmitigated, unmediated, undeniable evil in human form.
Second, there is reason to be wary of every word this man says, including his claims of responsibility for anything and everything. He might be speaking the truth. He might be a psychotic megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur. Or he might be shouldering blame to deflect it from others still in detention.
Third, the military tribunal process isn't entirely about determining the status of enemy combatants. It seems to have been redirected in part - turned into an examination of the conduct of the United States in the War on Terror. And so, even as we attempt to deal with the evil of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, we Americans cannot resist the temptation, so often indulged in this painful decade, to turn on ourselves.
Someone correct me if needed, but isn't the exact phrase "unlawful enemy combatant"? This shortened version is going to be used over and over in the media until it becomes a synonym for "soldier". There is a world of difference between someone who puts on the uniform of his country and someone who runs around commiting war crimes as a hobby.
Recent threats by the Bush administration to cut off billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan have sparked panic in government circles. Likewise, according to the Pakistani ambassador in Washington, military strikes by the United States aimed at Al Qaeda and Taliban havens inside Pakistans tribal areas would destabilise Pakistan and possibly could bring [General Pervez Musharraf] down. But how worried should the Pakistani authorities really be in the face of growing US pressure to root out Islamic militants?
Occasional frustrations notwithstanding, it is, in fact, unlikely that the US will turn against a faithful and dependent ally, especially one whose leader enjoys cordial personal relations with Bush. Nor, due to a lack of organised opposition, will public anger at Musharrafs pro-US policy destabilise his regime. Indeed, the wily general-president does not merely survive crisis after crisis, but has thrived in power.
How does he do it? The answer lies in a finely honed strategy, perfected over years, that juggles US demands and the interests of local intelligence chiefs, mullahs, tribal leaders, venal politicians, and a host of fortune seekers. Webs of intrigue and murky players obscure details, but the priorities are unmistakeable.
First, American impatience must be held in check. Pakistan is expected to deliver results on Al Qaeda and the Taliban. However, the pot is not to be emptied all at once. For example, when US Vice-President Dick Cheney arrived in Islamabad in early March, threatening an aid cut and direct US action against Islamic militants, his message was not lost. Shortly before his unmarked aircraft landed, Pakistan announced the capture in Quetta of Mullah Obaidullah, deputy to the elusive Taliban chief, Mullah Omar. Obaidullah carried a $1 million reward and was the most senior Taliban captured since November 2001.
Obaidullahs capture carried out reluctantly underscores the Pakistan militarys ambiguous relationship with the Taliban. Despite more than 700 Pakistani combat deaths, many in Musharrafs army wish to retain the Taliban as quasi-allies who when the Americans leave Afghanistan someday will give Pakistan the strategic depth it needs against India. Thus, to the chagrin of Afghanistans president, Hamid Karzai, Quetta remains a hub of Taliban opposition to his regime.
A second aspect of Musharrafs strategy is to create mutually beneficial relations with Islamists. This is a tricky business. Musharraf cannot permit the mullahs to become too strong. The mullahs, on the other hand, consider Musharraf an agent of the great Satan, America, and thus a traitor to Islam.
Nevertheless, Musharrafs men have skillfully fractured the main Islamic opposition party, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), with bribes, blackmail, and internal dissension fomented by agent provocateurs. As part of the trade-off, terrorist leaders who are officially under house arrest like Maulana Masood Azhar and Hafiz Saeed remain able to open offices, address rallies, and preach jihad freely.
Such appeasement carries a price. This is clear in Islamabad, where over the past two months, Kalashnikov-toting students have openly challenged the state, following a government order for the demolition of dozens of illegally built mosques and seminaries. Unnerved by the wild-eyed students, the government faltered, then surrendered. In a dramatic reversal, Musharrafs minister of religious affairs, the son of former dictator General Zia ul Haq, promised to rebuild damaged mosques and even symbolically laid the first stone at one construction site.
The third element of Musharrafs strategy is more positive: he knows that he must do some good and also be seen doing it. This is crucial for his image as a newly emerged world leader, promising moderate Islam in an ocean of extremism.
Some of Musharrafs achievements are significant. Relations with India have improved, the Kashmir insurgency supported by Pakistan has been scaled back, a womens protection bill was passed in the teeth of Islamic opposition, and a virulent public school curriculum that emphasised jihad and martyrdom has been toned down.
But men who live by the gun are willing to die by the gun, and Musharraf is not taking chances. He knows that the real threat to his power and his life comes from within his constituency, the military. As a result, he has become obsessed with micromanaging everything from troop movements and special events to postings and promotions, all of which require his personal stamp of approval. Hardline Islamists, favoured previously, are now out, and soldiers charged with mutiny have received the death penalty.
Although this has further deepened pro- and anti-US divisions within the army, among both commissioned and non-commissioned officers, Musharraf clearly expects to remain president well beyond the October 2007 elections, as well as to extend further his term of leadership of the army. To achieve this end, whatever needs to be done will be done; principles and rules are elastic.
One might have expected the Americans to know better than to bet all on a man who might be gone tomorrow. But, beyond pumping in dollars and supporting Musharraf and his military, the US appears clueless in dealing with Pakistan and its problems of social development. With the defeat of Al Qaeda and the Taliban Americas only visible goal, it is no surprise that the US remains enormously unpopular among Pakistanis, forcing Musharraf to maintain his perilous balancing act. DT-PS
Pervez Hoodbhoy teaches at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad
Posted by: John Frum ||
03/17/2007 15:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Awesome, powerful statement on the EU Tyranny and it's enslaved subject peoples. Also, as you read it, read it as a new American Declaration of Independence as he does quote Jefferson ringing endorsement of the people as the power.
We, the citizens of the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Ireland, Hungary, (fill in the blanks) demand that the following steps are taken immediately:
We demand that our national governments should immediately and without delay pull their countries out of the European Union, which should be dismantled entirely. European citizens pay up to half of their salaries in direct or indirect taxes to their nation states. If these nations do not control their own borders nor their policies, and they don't as long as the EU exists, those taxes are a scam. National taxes require national borders. If our national borders are not enforced, we have no obligation whatsoever to pay national taxes. We demand that all documents regarding the Euro-Arab Dialogue and the creation of the Eurabian networks for "Euro-Mediterranean cooperation" between European countries and Arab countries since the 1970s, as documented by Bat Ye'or's work on Eurabia, are published and explained in their full significance to the general public. Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations. We demand that all financial support to the Palestinian Authority should cease immediately. It is proven beyond any doubt that this has in the past been used to finance campaigns of Jihad terrorism against Jews in Israel and against Christians in territories under PA control. A public statement in support of Israel against Muslim aggression should be issued , and the money that has previously been awarded to Palestinians should be allocated partly to Israel's defense, partly to establish a Global Infidel Defense Fund with the stated goal of disseminating information about Muslim persecution of non-Muslims worldwide. We demand that the ideology of Multiculturalism should immediately be removed from all government policies and school curricula, and that the state should adopt a policy of supporting the continuation of the cultural heritage and traditions of the indigenous populations. Multiculturalism has never been about tolerance. It is an anti-Western hate ideology championed as an instrument for unilaterally dismantling European culture. As such, it is an evil ideology bent on an entire culture's eradication, and we, the peoples of Europe, have not just a right, but a duty to resist it and an obligation to pass on our heritage to future generations. We demand that all Muslim immigration in whatever form should be immediately and completely halted, and that our authorities take a long break from mass immigration in general until such a time when law and order has been reestablished in our major cities. We will not accept any accusations of "racism." Many European nations have for decades accepted more immigration into our countries in a shorter period of time than any other people has done peacefully in human history. We are sick and tired of feeling like strangers in our own lands, of being mugged, raped, stabbed, harassed and even killed by violent gangs of Muslim thugs, yet being accused of "racism and xenophobia" by our media and intimidated by our own authorities to accept even more such immigration.
Europe is being targeted for deliberate colonization by Muslim states, and with coordinated efforts aimed at our Islamization and the elimination of our freedoms. We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason. If non-Europeans have the right to resist colonization and desire self-determination then Europeans have that right, too. And we intend to exercise it.
If these demands are not fully implemented, if the European Union isn't dismantled, Multiculturalism isn't rejected and Muslim immigration isn't stopped, we, the peoples of Europe, are left with no other choice than to conclude that our authorities have abandoned us, and that the taxes they collect are therefore unjust and that the laws that are passed without our consent are illegitimate. We will stop paying taxes and take the appropriate measures to protect our own security and ensure our national survival.
If this guy was running for office here, he'd have my full and total support. Which leads to the obvious question: WWFTD? Oh, 'What Would Fred Thompson Do', silly.
Those chiefly responsible for this - one of the greatest betrayals in the history of Western civilization - should stand trial, followed by a period of general de-Eurabification of our laws and regulations.
This one move alone could reverse a huge amount of damage.
We are being subject to a foreign invasion, and aiding and abetting a foreign invasion in any way constitutes treason.
Nice to see the word "treason" being used to describe government appeasement and inaction. More Americans need to begin thinking this way.
#2
Amen to that, Zenster.
I had a dream that FOX NEWS had a debate of republican presidential wannabees. The moderator was Bill O'Reilly, who commented on the fact when anyone did not answer the question presented.
The questions were; one on the cost of government by Larry Kudlow, one on border security by Chris Symcox, one on the UN by John Bolton, one on the Israeli situation by Bibi Netanyahu, one on the future of Europe by Fjordman, one on the rights of Muslim women by Hirshi Ali, one on judicial decisions by Mark Levin, Etc.
The voters would benefit by this. Then I wondered if the democrats should be invited to partake. But, alas, they can't answer such questions honestly, but they can fake and spin and deflect such that it would be O'Reilly vs. the donks for the full two hours. They can stay in the barn.
What it boils down to is that free people need facts and honest answers to stay free without riots and revolution. The Europeans are not getting the truth. Everyone has an agenda and the evil of Islam is not on the agenda, therefore it is swept under the rug while the agenda takes the stage. I pray Fjordman can make the necessary difference.
#3
Being European only by origin (spent my first 3/5 of my life there) I'll still sign under it. It is a declaration that is valid, to a large degre, here in NA as well, whether you are in US or Canuckistan.
Mods: I searched on Diana West and did not find this recent article. If this has been posted here already, please feel free to delete it.
All: This is a must read. Perhaps one of West's finest articles, she nails squarely the left's fatal fascination with Multiculturalism.
Burnt offerings on the altar of multiculturalism
Only one faith on Earth may be more messianic than Islam: multiculturalism. Without it without its fanatics who believe all civilizations are the same the engine that projects Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization would stall and fail. Its as simple as that. To live among the believers the multiculturalists is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.Im not talking about our soldiers, policemen, rescue workers and, now, even train conductors, who bravely and steadfastly risk their lives for civilization abroad and at home. Instead, Im thinking about who we are as a society at this somewhat advanced stage of war. It is a strange, tentative civilization we have become, with leaders who strut their promises of no surrender even as they flinch at identifying the foe. Four years past 9/11, we continue to shadow-box terror, even as we go on about an ideology of hate. Its a script that smacks of sci-fi fantasy more than realpolitik. But our grim reality is no summer blockbuster, and theres no special-effects-enhanced plot twist that is going to thwart terror or hate in the London Underground anymore than it did on the roof of the World Trade Center. Or in the Bali nightclub. Or on the first day of school in Beslan. Or in any disco, city bus or shopping mall in Israel.
Body bags, burn masks and prosthetics are no better protections than make-believe. But these are our weapons, according to the powers that be. These, and an array of high-tech scopes and scanners designed to identify retinas and fingerprints, to detect explosives and metals ultimately, I presume, as we whisk through the automatic supermarket door. How strange, though, that even as we devise new ways to see inside ourselves to our most elemental components, we also prevent ourselves from looking full-face at the danger to our way of life posed by Islam.
Notice I didnt say Islamists. Or Islamofascists. Or fundamentalist extremists. Ive tried out such terms in the past, but Ive come to find them artificial and confusing, and maybe purposefully so, because in their imprecision I think they allow us all to give a wide berth to a great problem: the gross incompatibility of Islam the religious force that shrinks freedom even as it moderately enables or extremistly advances jihad with the West. Am I right? Whos to say? The very topic of Islamization for that is what is at hand, and very soon in Europe is verboten.
A leaked British report prepared for Prime Minister Tony Blair last year warned even against expressions of concern about Islamic fundamentalism (another one of those amorphous terms) because many perfectly moderate Muslims follow strict adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and are likely to perceive such expressions as a negative comment on their own approach to their faith. Much better to watch subterranean tunnels fill with charred body parts in silence. As the London Times Simon Jenkins wrote, The sane response to urban terrorism is to regard it as an avoidable accident.
In not discussing the roots of terror in Islam itself, in not learning about them, the multicultural clergy that shepherds our elites prevents us from having to do anything about them. This is key, because any serious action stopping immigration from jihad-sponsoring nations, shutting down mosques that preach violence and expelling their imams, just for starters means to renounce the multicultural creed. In the West, thats the greatest apostasy. And while the penalty is not death as it is for leaving Islam under Islamic law the existential crisis is to be avoided at all costs. Including extinction.
This is the lesson of the atrocities in London. Its unlikely that the 21st century will remember that this new Western crossroads for global jihad was once the home of Churchill, Piccadilly and Sherlock Holmes. Then again, who will notice? The BBC has retroactively purged its online bombing coverage of the word terrorist; the spokesman for the London police commissioner has declared that Islam and terrorism simply dont go together; and within sight of a forensics team sifting through rubble, an Anglican priest urged his flock, as The Guardian reported, to rejoice in the capitals rich diversity of cultures, traditions, ethnic groups and faiths. Just dont, he said, name them as Muslims. Their faith renewed, Londoners soldier on.
While honest ethnic diversity and Multiculturalism once served America well, there is far too much political and Politically Correct baggage attached to the modern interpretation of Multiculturalism for it to remain totally unscathed. This once useful concept has become severely damaged goods. It is much like the current situation with Muslim immigration. Not all Muslims arriving are full blown terrorists. Yet, far too many of them pose a sufficient problem whereby their entry into America must cease. I believe quite firmly that America's original strength and final position atop this world's political food chain devolved from the huge diversity within our society. That said, diversity now has a rather different meaning to the Multiculturalists.
Too much of Multiculturalism has the now exclusive goal of undermining or displacing white Christian America at any price. At this one groups almost singular expense in both consumption of taxpayer dollars and demographically the United States is being flooded with the underprivileged and economically disadvantaged of almost every nation on earth, including many of those which hate America most fiercely. In an insidious attempt to overthrow democracy and free market capitalism, Multiculturalists are attempting to counterbalance traditional American voting patterns by introducing far more malleable and easily manipulated constituents. This repackaged and rebranded Multiculturalism is nothing but sedition-lite. Those who hate America have not been able to curtail free speech and thought to a sufficient degree, even with their most powerful weapon, Political Correctness. Their hatred of democracy runs so deep that they are now attempting to subvert it and all free discussion of it by, as Diana West so capably observes, by projecting Islam into the unprotected heart of Western civilization. And it is not just Islam. As noted above, we are being inundated with marginally skilled semi-literate backward types from every two-bit backwater third world country on earth.
How are these newcomers supposed to help drive the technologically sophisticated industrial engine that powers Americas increasingly beleaguered economy? How are these people going to integrate into a society so advanced as to be almost an alien civilization by comparison to their own origins? What the Multiculturalists refuse to admit, at least not openly, is that theyre not supposed to at all.
Unable to adequately muffle free speech or thought with Political Correctness and its Orwellian Newspeak, instead they are flooding America with those most susceptible to the sort of socialist and communist doctrine espoused by Multiculturalists. Look around the world at where communist insurgencies currently make their biggest inroads. They are always made amongst the poor and barely literate who see no problem with redistributing wealth or land that they will never legitimately obtain in their lifetimes.
With the Soviet Unions collapse, more educated populations are no longer so easily persuaded that centrally planned government is the universal panacea Multiculturalists say it is. Unable to sway Americas own existing citizenry with their tissue of lies, they now seek to import those who can be gulled into accepting this intensely flawed doctrine. They do not care one whit if those they let loose among us have little motivation to integrate or even participate. All the better, if it ensures that Americas core of traditional values are eroded and undermined. Multiculturalists have no compunctions over delivering us into the hands of even the most vicious and barbaric sort of Neanderthals, just so long as it assists their overthrow of our precious constitutional law.
The liberal lefts carefully masked elitism permits them to smugly think that, once democracy has been destroyed, only they will have the intelligence to assume real power. This is the well-hidden racism that taints so much of liberal doctrine. It is most often found in those who smarmily deplore the condition of our little brown brothers. What they do not realize is that by infiltrating America with this worlds thugs and human backwash, they are sowing the hydras teeth. They do this without consideration of how that which springs forth from Americas subverted soil will have almost limitless freedom to savage our population, them included. Especially so the liberals as they have voluntarily relinquished their right to bear arms and will be the most defenseless of all.
This is self-loathing and its inherent cognitive dissonance, writ large on an unbelievable scale. By subverting democracys protective umbrella they stand unsheltered from the very deluge they seed. Unarmed, the left fecklessly breeds up anti-American demons of a sort never seen before. Their self-loathing has begun to assume suicidal proportions. Just as how the lefts depraved brand of tolerance seeks to expiate their perceived sins with our own blood. As Diana West points out:
To live among the believers -- the multiculturalists -- is to watch the assault, the jihad, take place un-repulsed by our suicidal societies. These societies are not doomed to submit; rather, they are eager to do so in the name of a masochistic brand of tolerance that, short of drastic measures, is surely terminal.
The liberal left has gone terminal. In its rebellion against all things American, their moral compass is now demagnetized. Its needle drifts aimlessly, much as does their social agenda and political platform. In seeking to please the malcontents with which they have purposefully infected this country, their policy has become poison.
#1
Not all civilizations are equal, not all civilizations are good, and not all things in a civilization are good. Practioners of Islam in the U.S. came here, among other reasons, to get away from the nuts. If the U.S. is worth loving, then each of us will protect it from the nuts who want a civilization based on murder. I pray that those who brought their families over 10,000 miles from the Middle East to flee the nuts do not want their children to live that kind of life again. They will do what they think best, and I, my friends, my neighbors, and my countrymen will do what we think best.
#2
We are headed on the way to a system where Muslims will get daily time off with pay, so that they can pray. And unless this is stopped, employers will have to shell out billions for Muslim work space and special cleansing facilities. As was posted here, in the UK non-Muslims are forced to eat meat that has been slow killed in the cruel Muslim manner, in order to accomodate Muslims. While we are doing this, Muslim majority tyrannies are ethnically cleansing disbelievers at an escalating pace.
The fascination of the Democrats (and many RINOs) with making the U.S. into a society not meaningfully different than postmodern Europe is on display in Massachusetts.
There we have the same triune that made the multi-culti, postmodern, collectivist, anti-Christian hellhole of Europe working right here in one of our own states -
1. union thugs more concerned about having perfect income security provided by an outside agency (usually the government),
2. an academic/intellectual elite bent on attacking capitalism and Judeo-Christian values and promoting cultural and economic Marxsim, and
3. trust-fund trash who only know how to protect their wealth instead of generating more.
This confluence has resulted in a state government which is over 80% Democrat, the remining part being mostly RINO's, thus creating a virtual one-party political class.
The state is chronically in debt, has a tax burden (particularly on productivity and property) which is among the highest in the nation and growing, is being overrun by illegal aliens in a way that is finally starting to get national notice, is hostile towards religion with the occasional exception for the union thugs' religion of choice (Catholicism) and, of course, Islam, is driving out business both small and large (fifty Fortune 500 companies in the state in 1980, twelve today), and is not with the program as far as defense of our borders and the WoT are concerned.
In short, if the states are our "laboratories of democracy" as the Founding Fathers put it, Massachusetts is an experiment to see how making America just like Europe would work. And like Europe, the most visible aspect of cultural Marxism - aggressive multiculturalism - is turning the state into something distinctly non-Western.
To those who would see what a collectivist, multicultural society would look like, we no longer have to look to Euroland. We have our own Europe-lite right here on this side of the Atlantic.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
03/17/2007 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Te tell the truth, I'm not nearly so concerned that halal slaughtering is slow and cruel, as that it apparently has no standards for cleanliness and hygiene, and its practitioners seem to feel no need to comply with extant laws on the subject -- leading to unhealthy food being foisted on an unsuspecting public. Especially as halal is generally presented as the Muslim version of kosher, which actually enforces a higher standard of cleanliness and purity than the secular law.
But I think whatadeal expressed the general idea so neatly that I won't waste time restating it.
#5
When I interviewed for a position with a major American company with branches in all major East Coast cities, I told my prospective employer right up front that I would not even consider working anyplace north of Virginia. When asked why, I told them that I refused to pay the extortionate blue state taxes or live under their anti-2nd Amendment state governments. They seemed to understand that stance pretty easily and had no problem with satisfying my requirements.
Anyone who does business in Massachusetts that isn't absolutely forced to is nuts. I don't think Deval Patrick is competent to walk my dog, much less run a state, and he's worked assiduously to validate my belief. Why any productive citizens continue to live in that liberal garbage dump, I can't imagine.
Posted by: Mac ||
03/17/2007 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Zenster, right on target. All civilizations are not the same. Some are not even civil. Others are downright evil. If all civilizations were reduced to the same under multiculturalism, then it would not make any difference where multicultural espousing liberals lived. I don't think they really believe that which is then hypocrisy. The other alternative is that their approach is a chickenshit appeasement way of dealing with the world which any thinking person long ago realized doesn't work.
I have danced around the idea of what to call the evil put upon us on 9/11. I have used the term islamofacist and other terms to distinguish the good muslims from the evil ones. Maybe that distinction is not necessary. After all, did we distinguish "good" communists from "bad" communitsts during the cold war. Such distinctions may be self-defeating and another reflection of multiculturalism and PC. That claptrap is going to ruin our civilization, culture, and way of life. Maybe murder, oppression and destruction are built into "the religion of peace" in a Jim Jones kind of way and it is this religion that should be our enemy.
#7
"What they do not realize is that by infiltrating America with this worlds thugs and human backwash, they are sowing the hydras teeth."
I've decided to launch an attack that will reduce Rock Ridge to ashes...I want you to round up every vicious criminal and gunslinger in the West. Take this down: I want rustlers, cut-throats, murderers, bounty hunters, desperadoes, mugs, pugs, thugs, nit-wits, half-wits, dim-wits, vipers, snipers, con-men, Indian agents, Mexican bandits, muggers, buggerers, bush-whackers, horn-swagglers, horse-thieves, bull-dykes, train-robbers, bank-robbers, ass-kickers, shit-kickers, and Methodists!
#8
DepotGuy, don't miss your meds.
Myself, Zenster, and others have been defining this enemy as Islam for years now. I always knew the pack would come around, not because I can fortell such things, but it is so clear that no muzzie is a good muzzie. We are not alone, rather joined by many who escaped the tyranny of Islam like Brigitte Gabriel and Waffa Sultan. It is high time that we of western civilization listen to those with first hand knowledge of evil Islam and end the feel good rhetoric. Some wonder how we could possibly be headed for an Armageddon, but this slow realization is exactly what emboldens the cavemen and causes little and late responces to their evil activities.
In the end we must annihilate them, unconditionally. To do less will be an invitation for them to regroup for yet another war against civilization. We should try to save the children and unbrainwash the if we can.
#9
I believe DepotGuy was quoting Hedley "Not Hedy" Lamarr
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Whatadeal, may I remind you that Pakistani muslims migrated to England where they had and raised children. Some of those children blew up trains and buses in London a couple of years ago.
It's not the people, it's the 'religion', Islam.
The parents had a dream to pursue, the children lost their way in a university. I can only deduce that Islam is evil and one must cut all ties to Islam to assure peace and prosperity in his life.
#12
One aspect that I don't see mentioned but is definitely there is pure laziness of much of the world.
Under the guise of multiculturalism, one can be lazy and not deal with problems. Chalk things up to 'that is the way they are, and we must respect all views' and we can rush off to our 5 star catered luncheon and avoid having to really work at things.
So yes we have the confluence of many things, but I see a simpler root issue, being that most humans on the planet will do anything to avoid having to think too much about something.
Multiculturalism provides the perfect vehicle and tool to avoid doing anything about problems, whilst giving the ability to claim some perceived pinnacle of thought. It allows laziness to be not just acceptable, but preferred.
#13
whatadeal, I understand your intent but am obliged to observe that in the particular case of Muslims, your optimism is unmerited. Americas second major wave of immigration during the post Civil War eras saw the vast majority of arrivals proud to assimilate into this nations collective culture. Some even refused to teach their children anything but English so as to better prepare them for life here. Despite encountering a degree of enclave mentality (e.g., China Town, Little Italy, etc.), there was an overall recognition that Americas government and multicultural society was superior to that which they had left.
Such is no longer the case. Many new arrivals to our shores have no intention of integrating into modern American society. It is not just the Muslims either. The Hispanic Barrio is stronger than ever and continues to demand government acceptance of bilingual education with Spanish as a second language. All of this is driven, if not inspired, by Multiculturalisms pervasive influence and tacit acceptance in so many political offices. In Fjorddmans typically excellent article about Glossocracy (i.e., the manipulation and intentional distortion of language for political gain), he lays bare the weapons of Multiculturalism.
Besides, those who praise diversity the most are frequently those who are the least tolerant of diverging opinions. As British newspaper columnist Richard Littlejohn puts it: The Fascist Left have turned the Nanny State into the Bully State. There is no limit to their intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Tolerance has been defined as support for Multiculturalism and continued mass immigration. Tolerance thus means that Western populations should eradicate themselves and their own culture. It means a slow-motion surrender to Islamic culture and Islamic rule. Yet if you are against tolerance you must be some kind of evil racist or something. Who doesnt like tolerance and diversity?
Indeed, if tolerance and diversity are to simultaneously lead us into cultural suicide, as also noted by Diana West, then such aims are a perversion of Western ideals.
In short, if the states are our "laboratories of democracy" as the Founding Fathers put it, Massachusetts is an experiment to see how making America just like Europe would work. And like Europe, the most visible aspect of cultural Marxism - aggressive multiculturalism - is turning the state into something distinctly non-Western.
Evidently so, no mo uro. Look no further than the Roxbury mosque debacle for proof of what you say. I refer everyone to todays posting titled, Boston: Islamic group sues scholar for libeling Muslims. The article and comments that follow reveal much that should be cause for concern.
Te tell the truth, I'm not nearly so concerned that halal slaughtering is slow and cruel, as that it apparently has no standards for cleanliness and hygiene, and its practitioners seem to feel no need to comply with extant laws on the subject -- leading to unhealthy food being foisted on an unsuspecting public. Especially as halal is generally presented as the Muslim version of kosher, which actually enforces a higher standard of cleanliness and purity than the secular law.
trailing wife, with all due respect, I think that it is vital for Americans to begin holding Islam to the letter of American law. By getting Halal slaughter (consisting of slitting an animals throat and letting it bleed to death without anesthesia), declared as inhumane treatment of animals, we can begin taking major strides towards making America Islam-unfriendly. Banning the burqa and niqab as disguises that create security risks would be another easy step in this process.
I have danced around the idea of what to call the evil put upon us on 9/11. I have used the term islamofacist and other terms to distinguish the good muslims from the evil ones. Maybe that distinction is not necessary. After all, did we distinguish "good" communists from "bad" communitsts during the cold war. Such distinctions may be self-defeating and another reflection of multiculturalism and PC.
So have I, JohnQC. Anyone who has traced the evolution of my own attitudes towards Islam since joining this board will know that I was once a staunch defender of moderate Muslims and assiduously distinguished between Islam and Islamists. Somehow, I managed to leave out a vital part of my original posting. Just as Diana West so capably notes, I too now refuse to make any distinction between Islamofascism, Islamists, Islamic fundamentalism, Islamic radicals, Islamic extremism or whatever other adjectives and modifiers you wish to concoct for this vile cult. All of it is Islam and all Muslims help to drive this totalitarian ideology.
Over five years of deafening silence from the global Muslim community stands in mute testimony to this basic fact. Even something so encouraging as the St. Petersburg Declaration is simply too little too late. It is cruel irony to note, exactly as extremist critics of this declaration do as well, that a majority of those empanelled to make this declaration are not themselves Muslims and instead are apostates. I am also obliged to note that: Nowhere in the entire document is there a universal, categorical and unequivocal condemnation of terrorism. Again, simply too little too late.
In the end we must annihilate them, unconditionally. To do less will be an invitation for them to regroup for yet another war against civilization. We should try to save the children and unbrainwash the if we can.
wxjames, my own take on this is slightly different. As if lifted straight out of some ancient Greek tragedy, Islam literally foredooms itself to obliteration. As Wretchard so presciently notes in his fine essay, The Three Conjectures:
At this point, a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination.
The so-called strengths of Islamic terrorism: fanatical intent; lack of a centralized leadership; absence of a final authority and cellular structure guarantee uncontrollable escalation once the nuclear threshold is crossed. Therefore the 'rational' American response to the initiation of terrorist WMD attack would be all out retaliation from the outset.
Islams decentralized nature and abject refusal to abandon terrorism literally guarantees that, one day in the not too distant future, some radical Islamic splinter group will commit an atrocity of such monstrous proportions that a stunned West will have no other recourse than to initiate the Muslim holocaust.
I want to thank everyone who read Wests essay. I think she clearly articulates the real threat being posed. Someone elsewhere once noted how Islam is not the true peril, it is but an opportunistic virus than can only kill an already weakened host. Political Correctness and Multiculturalism are nothing less than a crippling AIDS infection that allows us to be finished off by something we could normally repulse, like Islam.
#14
"a stunned West will have no other recourse than to initiate the Muslim holocaust"
Yeah, Zenster, just like we had to exterminate every last Japanese and German civilian in WWII. I note the way you slip your future genocide in as an inevitabilty. It's a shame -- it degrades your overall case against Islamic fanatics because it paints you to be a homicidal fanatic too. Try to rise above Lord of the Flies.
Islams decentralized nature and abject refusal to abandon terrorism literally guarantees that, one day in the not too distant future, some radical Islamic splinter group will commit an atrocity of such monstrous proportions that a stunned West will have no other recourse than to initiate the Muslim holocaust.
- do you not understand, Frank? That isn't "nuke 'em all" language. Can you somehow wrap your brain around that fact? It is a simple observation that Islam is hell bent on its own destruction and, left unchecked, it will happen.
I DO NOT advocate the annihilation of all Muslim majority countries, I merely predict that it is something that will likely happen. Go read the Three Conjectures one more time if any of this is unclear.
At some point Islam will deploy a nuclear weapon or weapons against the West. When that happens, it is highly probable that Wretchard's predictions will all come true with lightning swiftness.
How are you able to ignore the single fact that I have routinely criticized and vociferously argued against ANY first use of nuclear weapons against our Islamic enemies. You steadfastly ignore that basic fact while you, and others, continue to try and tar me with the "nuke 'em all" brush.
It speaks rather ill of your capacity for making rational judgements.
#18
It speaks rather ill of your capacity for making rational judgements.
Zen, your flamboyant return is less than rejoiceful on my part. Your rhetoric is tiresome, repetitive, uninfluential, and typically overblown. You disparage all who disagree and fluff your own pillow. I just might ask .com to come back and hand you your ass again. Pipe down, punk
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Frank, you still neglect to reconcile my consistent opposition to any first use of nuclear weapons against Islam with your accusations that I advocate a "nuke 'em all" policy. Your failure to do so represents bad faith on your part. Please feel free to back up your statements by citing any post of mine that says "nuke 'em all" or the direct equivalent. Your resorting to name calling is both unbecoming and puerile.
#21
I really wish you'd take the (actually) courageous step and get your own damn website
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2007 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
#22
So, how do you tell a good muzzie from a bad muzzie ? Itchy trigger fingers want to know.
If you hear someone say Allah Ackbar, and you turn and see a bearded man with an AK-47, what do you do ? What if he's wearing a bulging vest or holding a garage door opener ? Oh, that's right, you leave it for the police to take care of, like they do the rapes in Sweden, you know the unreported rapes and the ones where they print 'students rape girl', rather than 'Muslims rape girl'. If government has proven anyything it is that they are never ready to react in kind to evil.
First they will debate it. (the debate should have started years ago)
Then they will fund it. (the public has already taken building border fencing into their own hands)
Then they will appoint a director. (are you vomiting yet ? I am)
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
