IF YOU'VE not heard of Farfour the mouse, let's get you quickly up to speed. Farfour was the star of Pioneers of Tomorrow, a children's television program produced by Al Aqsa TV - a sort of Middle Eastern ABC - and broadcast throughout Gaza.
Farfour's program aired weekly from April. How the children loved that helium-voiced Mickey Mouse lookalike! . . . Farfour was always happiest when his tiny viewers were vowing to blast themselves to death.
Note the past tense. Sadly, Farfour no longer appears on the few Gaza televisions unperforated by Hamas or Fatah gunfire. His final show aired a week or so back; you can see the deeply moving footage here.
You'll find Al Aqsa TV's notion of killing off a character turns out to be rather literal. . . . Yes, Farfour was bashed to death. By a Jew, natch. (Remember, this is a kids' show we're talking about.)
The final scenes are from an adult perspective insanely, deliriously funny. Having received some deeds to ancestral lands from his dying grandfather (who is not, in defiance of biology, a mouse), Farfour finds himself faced by an angry Israeli inquisitor who demands he hand over his inheritance in exchange for lots of money.
Farfour declines. For a guy well, a mouse who's been carrying on about Israeli brutality for his entire television career, Farfour seems remarkably unprepared for his beating. (Also, he appears to be the sole Palestinian not to own an AK-47 with which to defend himself, or shoot randomly into buildings, traffic, whatever Fatah or Hamas sub-factions he currently disagrees with, and the sky.)
Farfour's inquisitor returns to his chair and continue negotiations, but proud Farfour refuses to budge . . . at which point another beating commences, this time raised from the previous bitch-slap level to full-on Once Were Warriors mode.
Remove the religious/territorial/mouse-human interbreeding components from this dispute and most everyone would agree Farfour deserves, if not death, at least a serious fist-administered attitude adjustment.
His voice alone would earn a clubbing from even Adele Horin. And his mouse-head doesn't seem to fit properly, forcing the actor playing Farfour to constantly re-align it.
He tries to do this slyly, pretending to be in-character by placing both hands on his Farfour face as if alarmed. Or maybe that's Farfour's stock move. Either way, the resultant visual effect recalls a rodent Macauley Culkin.
I don't care where you're from, what philosophy you follow, how much of a pacifist you claim to be, or even if you're insensate and hooked up to life support, a Macauley/mouse combo appearance will inspire violence. . . .
Anyway, Farfour's unfortunate real estate deal was still under way when the show cut to its teenage girl co-host, who announced Farfour had been martyred while defending his land; 72 virgins for Farfour.
A young female viewer phoned in. "We don't like the Jews because they are dogs!" she railed. "We will fight them! They killed Farfour!" . . .
It might be time to further explore the Farfour Theory that those Muslims who hate us have been taught to hate us. Not very complex, I know, but it seems to cover all the bases.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/07/2007 07:08 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Hamas
#1
LOL - the Video's great! A rodent Macauley Culkin? ROFL!
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/07/2007 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
By KPS Gill
The involvement of some Indian doctors and engineers - conclusive evidence in two cases is yet to be disclosed, but there now seems little doubt that one of the perpetrators of the attack on Glasgow Airport, Kafeel Ahmed, is an Indian engineer - has once again dramatically exposed the infirmities of India's orientation towards Islamist terrorism, the manner in which it is perceived and projected by the national leadership, and the counter-productive tyranny of political correctness and undercurrent of apologetics that dominates most approaches.
Tremendous political and emotional capital had long been invested in the asinine argument that there was something radically different about Indian Muslims that had prevented their engagement in any act of international terrorism. The truth, on the other hand, is that a number of Indian Muslims have long been mobilised and engaged in acts of terrorism on Indian soil - consequently there was no inflexible psychological barrier against their engagement in acts of terror per se - and it was only a matter of time before some of these individuals did, in fact, find the context and opportunity for participation in an act of terrorism abroad. This has now come to pass, and needs to be confronted directly, and not in the defensive and often evasive manner that is largely evident in prominent Indian statements after the disclosures regarding the involvement of Indians in the UK attacks.
By now it should be unnecessary - but regrettably is not - to state that none of this reflects in any manner on the larger Muslim community in India. The engagement of a handful of deviants in acts of terrorism cannot undermine the fact that an Indian Muslim population of 150 million has overwhelmingly rejected the Islamist radicalism and terror that has actively and aggressively been promoted by Pakistan on Indian soil for decades.
Nevertheless,we should recognise that Islamist terrorism is, and has for some time now been, a reality in India, and it is no use saying 'don't label Indians'. Indians have engaged in these actions and this reality must be confronted if we are to understand - and eventually neutralise - the dynamics that underlie these acts of terrorism. We should accept, equally, that a significant element within the Indian diaspora has long supported and funded terrorism in India and has been closely linked with Islamist extremist ideologies, and some elements within this diaspora have now planned and executed acts of terrorism abroad as well. These are elements that should have been under strong surveillance for a long time, and at least some acts of terrorism could be prevented by effective monitoring. Intelligence inputs are of critical significance in counter-terrorism, and the orientation of intelligence services is, in this sense, crucial. If a political culture of obfuscation and denial dominates the orientation of intelligence and enforcement agencies, we will repeatedly be caught off guard.
Even today, nearly 12 years after my retirement from the police, I continue to get information through private channels and well-wishers abroad on the activities of various radical and terrorist groups, particularly in Europe, the US and Canada. If private individuals have such information of subversive and extremist activities, intelligence and enforcement agencies cannot be unaware of them. But they are inhibited in their actions precisely by the political injunctions against 'labelling' or 'causing offence' to 'a community'. But the fact is that Islamist terrorism is squarely rooted in radical Muslim populations and institutions - just as Khalistani terrorism was rooted in radical Sikh populations and institutions. This is something that must be recognised and addressed, instead of pampering or offering a constant apologia for the 'larger community'. Such an orientation undermines counter-terrorism responses everywhere. There is a constant fear of 'offending' a 'particular community', and this cannot and must not be the basis of response to specific acts of subversion or terror.
Take the case of Mohammed Afzal's death penalty in the Parliament Attack case. The man has been found guilty and sentenced to death. A clear message needs to be sent out that such acts of terrorism will meet with no clemency. As Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said in another context, "There can be no political compromise with terror. No inch conceded. No compassion shown." Yet, there is a clear policy of indecision and delay in this case. Indeed, in December 2006, in an obvious effort of obfuscation and justification of delay, Home Minister Shivraj Patil stated in Parliament: "Statistics of the past 10 years reveal that on an average it takes seven years to decide upon a mercy petition. The law will take its own course." This is arrant nonsense. These decisions take so long, not because of procedural or legal requirements, but because of policies of deliberate procrastination and sheer neglect.
The underlying concern in the Afzal case appears to be the appeasement of the 'Muslim community'. But in thinking that Indian Muslims would be 'appeased' by clemency to the likes of Mohammed Afzal, advocates of such a policy do grave injustice to, and deeply insult, this larger community. Mr Manmohan Singh has noted, "A terrorist is a terrorist and he has no religion or community." But the actions, statements and orientation of his Government put such a perspective continuously in doubt.
There is an urgent need to look closely at the dynamics, the patterns, the networks and the processes of Islamist terrorist mobilisation wherever they occur, without the imposed inhibitions of political correctness and appeasement of particular communities. Many acts of terrorism could be neutralised long before they occur if action is taken at the right time against the processes of subversion, and the organisations engaged in radicalisation.
It is not enough to lose sleep over the trauma and predicament of the families of terrorists. The crisis of belief and education in this country, and across the world, should far more be a matter of national and international concern. If educated men are able to misread history in such a manner and to engage in acts of terrorism to vicariously punish nations and communities, this is a terrible slur on our educational system.
It is also necessary to pay close attention to our youth in India and the diaspora, to see that they do not lose contact with civil society, and are not drawn into the dark and conspiratorial world of organisations drawn from 'Osama territory' - radicalised Arab and Pakistani elements. All this demands intellectual clarity, and not the patterns of justification and apologetics that have dominated the perspectives of India's feeble intelligentsia.
KPS Gill is the former Director-General of the Punjab State Police. He is credited for crushing the Khalastani insurgency in the 1990s. He is widely feared by criminals throughout India because of his "bullet for bullet" campaign that saw thousands of terrorists simply 'disappear'. He dismisses calls for a 'political solution' for terrorism, noting that Sikh terrorism did not end because of political negotiations. It ended because his policemen killed all of the terrorists.
Posted by: John Frum ||
07/07/2007 07:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Britain
#1
I'm afraid the same can (will?) be said about US muslims. Right now, we say the same kinds of things as the Indians:
. . . there was something radically different about Indian Muslims that had prevented their engagement in any act of international terrorism.
It's the pundits who say that the US has done a good job of assimilating muslims. But frankly, that's just commentary. All we really know is that they haven't done anything. Yet.
What we DO know is that there are many angry muslims in the US with the same propensity to seethe and blame. We do know that US mosques preach the same wahabbi bulls*it as all the other ones.
So, I'm not convinced that our muslims are "different."
#2
The one difference, Dan, is that there has never been a Muslim government here, as opposed to the Muslim conquest and rule of much of the Indian subcontinent for centuries.
Oh, I know that loonies will claim that once there's a mosque anywhere, they should have full rein for shari'a etc. But that has zero resonance among the (yes) moderate Muslims I know.
Could that change? maybe. Are the nutso fundamentalists among us who are dangerous as vipers if allowed to be? You bet - and the Sauds among others are nurturing them and feeding them bile. Nests need clearing out.
OTOH I like the garden snakes on my property. They keep the rodent population in check and are otherwise harmless. Would hate to kill them off *if* the occasional viper nest could be cleaned out otherwise.
Wipe out the terror networks, hard and thoroughly. Gotta agree we've been less than convincing on that.
#4
The one difference, Dan, is that there has never been a Muslim government here
There never been a Muslim goverment in "Palestine", lotp---doesn't stop "Palestinians" from being most enthusiastic, if not the brightest, Muzzi terrorists.
IMO, the only thing that can prevent Muslim terrorism is fear of retaliation. That's why there are "classical" terrorist attacks in Spain & Britain but only SJS in USA and car burnings in France.
#5
" He dismisses calls for a 'political solution' for terrorism, noting that Sikh terrorism did not end because of political negotiations. It ended because his policemen killed all of the terrorists."
I think this guy has figured it out!
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/07/2007 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Hey Bright Pebbles, I was thinking you used to sign as "Bright Pebbles from Blairistan." Is it now "Bright Pebbles from Brownistan?" Just curious. Lot of fun with Brownistan, eh?
#8
I like the garden snakes on my property. They keep the rodent population in check and are otherwise harmless. Would hate to kill them off *if* the occasional viper nest could be cleaned out otherwise.
Without wishing to be argumentative, what if your garden snakes looked exactly like the vipers? Would you be willing to osrt them out if the only way to do it was by paying $100.oo per snake to make the determination?
Delicately sorting between whatever "moderate" Muslims there are and the radical they have such a difficult time bringing themselves to out on their own would likely require 277 surveillance of each suspect individual. Just as with my observation regarding your snake analogy, the expense of sorting through them would be prohibitive.
Irshad Manji mentions in her article, "Religion is the root cause of terrorist threat":
Although the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, it is important to start making a more important distinction: between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones.
Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions, effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.
Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over.
Ms. Manji has it right. After over a half-decade of deafening silence, being a "moderate" Muslim no longer carries any weight. Through their continued silence they have unadmittedly or intentionally facilitated Islamic terrorism.
Through inaction "moderate" Muslims have evolved into being part of the problem. There is so much that they could do to assist in the eradication of terrorism and yet so little is done. While a snake may not be able to change its stripes, Muslims can agitate for change here in the safety of America's legal system.
Unfortunately for all concerned it would seem that America'sand the world's"moderate" Muslims have chose to play chameleon instead. They adopt whatever protective coloration suits their own aims best without regard for the well-being of their host country. Protection of Islam outstrips any possible appeal to a sense of loyalty or patriotism.
I am not prepared to have our government spend untold billions patiently sorting through Muslims who refuse to voluntarily differentiate themselves on no uncertain terms. The ambiguity that they purposefully cultivateeven if by defaultis intolerable. They have no problem posing a gigantic drain upon our overburdened social services structure yet cannot bring themselves to be supportive of the government that provides those selfsame vital services.
This sort of Muslim ingratitude is repeated upon the world's stage each and every day. It signifies only one thing, a deep and abiding allegiance to Islam above all else and a refusal to actively pursue reformation of this intolerant creed.
Ms. Manji is absolutely right to discern between "moderate" Muslims and reformers. Only one of them can claim to be part of the solution. Far too many American Muslims elect to remain part of the problem and for that willful lack of cooperation they need to begin paying a penalty. The deafening silence of "moderate" Muslims facilitates terrorism and is therefore wholely unacceptable.
#9
Indian Muslims carry out less acts of terror because they have been made aware that there is a cohesive network of Hindu militants who would exact revenge if they did. Nevertheless, Deoband is a hotbed of Islamofascism. As is Gujurat. Muslims are passive when they have to be; aggressive when they have the numbers.
Note: Pakistan's borders contained about 20% Hindus at Partition; that has been reduced to 1%.
India's borders contained 8% Muslims at Partition; that has increased to 15%. America is friendlier to Pakistan than it is to India. That is f---ed up!
#10
Dino, for a long time the leftist governments in India were hostile to the US and very cozy with the USSR. That's changing, but there are still significant pockets of influence in India who dislike the growing alliance w/ the US.
Needless to say, she receives death threats from ROP'ers constantly. The irony is that all she's advocating is some introspection and dialogue within the muslim community. I guess they're too busy being insulted by everything, being intolerant in a society that requires tolerance, seething and feeling like victims. Oh. And blaming the jooos.
THIS week's arrest of Mohamed Haneef in Brisbane may be more curious for the fact he's a professional lifesaver than for the possibility that he's a terrorist. So far, most of those being investigated in the latest British car bomb plots are, as is Haneef, doctors. The seeming paradox of the privileged seeking to avenge humiliation has many scratching their heads. Aren't Muslim martyrs supposed to be poor, dispossessed and resentful?
September 11 should have stripped us of that breezy simplification. The 19 hijackers came from means. Mohammed Atta, their ringleader, earned an engineering degree. He then moved to the West, opting for postgraduate studies in Germany. No aggrieved goatherder, that one.
In 2003, I interviewed Mohammad al-Hindi, the political leader of Islamic Jihad in Gaza.
A physician himself, al-Hindi explained the difference between suicide and martyrdom. "Suicide is done out of despair," the good doctor diagnosed. "But most of our martyrs today were very successful in their earthly lives."
In short, it's not what the material world fails to deliver that drives suicide bombers. It's something else. Time and again, that something else has been articulated by the people committing these acts: their religion.
Consider Mohammad Sidique Khan, the teaching assistant who masterminded the July 7, 2005, transport bombings in London. In a taped testimony, Khan railed against British foreign policy. But before bringing up Tony Blair, he emphasised that "Islam is our religion" and "the prophet is our role model". In short, Khan gave priority to God.
Now take Mohammed Bouyeri, the Dutch-born Moroccan Muslim who murdered Amsterdam filmmaker Theo van Gogh. Bouyeri pumped several bullets into van Gogh's body. Knowing that multiple shots would finish off his victim, why didn't Bouyeri stop there? Why did he pull out a blade to decapitate van Gogh?
Again, we must confront religious symbolism. The blade is an implement associated with 7th-century tribal conflict. Wielding it as a sword becomes a tribute to the founding moment of Islam. Even the note stabbed into van Gogh's corpse, although written in Dutch, had the unmistakable rhythms of Arabic poetry. Let's credit Bouyeri with honesty: at his trial he proudly acknowledged acting from religious conviction.
Despite integrating Muslims far more adroitly than most of Europe, North America isn't immune. Last year in Toronto, police nabbed 17 young Muslim men allegedly plotting to blow up Canada's parliament buildings and behead the Prime Minister.
They called their campaign Operation Badr, a reference to prophet Mohammed's first decisive military triumph, the Battle of Badr. Clearly the Toronto 17 drew inspiration from religious history.
For people with big hearts and goodwill, this must be uncomfortable to hear. But they can take solace that the law-and-order types have a hard time with it, too. After rounding up the Toronto suspects, police held a press conference and didn't once mention Islam or Muslims. At their second press conference, police boasted about avoiding those words. If the guardians of public safety intended their silence to be a form of sensitivity, they instead accomplished a form of artistry, airbrushing the role that religion plays in the violence carried out under its banner.
They're in fine company: moderate Muslims do the same. Although the vast majority of Muslims aren't extremists, it is important to start making a more important distinction: between moderate Muslims and reform-minded ones. ain't gonna happen. too many benefit from the status quo.
Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions, effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.
Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over.
Reinterpreting doesn't mean rewriting. It means rethinking words and practices that already exist, removing them from a 7th-century tribal time warp and introducing them to a 21st-century pluralistic context. Un-Islamic? God, no. The Koran contains three times as many verses calling on Muslims to think, analyse and reflect than passages that dictate what's absolutely right or wrong. In that sense, reform-minded Muslims are as authentic as moderates and quite possibly more constructive.
This week a former jihadist wrote in a British newspaper that the "real engine of our violence" is "Islamic theology". Months ago, he told me that as a militant he raised most of his war chest from dentists. Islamist violence: it's not just for doctors any more. Tackling Islamist violence: it can't be left to moderates any more.
Posted by: PlanetDan ||
07/07/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Moderate Muslims denounce violence in the name of Islam but deny that Islam has anything to do with it. By their denial, moderates abandon the ground of theological interpretation to those with malignant intentions, effectively telling would-be terrorists that they can get away with abuses of power because mainstream Muslims won't challenge the fanatics with bold, competing interpretations. To do so would be admit that religion is a factor. Moderate Muslims can't go there.
Reform-minded Muslims say it's time to admit that Islam's scripture and history are being exploited. They argue for reinterpretation precisely to put the would-be terrorists on notice that their monopoly is over.
This is why long ago I stopped having any hope for "moderate" Muslims. Since that time I have maintained that only reform can save Islam. Sadly, as noted by SR-71, such reform is almost wholly dedicated to further radicalizing through increased Islamic "purity".
None of this bodes well for Islam's survival. Tough shit.
#2
I'm glad this is in an Aussie paper. Too many Aussies I interact with believe the MSM line that it's all George Bush and John Howard's fault. Terrorism is a means to an end. The end is not merely changing the West's foreign policy, that's another means, but Islamic domination of the world.
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.
