This is long - cue p.49 -,sorry for the inconvenience, but I'd like to post something about Eurabia, in which I'm increasingly believing, and this is an excellent primer. I really need to buy that book!
By John W. Whitehead
06/09/05
âI wrote these books,â said Bat Yeâor, âbecause I had witnessed the destruction, in a few short years, of a vibrant Jewish community living in Egypt for over 2,600 years and which had existed from the time of Jeremiah the Prophet. I saw the disintegration and flight of families, dispossessed and humiliated, the destruction of their synagogues, the bombing of the Jewish quarters and the terrorizing of a peaceful population. I have personally experienced the hardships of exile, the misery of statelessness?and I wanted to get to the root cause of all this. I wanted to understand why the Jews from Arab countries, nearly a million, had shared my experience.â
Bat Yeâorâs wide historical research details the inferior condition accorded to Jews and Christian âdhimmisâ (non-Muslim subjugated people) in Muslim lands, where they have survived through hardships and persecution ever since the rise of Islam in the 7th century. She pioneered the study of âdhimmitudeâ and the history and conditions of life of non-Muslims in their own lands, conquered by jihad and Islamized. According to Yeâor, âThe conditions of Jews varied, but in general it was one of insecurity, humiliation and degradation for over 1,300 years, particularly in their own country, the Land of Israel.â
#1
"Before attacking the Infidels, Muslims must first call them to convert; if they refuse, they are asked to pay a ransom; if they refuse again, Muslims have the duty to wage war on them. Truce is accepted on condition that the Infidels pay a regular ransom and put no obstacle to the spread of Islam in their own countries. There are other conditions also, like sending soldiers to fight for Islamic interests. A truce should not last more than 10 years, and it is allowed only when the Muslim ruler is weak. Otherwise, war against the Infidels is mandatory."
So that's what happened to the EU!!! The truce is up....
Another Eurabia material, "American Future" blog entries based on Bat Ye'or book; very good read. See link for actual posts.
by Marc Schulman
Earlier this year, I posted a five-part series on my blog focusing on the transformation of the European Union (and, especially, France) and the UN into anti-semitic institutions. My analysis draws heavily on Bat Ye'or's Eurabia (a must-read book). The following is the first few sentences from each of the five posts, along with links to the full posts. I assure you that reading these lengthy posts will be worth the investment of your time. They represent an alternative history that you won't find in the standard texts.
Part 1. Why did anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism become more prevalent in Europe in the years before 9/11 and intensify thereafter? Why have the Europeans been less convinced than Americans that 9/11 ushered in a new era of mega-terrorism that threatens the fabric of Western civilization? Why did EU governments, for many years prior to Arafatâs death, lend their support, including their financial support, to the Palestinian Authority and take advantage of every available opportunity to harshly criticize Israel? Why did it take so long for the EU to declare Hamas a terrorist organization, and why has it still not quite reached that point with Hezbollah? In the run-up to the Iraq war, why did âOld Europeâ strenuously oppose Americaâs determination to employ military force if Saddam Hussein didnât abide by the requirements of Security Council Resolution 1441? Why did millions of ordinary Europeans march in the streets to protest the looming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq? Why do these same people believe that the United States and Israel are the biggest threats to world peace?
Part 2. In the first installment of this series, I provided a taste of the advice that Kojeve gave to General de Gaulle in late August of 1945. Kojeveâs view of Franceâs position and predicament in the worldwide geopolitical landscape at the end of World War II was the framework from which his recommendations flowed. In this post, I examine his geopolitical thinking. It will be shown that, with two notable exceptions, Kojeveâs ideas regarding the general contours of the post-war world were remarkably prescient and have been guiding lights in French foreign policy, up to and including the present day.
Part 3.This installment of âThe EU and the Arabsâ provides the connecting link between the ideas and policies set forth in 1945 by Kojeve in his advocacy of a French-led âLatin Empireâ and the institutionalization of the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) in 1973. The objective of this post is to trace and understand the radical transformation of Franceâs Middle East foreign policy that took place after Charles de Gaulle ascended to the presidency of the new Fifth Republic in 1958. I will show that the tipping point in Franceâs foreign policy â from pro-Israeli to pro-Arab â was de Gaulleâs granting of independence to Algeria in 1962.
Part 4. Unlike previous installments of this series, this one deals with the events of only one year: from the fall of 1973 to the fall of 1974. During this period, the Arabs and the Israelis fought another war (the Yom Kippur War), OPEC quadrupled the price of oil, and the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) was formally established. With the EADâs formation, European Union (EU) and American policies vis-Ã -vis the Middle East sharply and permanently diverged, with the former seeking to heighten the stature and influence of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the latter opposing it.
Part 5. Among European states, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg were the most prominent proponents of the EAD. Also among these states, the French was the first to support the long-standing Arab demand that the PLO, which was well-represented at the meeting, participate in any negotiations regarding Israel. It was at this time that the French began pressing for international recognition of a Palestinian state.
George W. Bush entered the White House preaching "compassionate conservatism," but he may leave known for cynical conservatism. By this, I don't mean that his presidency will fail. The judgment of history, I suspect, will rest heavily on the outcomes of the struggle against terrorism and the war in Iraq, subjects about which I know no more than ordinary readers. For all the administration's miscalculations and setbacks, the ultimate results could still be more good than bad. But compassionate conservatism was never about foreign policy. It purported to be a new approach to governing at home that blended traditional values and modern sensibilities.
As a political pitch, it aimed to create a permanent Republican majority by convincing millions of centrists that conservatives had souls and that Bush himself was a new breed of moderate -- all the while without frightening the conservative Republican "base." As a governing philosophy, it suggested that Bush could pursue the goals of modern liberalism, helping the poor and promoting social justice, without forsaking the values of modern conservatism -- including individual responsibility and disciplined government. There was always an ambiguity about this brilliant phrase. Is compassionate conservatism (a) a genuine governing philosophy or (b) merely a clever sound bite?
Five years later, we know that the answer is (b). There is no obvious agenda that a successor could claim to follow as, for example, Lyndon Johnson claimed the Great Society followed the New Deal. In practice, Bush has taken the most self-serving aspect of modern liberalism (its instinct to buy public support with massive government handouts) and fused it with the most self-serving aspect of modern conservatism (its instinct to buy support with massive tax cuts).
To be fair, Bush has made some legitimate efforts to define compassionate conservatism. The No Child Left Behind Act is one. It tries, through standardized tests and achievement benchmarks, to make schools, teachers, principals and students more responsible for their own performance. The goals are difficult to achieve for many reasons: the fact that public K-12 education is mostly a state and local responsibility; the reality that learning depends on many factors beyond government control (family, innate ability, popular culture); the difficulty in crafting mass standards that are fair and appropriate for all students. Still, the experiment is worth undertaking. The same might be said for Bush's effort to enlist "faith-based" organizations in public anti-poverty campaigns, though it, too, is fraught with practical and philosophical problems.
But these programs are sideshows. "Compassion" for Bush has consisted mostly of distributing new benefits to large constituencies in the hope of purchasing their gratitude and support. He persuaded the Republican Congress (albeit with vigorous arm-twisting) to enact a Medicare drug benefit, the biggest new social program since the Great Society. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost at $851 billion from 2005 to 2015. Bush proposed not a penny of taxes to cover these immense outlays, which will continue rising after 2015. Next, he advocated "individual investment accounts" for Social Security -- a program designed to win the allegiance of younger voters by assuring them of future Social Security benefits. From 2009 to 2015, the cost could reach nearly $1 trillion, says the CBO. Bush proposed no tax increases for that either.
I think Bush's initial tax cuts were justified. Not only did he promise them in the 2000 campaign but their fortuitous timing helped prevent a deep recession. Recall all the economic threats: the popping of the stock and tech bubbles; corporate scandals; and Sept. 11. It was also inevitable that any sizable tax cut would be tilted toward the upper middle class and the wealthy, because they pay most taxes. In 2001 the wealthiest fifth of taxpayers (pretax incomes then exceeding $185,000) paid 65 percent of federal taxes, estimates the CBO; the top 1 percent (pretax incomes above $1,065,000) paid 23 percent. But as the economy revived, the tax cuts could be justified permanently only if gradually matched by spending cuts. Except in rhetoric, Bush has declined. It would seem "uncompassionate" to curtail benefits or programs, regardless of their value. Nor did he want to offend affluent supporters by trimming their tax cuts.
Spend more, tax less. That's a brazen political strategy, not a serious governing philosophy. A flimsy rationalization is that the resulting budget deficits don't immediately harm the economy. This is true. At present levels, the deficits are not as harmful as many critics contend. But note the paradox of using this as an excuse for jettisoning budget discipline. Bush has significantly raised present and future federal spending -- especially the exploding cost when baby boomers retire. Because that spending must ultimately be covered by larger deficits (which could be dangerous) or higher taxes (which could also harm the economy), the prospects for both have increased. A president who boasts of lower taxes is actually laying the groundwork for the opposite.
Now, with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, even Republican members of Congress say that borrowing should not pay for all the added costs. The White House agrees but scorns one obvious step, repealing the Medicare drug benefit (projected 2006-08 spending: $151 billion), that would make a big difference. The outlook is for tokenism. Just what conservative values Bush's approach embodies is unclear. He has not tried to purge government of ineffective or unneeded programs. He has not laid a foundation for permanent tax reductions. He has not been straightforward with the public. He has not shown a true regard for the future. He has mostly been expedient or, more pointedly, cynical. Some people live in a fantasy of their own design: Yes, you can have your cake and eat it too. Some live in reality, where bad shit happens that no one can predict, and you just have to deal with it as it comes. There is no MagiK and you can't wait for Good Timing. You just have to slog it out. And yes, George, Karl, et al, you'll have shitloads of little wankers with lockjaw attached to your ankles all the way. Will the solid grown-up folks outnumber the ponces and pooftas at the end? Well, given the whining and seething fair-weather wankers I see most everywhere I look, it's not looking good.
#1
Bush and republicans are in a difficult spot. They are in danger of suffering politically for failing to deal with the conservative part of compassionate conservatism. The thinking is now Bush's base may well stay home in 2006 to teach republicans a lesson about departing from conservatism.
#3
Pres Billary is the 2008 election. That's why dumb conservatives may sit out 2006 to teach Bush, soon to fade into history and irrelevance, a lesson for the last two years of his administration.
#4
Ah, true OE - I misspoke. Of course, losing the margins in the House and Senate will be disastrous, as well, but we don't want to spoil a good old-fashioned three yr old tantrum with reality.
#5
As a conservative who is sometimes cynical (as opposed the the article's cynical conservatism), I am convinced that the Democrats are blackmailing Bush into this spending. They won't support the WoT unless he funds their pet programs. I don't think that any of the shrill anti-war talk has anything to do with principled opposition to the war. Every time Bush and the Republicans try to make a stand on a budget issue, the anti-war rhetoric rises to a higher level and they back down. I pity Bush. He's fighting a war for civilization and he can't publicly identify the enemy lest the opposition accuse him of racism. He can't get the funding he needs for it without getting blackmailed by the same opposition. My worry: One day, the same electorate that allowed all of this to pass -- ignoring all of the stupidity and corruption while contemplating the latest pop tart's navel -- will wake up when things really get bad and cry out for a strongman to save us all. Caesar is always an invited guest.
#8
I am convinced that the Democrats are blackmailing Bush into this spending. They won't support the WoT unless he funds their pet programs.
The problem with this theory -- and believe me, I'd like to think it's true -- is that we're getting the spending but NOT getting the support for the WoT.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/05/2005 9:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Whine, whine, whine. Even if it is a good thing Bush has done, why, it's still going to be difficult and only time will tell.
And the Dems have never bought votes? Well, not the dead ones, of course.
That is what democracy is about, after all. Bush bought my vote by leading the war on terror (and other things). Dems buy votes by taking poor folks to the polls. Even outstanding representation of voter groups is a way of "buying" votes.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/05/2005 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
C'mon folks. Spending today by the Feds is at about 19.6% of GDP. Under Reagan it was 21%. Bush would have to push the budget up by a couple hundred billion dollars to get close to Ronnie.
Not that the MSM or the Dems will ever tell you this.
The conservatives who are kvetching right now need a) a chill pill and b) a vigorous facial slap ("thanks, I needed that!"). Spending is NOT out of control, Miers is NOT a weak USSC nominee, the WoT is NOT grinding to an ignominous halt, and cats and dogs are NOT living in sin.
Criminy folks, conservatives are supposed to be good at thinking long-term. Let's start acting like it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/05/2005 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Aw Steve, why d'ya have to go and throw cold water on a perfectly good pity party?
#12
All agreed, Steve. Big picture (% of GDP) we're not in the mess we were after the hangover of the 60's/70's. That being said, as a conservative who is cynical ("Trust, but verify"), I'd argue that doesn't excuse the ENORMOUS increases in spending we've seen from Dubya. Increased spending (outside of spending on the WoT) and the border issue are the 2 things that Dubya better begin paying attention to before his true conservative base does desert him. I could totally see the true Republicans on the Judicial committee voting against Ms. Miers (heck, personally, I do trust Bush to get the job done on the judges), exactly because she doesn't have a track record. I can think of many more qualified people to become judges whose names have already been thrown around. And, too many of these secretive judges have been nominated before by Repubs to become complete disappointments to conservatives after taking the Prez's word to "trust me on this one." Me? I would've elevated Scalia or Thomas to Chief Justice and nominated Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown to fill O'Conner's spot (if you really needed a woman). Heck, I might've just nominated Ann Coulter just to watch Teddy Kennedy's big head explode!
Posted by: BA ||
10/05/2005 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Reagan was spending to build a military shattered by Johnson, Nixon and Carter to defeat the Soviet Union. Bush is trying to defeat the terrorists with Clinton's military and Intelligence services. If the spending was for that, no problem. But he's wasting the money. And the bill for elderdrugs hasn't arrived yet. But the tax cuts get automatically repealed, so I guess that will take care of everything.
Bush spends like a drunken sailor and thinks veto is a four letter word. Well, I guess it is. but he still needs to stop spending my money like I have a lot more.
No. Your Republican Senators and Representatives are wasting money. How many have quickly come forward with their own Porkbusters list of home town spending that can be deferred? Tap, tap, tap. The meter is not broke.
#15
Steve, the 1.4% GDP difference (and more) is accounted by the difference in military spending. During the Reagan years, military spending averaged 6% of GDP, today with a war on, it is 4.0% and in 2000 it was 3.0% of GDP. Tack in differences in intelligence and DOE spending and gap widens even more.
Posted by: ed ||
10/05/2005 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
(original material) This winter, the flu season will come as it usually does, and most likely with a typical mild flu strain, not the avian flu. There will also be many strains of winter colds about. Thus, it represents a "dry run" of the avian flu that can be very educational.
If you typically get the flu or colds when they comes around, it might be a good time to reevaluate *how* you catch the disease, and try to avoid catching it this year by modifying your behavior. If you succeed, consider it a good sign that you are at lower risk of catching the avian flu.
If you *do* catch a cold or the flu, consider it your final warning.
When the flu comes, and it will, past a doubt, several things not directly related to the disease will figure into how it affects us. First among these variables is stupidity.
America is an underpopulated country. It is also remarkably hygienic. It is also very educated and very educatable. When new information is made available, it is quickly disseminated.
In other words, when prepared it shouldn't suffer very many casualties at all from a disaster like the influenza.
Countering all of this is stupidity. Individuals who are so arrogant, stubborn, superstitious, undisciplined, and immature that they will get sick despite the best efforts of others to save their lives.
The ability of Americans to adapt, escape, evade, and counter disaster was just demonstrated by hurricane Katrina. But there were those adamantly *refused* to take themselves, or allow themselves to be taken, out of harm's way. And, importantly, in doing so they willingly not only risked their own lives, but the lives of others who tried to save them.
Katrina only demonstrated one kind of stupidity, however. The influenza will demostrate other, different kinds.
One of the first groups of people who will voluntarily expose themselves to the disease is classical. People who cluster together and hope to pray the disease away. But this number can be expanded to any group whose members cannot overcome their instinctual desire for "defense in numbers". People who cannot stand to be physically apart from their community, from groups of people.
Those who are involuntarily forced to cluster together, such as prisoners and soldiers, also suffer terrible losses, but this is not directly their fault.
A second group are those individuals who refuse to modify their "lifestyle" to fit changing circumstances. People so stubborn in their routines that they unneccesarily expose themselves and others to the disease. Unwilling to stay away from work when there are sick people around, they also come in to work when they themselves are sick. They refuse to modify their behavior even when advised to do so by knowledgeable authorities.
Lifestyles are complex, and in many people it takes a drastic shock to force them to reevaluate almost everything that they do, to discard 90% of their ordinary day solely to protect their life. They become automatons.
A third, much smaller group are those who generally understand the problem, but whose responses to it are wildly inappropriate. For example, Americans can be very independent-minded, and many might try to "run" a quarantine checkpoint past armed guards. Others might become anti-social to the point of violence, to protect themselves and their families. Others may panic and do irrational acts, such as burning down a "plague house".
Others insist on wanting to "help", with no training or professional expertise, inserting themselves in situations where the best they can do is spread the illness.
But all of these are extreme examples of bad behaviors in the middle of a disease disaster. There is nothing that can be done about them ahead of time, and those who engage in this behavior offer themselves up to the sickness when the time is ripe.
Several times now, I've listed means by which an individual can sensibly avoid catching the disease itself, the most important of which is sanitizing the hands with an alcohol-based hand sanitizer when out in public or around those who are.
If any of you who read this take to carrying around a small bottle with you, using it on your hands, door knobs, grocery store carts, and things like that, please note if you make it through the winter without illness.
Let's say you and 4 friends have been playing pick-up basketball with another 5 guys for a while. The games are pretty evenly matched and as a general rule, one team is as likely to win as the other.
Well, you and the other team place a huge bet on your game next Saturday: $5000 a head goes to the winning team. Everybody on the team is jazzed up, everybody is talking about it and suddenly you catch an incredible, once in a lifetime break. One of the regular players on your team won't be able to make it and according to rules everyone agreed on, you get anyone you want as a replacement.
The reason that's such good news is that one of the guys on your team actually works for the NBA and he knows lots of pro-basketball players who have all agreed to fill in if he asks. Suddenly, everybody on the team is debating whom they want to play on Saturday. Would the team be better off with Jermaine O'Neal or Allen Iverson? Would it better to have LeBron James or Tim Duncan? Yao Ming or Ben Wallace?
So everyone is on Cloud 9, waiting for the coach to come back with his selection and he chooses....Tom, whom he plays basketball with in his back yard. Mouths drop open, people start to curse, everyone is disappointed and Coach W. says: "Don't worry, I've seen Tom play and he'll be a great addition to the team."
This blows everyone's mind. With so much on the line and so many great players waiting in the wings, why in the world would the coach select his buddy Tom? To this, the coach says: "Trust me, Tom will be fantastic! You'll love him! See you on Saturday."
This is where we are on the Miers nomination, except the stakes are infinitely higher. We have a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court on the line, a large number of extremely well qualified judges with great track records ready to go, and Bush is picking a pal and telling us to trust his judgement. Of course, if he had great judgement, he would have never picked Miers for the position in the first place.
But, as some Bush defenders are pointing out, Miers may do just fine on the Supreme Court. Agreed. But given the extreme paucity of her track record, it's also entirely possible that she will turn out to be another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, or even a David Souter. That's the problem.
We have 55 Republicans in the Senate, a President who has been promising for years to appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas to the bench, and now, when the stakes are the highest, conservatives are being presented with a woman who is essentially a coin flip: heads we win, tails we lose. That's just not good enough under the circumstances...
That counts the RINOs and those with a record of cold feet. The unfortunate fact the hard core is unwilling to recognize. You're not going to be able to change those any time soon. Not backing a RINO means the Dems get the seat, its the nature of the constituency base in the states.
#3
And a lot of moderates who voted for Bush are fed up with the hardcore on the right as much as on the left.
I'm sick of people who want an ideological bloodbath in this country. We are facing massive dangers over the next decade+ -- forget about Iraq and al Qaeda and look at the conversions to Islam among the far left revolutionary leaders in the countries to our south. And that's only the terror threat.
And the hard right would rather start an ideology bloodbath than help this president hold the country together and keep pursuing the GWOT -- which is what the Miers nomination is all about: protecting the Patriot Act, keeping Gitmo open etc.
Idiots. Damaging, dangerous, infantile, STUPID idiots, to be precise.
IMO of course.
Posted by: Fed Up ||
10/05/2005 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The sports analogy is even more painful when you realize that Bush's sports legacy is trading away Sammy Sosa.
London Arabic Daily: The World is Closely Watching Us Due to Western Institutions Specializing in Translating Arab Media That would be Memri; The Problem Lies in What We Say
In an article titled "The World is Closely Watching" columnist Diana Mukkaled of the London Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat [1] wrote about the recent controversy surrounding the BBC Panorama program on extremist Muslims in London. The producers of the program were assisted by MEMRI.
The following are excerpts from the article:
"The members of the Muslim Council of Britain were outraged at the BBC after the broadcasting of the popular program, ''Panorama'' last week which tackled the failure of the council in its supervision of 400 mosques and Muslim organizations in Britain to curb extremists. The ''Panorama'' special dealt with interviews with Islamic leaders in Britain who expressed their support for suicide operations against Israeli civilians yet condemned the London attacks. The episode also discussed the Islamic view of Christians, Jews and Hindus and the reality that some Muslims consider members of other religions as atheists.
"The BBC program was full of questions that preoccupy Europe today, who are the enemies living among us, why do they label others as infidels and why do they hate us? âŠ
"What was interesting about this particular Panorama episode was the battle between the journalist John Ware and British Muslim leaders concerning their viewpoints of suicide operations and non-Muslims⊠The same familiar face frequently features on our Arab screens. There remains the belief that "We are the believers and the people of paradise and they are the unbelievers and the people of hell". Such is a language that is present on a daily basis and hardly any [Arab] broadcasting channels are free of such dispute. Yet within the minds of those who propagate these acts, lies the belief that the world will not heed their message when repeated in Arabic on Arab broadcasting channels.
"These very people, however, will use different terminology when speaking in English on foreign television networks.
"For this reason, when they are confronted with what they have previously argued in Arabic, they seem confused and frantically search for other arguments, which was exactly the case on the Panorama special.
"However, the world is closely watching. There are western institutions that specialize in translating material that is used by all forms of Arab media. The majority of programs are recorded and later broadcasted, therefore when a Muslim cleric features on some broadcasting channel referring to Jews as "grandchildren of monkeys and pigs," it is inevitable that such words will reach millions of people around the world. Such a portrayal of these extremist attitudes causes the Muslim and Arab immigrants and their children in the west to pay the price for such words.
"The accusations that British Muslims have made against the BBC of having a Zionist agenda are easily refutable in comparison to the statements made by Muslim leaders themselves. The problem does not lie in what the BBC said, but rather in what we say."
#1
Give that man a cluebat! We are listening, and we hear you hating us and demanding our death or conversion. Arabs are going to be doomed to a perminate third world country status if they don't shape up. We are going to develop alternitive fuels if you keep pissing us off and then you can just drown on all that worthless oil you have.
#2
A Moderate Muzzy! Wow! Quick! Cast her in amber, lest she be lost!
Re; the BBC "gotcha" piece on Panorama, sometimes it's just too juicy, just too tempting, thus too good to pass up, it seems. They revert to form immediately afterwards - if it's not their precious asses in London on the line.
#3
God Bless Panorama - the Beeb do occasionally get it right. Watching the supposed moderates (Sacranie et al) being confronted with translations of their extremist comments made in arabic to arabic media was worth a year's TV licence fee in itself... showed us just who we're dealing with.. a bunch of Nazis. Ship em out...
Posted by: Howard UK ||
10/05/2005 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Heh, H, are they stricken from the "A" list for awhile when they do things like this?
#7
Why does this come across like the Dem's own comments that all they have to do is "find the right message" in order to return to power and not seek real self-examination and change? The echo of Dean.
#8
Why the English are just so happy to bend over backwards for their muslim brothers. The consistent degenerate left culture will soothe the always ruffled feathers of arab carrion. Been to Londonistan lately?
#9
The episode also discussed the Islamic view of Christians, Jews and Hindus and the reality that some Muslims consider members of other religions as atheists.
I'll go ya one further, there Beeb. Being a Christian, I believe all other religions are atheistic at the core. That's not exactly a "Got Ya" moment there. However, the BIG difference, is the reaction to that belief. All the other religions go about trying to convert them to their religion, but the moose limbs go out and just kill ya if you don't convert! BIG difference in my mind!
Posted by: BA ||
10/05/2005 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#10
hodiak47, the reason was apparent as early as the late 70's: in London, the moderately priced restaurants had menus in English; the expensive restaurants had menus in English and Arabic; the really expensive restaurants had menus in Arabic.
#11
Slipspeak for the non-arab audience is a well honed skill among the talking heads of the ummah unless they get caught on tape while emboldened or enraged at which point it comes out really weird and particularly hateful. The problem is not what they are saying, the problem is what they are.
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.
