"Muslims Stage Demo Outside Police Station," from Life Style Extra, with thanks to Ponche:
Islamic supporters of six Muslims arrested in London earlier this week today staged a rowdy demonstration outside the top security police station where they are being held.
Dozens of angry demonstrators branded Tony Blair a "terrorist" while carrying banners stating "Sharia Law - the future, free our Muslim brothers" and "Crusade against Islam".
More than 100 Muslim men, women and children gathered outside Paddington Green Police Station in west London where the six suspected Islamic extremists - including firebrand Abu Izzadeen - are being detained on suspicion of inciting terrorism and raising funds for terrorism.
The group, dressed in traditional Muslim clothes including veils, chanted in Arabic: "God is the greatest! There is only one God, Allah, and Mohammed is the final messenger of Allah!"
Around a dozen uniformed police barricaded the demonstrators inside barriers to keep them away from the main entrance of the police station, but there were no arrests during the one hour demo....
The organiser of the rally Sayful Islam, aged in his late 20s, said he was attending the rally because he was "very close" to Rajid Khan, who was arrested in Luton.
Mr Islam, who was born in Britain and also lived in Luton, said: "As Muslims we cannot remain silent when we see this oppression. This oppression is in the form of a war against Islam. We have to speak out.
"Thousands of Muslims have been arrested and there have only been a handful of charges.
"It is scaring the Muslim community from coming out and speaking about Islam."
He would only be happy when Sharia law was introduced "all over the world".
Mr Islam said: "We definitely want to see Sharia law in place here. We want to see it implemented for everyone. Only then will there be harmony and there will be peace and justice amongst mankind."...
Unless you happen to be a woman or a non-Muslim.
Later on in the article, someone else says:
"We have a very good economic system that will deal with homelessness in this country. In Palestine, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived peacefully for over 500 years under Shariah law."
As long as the Jews and Christians knew their place and didn't make waves.
#1
Just one more reason to declare sharia a violation of human rights and ban its practice plus any advocacy of it throughout the West. There is simply no way possible to make sharia compatible with constitutional law. With that as a given, why is it so difficult to enact legislation that prohibits agitation for imposition of this Neanderthal code? Just because it arises out of some putative religion does not sanctify the hideous nature of its barbarity and mistreatment of women. Why is the West so gunshy about finally declaring this savagery to be unsuitable in all respects and start slapping down the fascist turds who rally to this worthless cause?
#2
Why can't someone get off their lazy ass and utilize the supreme opportunity to bind and gag these Islamonuts when they present themselves. Dispose of quietly later.
#3
REDSTATE/FREEREPUBLIC > TOP HAMAS OFFICIAL [Sudan mosque] > KILL ALL AMERICANS AND JEWS ... TO THE VERY LAST ONE. Basically arguing that one should NOT fear war or slaughter becuz ISLAM WILL SURVIVE WHILE AMER + ISRAEL/JEWS WON'T.
#6
Wikipedia says: "Sharia deals with all aspects of day-to-day life, including politics, economics, banking, business law, contract law, sexuality, and social issues."
How can there be any loyalty to the country in which the muzzies live if their allegiance is to their religion first. Moreover, the religion wants Sharia law as the law of the land. The law also specifies stoning to death for various offenses such as adultery. Death is also specified for offenses that are in the West a matter of conscious.
Outlaw Sharia law as subversive and a threat to human rights. It is the right thing to do. Freedom of religion in democracies has become the door which these subversives enter.
#8
Mebbe they should deal w/the homelessness in the Majik Kingdom first.
I'd much rather "deal with" the cleaning up of radioactive particles around oil facilities after nuking Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh - with the largest weapons we can create. We will either have i-slam or individual freedom. i-slam will not allow any other alternatives.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/02/2007 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#9
tu3031: I think we should hear more about this "axes in foreheads" plan. It sounds like an exciting opportunity for inter-cultural communication. Plus, I have an excuse to buy a new ax.
#12
Outlaw Sharia law as subversive and a threat to human rights. It is the right thing to do. Freedom of religion in democracies has become the door which these subversives enter.
Glad to see you're on board with this, JohnQC. That so many human rights groups remain conspicuously silent about this flagrant crime against humanity speaks volumes. Eventully, they must either side against sharia or find themselves totally discredited.
Although there are many decent people in the United States who happen to be Muslim, the ruthless self-obsession and stunning narcissism that CAIR embodies is simply too prevalent in the Muslim world for anyone to pretend that it is unrelated to the religion itself. The history of Islam, in fact, is an unrelenting drive for political and cultural dominance by means of deception and aggression, with little regard for those outside the faith.
The truth is that Islam is not like other religions. Neither does it afford full humanity to non-believers as other religions do.
The executive leadership of CAIR, for example, is composed predominately of first-generation Muslim immigrants to America who hypocritically believe that Americans have no place in Muslim lands, even to the extent that they refuse to denounce the murder of Americas sons and daughters in uniform by the Mujahideen overseas.
America is a tolerant country, and should remain so. But absolute tolerance is ultimately suicidal, particularly with a religion that rarely reciprocates and has never been known to give back what it takes without bloodshed and heartache. If Americans expect to leave the freedom and values they enjoy to future generations, then they must cease making concessions to the imperialists of Islam, who have nothing more than their own interest at heart.
So the entire Democratic caucus in the United States Senate 50 senators has sent a letter to the Washington Post attacking the dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, for a column in which Mr. Broder dared to criticize their leader for his preemptive surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. "We, the members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, contest the attack on Sen. Harry Reid's leadership by David S. Broder in his April 26 column," the letter says. "In contrast to Mr. Broder's insinuations, we believe Mr. Reid is an extraordinary leader who has effectively guided the new Democratic majority through these first few months with skill and aplomb."
Mr. Broder's offense? The Pulitzer-prize winning columnist and reporter, 77, wrote a column criticizing the Democratic leader in the Senate, Mr. Reid, for Mr. Reid's comment that the Iraq war "is lost." Mr. Reid, Mr. Broder wrote "is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth. In 2005, he attacked Alan Greenspan, then chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, as one of the biggest political hacks we have here in Washington.'" Wrote Mr. Broder, " Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake." The New York Sun publishes the column today on the adjacent page.
For this Mr. Broder won a rebuke not only from the senators but from the New York Times's Frank Rich, who ridiculed Mr. Broder in his column Sunday and who defended as "obvious" Mr. Reid's assessment that the war is lost. The episode illuminates how thin-skinned and intolerant the left is in this country of a press corps that is anything less than completely pliant. It began with the Democratic presidential candidates refusing to participate in a presidential debate that would be aired on the Fox News Channel, a network so reflexively right-wing that its regular paid contributors include Michael Dukakis's campaign manager Susan Estrich, National Public Radio's Mara Liasson, and the 2006 Democratic candidate for Senate in Tennessee, Harold Ford Jr. First they came for Fox News Channel, then they came for David Broder.
One starts to get the feeling here that some of the divides in the rift between Mr. Broder and the Democratic caucus are not so much political but cultural. The chairman of the Washington Post Company, Donald Graham, served in Vietnam, and Mr. Broder himself is an army veteran. The notion of a Washington politician declaring a war lost even as American GIs are appearing in arms on the field of battle in the cause of freedom abroad, well it has a way of grating on those who have worn the uniform, a fact that many of Mr. Broder's readers, if not the 50 senators, understand.
#1
The notion of a Washington politician declaring a war lost even as American GIs are appearing in arms on the field of battle in the cause of freedom abroad, well it has a way of grating on those who have worn the uniform, a fact that many of Mr. Broder's readers, if not the 50 senators, understand.
I sure hope that's correct. It sure resonates with me!
Even though I didn't serve, but my baby boy did.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/02/2007 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Fred ||
05/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tenet knows how the kiss-up and kiss-down game is played. And, for a rather mediocre man, he did well enough out of the arrangement while it lasted.
Hitchens is a master. The entire article is death by a thousand rapier slashes...
#2
I'd like to recuse myself (with better results than Wolfowitz is having) first: I've known George for a long time, saw much evidence that far from being a Beltway back-stabber he had decent instincts and a lot of real human passion for doing the job right (in contrast to many of his Clinton-admin. colleagues).
Having said that, and leaving aside that the 60 Minutes performance was probably regrettable - and that it seriously misled folks about the contents of the book, which contains mostly solid if familiar vindication for US policy on almost all key Iraq issues - I have a separate problem.
Did this book have to be written, now? I may well be in the dark about his phenomenon, as I tend to never read or pay attention to this genre, but does EVERY senior official write a book after they leave office? How many DCIs have done it? Turner, Gates - I can't think of any others. And unless, again, I'm in the dark on this, I don't believe either of them waded directly into issues du jour.
It's the self-directed nature of the whole thing that bugs me. Fer crissakes, could a senior national security official just leave office and be thankful for their opportunity to serve, and have the confidence, thick skin, and perspective to live with the unfair brickbats that come with the duty?
What I would have liked to see George do (he may yet) instead of a book defending himself is get out and give the educational lecture the administration has failed to deliver. The concept of pre-emption is simple common sense, and most people get it, even now. But Dubya has paradoxically damaged US political will in this respect by refusing to stay in the game after the fall of Baghdad and the non-discovery of WMD stocks.
Apparently George actually states what the administration, under a non-stop tsunami of slander and distortion (that goes on to this day), has never bothered to point out: Iraq was about post-9/11 risk tolerance, not "imminence" of a threat.
But the key point that leaps out of this goes unsaid: intelligence is ALWAYS uncertain, ALWAYS limited, OFTEN completely wrong, and this on occasion REQUIRES pre-emption, it doesn't invalidate it. Coming from George, at this point, a key element here would too easily be labeled special pleading - but it wouldn't be.
Bush and his cronies had the guts and vision to actually implement a pre-emption action that carried great risks. Yet they have lacked the patience, attention, or something to stay with the project, and explain to the public that until the mass-casualty terrorist threat is squelched, the precentage move may sometimes be to act on what will surely be imperfect intelligence. It parallels, sadly and perfectly, their other failures, notably the situation where they rightly UPHOLD the Geneva Conventions yet refuse to smack down the illiterate slander that they've trashed them.
I just finished reading a book called Every Man A Tiger. It was written by Tom Clancy and retired General Chuck Horner. It was about the air war during the first Gulf War. Horner was the guy who ran the air war.
The first part of the book gives some background on Horner. He was a fighter pilot in the Viet Nam War. Like most of the fighter pilots he was pissed about how the war was run. Y'see, we were trying to be the good guys and practice gradual escalation to try to convince North Viet Nam to butt out. As such, the pilots weren't allowed to take out the North Vietnamese airbases. They also weren't allowed to take out the first SAM sites. Needless to say, this pissed our guys off since this kept us from having air superiority and caused more planes to be shot down than should have been. Horner vowed this would never happen if and when he ran an air war. It didn't. If you remember in the first Gulf War, we took out the airbases, SAM sites, and shot down all the Iraqi fighters that tried to fight us. Many of them escaped to Iran, who still has those planes. We owned the sky over Iraq.
During Viet Nam, Horner also stated that if a fighter pilot happened to have a target near an airbase, they occasionally "missed" their target and "accidentally" bombed a runway or two.
Near the end of the war, when we were pulling out, Horner had a conversation with a South Vietnamese fighter pilot. We had promised South Viet Nam two squadrons of F4's. He asked Horner, "We're not getting those F4's are we?" The Dimocrats had cut funding. This was an act of betrayal by the United States. Horner remembered this.
He also remembered the humanitarian disaster that resulted by our betrayal of South Viet Nam. The North violated the peace treaty. Shortly thereafter, Saigon fell. Then we had the boat people. The reeducation camps. Millions of people disappeared. The Killing Fields in Cambodia. Much of that resulted from the betrayal of the United States.
Fast forward to Gulf War I. After we had thrown Saddam out of Kuwait, we encouraged the Shi'ites in the south to revolt. Unfortunately, we didn't offer them any support and Saddam crushed them. Another betrayal by the United States. I blame Bush pere for this. See, I can lambast Republicans. Unfortunately, he wasn't much of a Republican. "Read my lips! No new taxes." He then cut a deal with Congress for tax increases if they would cut spending. Just as during the Reagan adminisration, when the Dims said they were gonna cut spending, they always reneged on the deal.
But I digress.
Horner remembered Viet Nam and the American betrayal. Here is what he wrote on page 99, right after he explained how sometimes they bombed an airfield in North Viet Nam.
What good did any of that do? I learned something. I learned that you could not trust America. And I tell my Arab friends that as I point out to them that the once-upon-a time capital of the last nation to put complete faith in American military might is now called Ho Chi Minh City.
And now we see it again. We have freed Iraq. Their new gummint has put faith in us, but we are gonna cut and run. We'll see another act of betrayal and just like the Dimocrats did when we betrayed South Viet Nam, they'll rejoice when we betry Iraq. The humanitarian disaster that will strike when we leave will no more bother them than the humanitarian disaster that struck when we left South Viet Nam.
This is why I hate Dimocrats. They are the party of betrayal
Retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert Buzz Patterson is author of the upcoming book War Crimes: The Lefts Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Crown Forum, June). As the president prepares to veto Congresss timetabled war-funding bill, Lt. Col. Patterson took some questions from NRO editor Kathryn Lopez about the Democratic congressional majority, war reporting, and more.
Read it all. The man makes sense.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/02/2007 13:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yup. And I don't think he's overstating any of it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/02/2007 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
He shore dint pull no punches, did he?
I think he wrote a book about serving in the Clinton White House. I might have even read it - about two years ago?
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/02/2007 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yup. Dereliction of Duty.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/02/2007 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Great interview. Patterson kept the interview on topic and on target. Now if the Administration could get at least half the points that he brought up, something could get done.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/02/2007 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dereliction of Duty turned my mom from flower-power hippie to kill-em-all conservative overnight. Another soul saved. :)
WHEN the civilian hierarchy fails them, soldiers tend to seek solace in Clausewitzs observation that war is an extension of politics. But in 2005 and 2006 the reverse was true in Iraq: the battle churned in place, steadily eroding the administrations credibility and Americas psyche, while most politicians stood on the sidelines, content to hurl insults at one another until the battlefield offered a clear political course.
What was most remarkable, however, was the militarys inability to grab the reins and articulate a realistic war plan for Iraq. At home, recruiting, supply and deployment crises were solved; but in Iraq the generals continued to offer assessments of the fight that were as obviously inaccurate as those trumpeted by the politicians. The goal was to put Iraqi forces in the lead, but as a consequence, large-scale battlefield adaptation was scarce.
Today the civil-military relationship has righted itself, yet soldiers like me who believe that Iraq can be stabilized face a bitter irony. On one hand, the military is finally making meaningful adjustments to the complex fight. On the other, the politicians are finally asserting themselves. The tragedy is that the two groups are going in opposite directions.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/02/2007 00:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the New York Times, no less!
Well, one in a 1000 is a kind of "balance".
For them.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/02/2007 5:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ted Koppel (!!!) had a longish opinion piece on NPR (!!!!!) yesterday during the drive time segment. He argued that the Democrats are being really stupid and short sighted, setting themselves up to own all subsequent problems, regardless which way it goes or what Bush does. I don't normally push NPR or Ted Koppel, but you really want to listen to this one. I'm surprised there weren't reports of massive car pile-ups on highways across the nation, from Progressive brains melting down at being forced to hear that what they really ought to do is openly hope for a Bush win in Iraq, as the only way they'll be able to get their disengagement. It's the most comforting 3 minutes I've had in a while.
#3
Thanks, TW ("listening to National Palestinian Radio so we don't have to"). But sounds like Ted was, characteristically, pushing a tactical political line of argument. Nothing to do with national and strategic interest, much less integrity and a just cause. I'd expect no more from him or NPR.
Meanwhile, those who can think straight on national security really don't care about the political parties or personalities involved, they just want success and support for our efforts.
Your imagery of car crashes reminds me of the all-time NPR doozy that nearly caused me to drive off the road (it was late at night on an interstate, no traffic, and was actually NPR's broadcast of the BBC's first morning world news). I'll spare everyone the details, but it was hard to believe my ears.
#4
The problem, Verlaine, is that the two NPR stations here in Cincinnati play the music I like to hear while driving (although the trailing daughters have taken to snapping off the radio when I argue with it -- they seem to think that a dangerous behaviour).
I quite agree that Mr. Koppel's argument is self servingly (ie Democrat-servingly) political, rather than a statesmanlike understanding of the Armageddon fight the world is involved in. However, even if the Democrats and their far-left yapper contingent only understand that they're shooting themselves in the head by pushing for quick withdrawal -- and act on that shallow understanding -- the War on Jihadism would benefit from the fact that they weren't working so hard against it. Should they subsequently have the epiphany that led them to become Jackson Democrats -- glory hallelujah! But the epiphany isn't necessary, only that they shut up for a while.
They didn't know what the hell they were doing. That, in a nutshell, is the finding of an official Israeli investigation into the Jewish state's 32-day war against the terrorist group Hezbollah last summer.
Its key finding: Israel attacked Hezbollah's positions in Lebanon without any kind of plan for victory, even as its political leaders made grandiose claims about how they were going to destroy Hezbollah now and forever. The report released yesterday does not specifically draw the obvious conclusion, which is this: By talking so tough, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz ensured that Hezbollah would be the victor in the war. All it needed to do was simply continue to exist once the conflict ended and Israel would be defeated.
The report continues Israel's remarkable tradition of open inquiry following the nation's military disappointments. The 1983 investigation into the first Israeli war in Lebanon sidelined Ariel Sharon as a major political force for almost two decades. And the country's first major effort at self-examination, released in 1974 after Israel was caught by surprise when three of its neighbors launched the Yom Kippur War, ended up forcing the beloved Golda Meir to resign as prime minister - even though the report specifically exonerated her.
There's no exoneration to be found here for Israel's current prime minister, Ehud Olmert. Far from it. The commissioners specifically say that they chose to release some of their findings early because they were being used by Olmert as a way of avoiding necessary changes in the wake of the war. "Initially," they write, "we hoped that the appointment of the Commission [would] serve as an incentive to accelerate [change] . . . In some ways an opposite, and worrying, process emerged - a process of 'waiting' for the Commission's Report."
Therefore, they conclude, "we decided to publish . . . in the hope that the relevant bodies will act urgently to change and correct all that it implies." The "relevant bodies" here are the Israeli parliament and the voting public. The report's authors have set their laser-guided sights at Olmert's reputation and political career.
Consider: The report has three named targets. One of them is Dan Halutz, the army's chief of staff during the war. He resigned months ago. The second is Defense Minister Amir Peretz. He will be losing his job in the next few weeks anyway - because he is going to be removed as the leader of the Labor Party and will no longer be a minister in this government. Only Olmert is left standing.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
A must read---like everything by Steyn
On the day the Royal Navys hostages were released, I chanced to be reading a poem from Reflections On Islam, a terrific collection of essays by George Jonas. The verse is by Nizar Qabbani, and it is his ode to the intifada:
O mad people of Gaza,
a thousand greetings to the mad
The age of political reason
has long departed
so teach us madness
Or as the larky motto you used to find on the wall of the typing pool put it: You dont have to be crazy to work here but it helps. For the madness of the intifada and the jihad and Islamist imperialism is calculated, and highly effective. There is, as Jonas sees it, method in their madness.
Do you remember that little difficulty a few months back over the Popes indelicate quotation of Manuel II? Many Muslims were very upset about his speech (or his speech as reported on the BBC et al), so they protested outside Westminster Cathedral in London demanding capital punishment for the Pope, and they issued a fatwa in Pakistan calling on Muslims to kill His Holiness, and they firebombed a Greek Orthodox Church and an Anglican Church in Nablus, and they murdered a nun in Somalia and a couple of Christians in Iraq. As Tasnim Aslam of the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad helpfully clarified, Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence. So dont say were violent or well kill you. As I wrote in National Review at the time, quod erat demonstrandum.
But thats a debating society line. Islam isnt interested in winning the debate, its interested in winning the real fight the clash of civilizations, the war, society, culture, the whole magilla. Thats why it doesnt care about the inherent contradictions of the argument: in the Middle East early in 2002, I lost count of the number of Muslims I met who believed simultaneously (a) that 9/11 was pulled off by the Mossad and (b) that it was a great victory for Islam. Likewise, its no stretch to feel affronted at the implication that youre violently irrational and to threaten to murder anyone who says so. Western societies value logic because we value talk, and talks, and talking, on and on and on: thats pretty much all we do, to the point where, faced with any challenge from Darfur to the Iranian nuclear program, our objective is to reduce the issue to just something else to talk about interminably. But, if you dont prize debate and you merely want to win, getting hung up on logic is only going to get in your way. Take the most devastating rapier wit you know Oscar Wilde, Noel Coward and put him on a late-night subway train up against a psycho with a baseball bat. The withering putdown, the devastating aphorism will avail him nought.
The quality of your argument is only important if you want to win by persuasion. But its irrelevant if you want to win by intimidation. Im personally very happy to defend my columns in robust debate, but after five years Im a bit bored by having to respond to Muslim groups demands (in America) that I be fired and (in Canada) that I be brought before the totalitarian-lite kangaroo courts of the countrys ghastly human rights commissions. Publishers like hate-mail; theyre less keen on running up legal bills defending nuisance suits. So its easier just to avoid the subject as an Australian novelist recently discovered when his book on a, ah, certain topical theme was mysteriously canceled.
Thats the advantage of madness as a strategy. If one party to the dispute forswears sanity, then the obligation is on the other to be sane for both of them. Thus, if a bunch of Iranian pirates kidnap some British seamen in Iraqi waters, it is the British whom the world calls on to show restraint and to defuse the situation. If an obscure Danish newspaper prints some offensive cartoons and in reaction Muslims murder people around the planet, well, that just shows we all need to be more sensitive about Islamophobia. But, if Muslims blow up dozens of commuters on the London Underground and in reaction a minor talk-show host ventures some tentative remarks about whether Islam really is a religion of piece, well, that also shows we all need to be more sensitive about Islamophobia. Do this long enough and eventually youll achieve the exquisite sensitivity of the European Unions Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. In 2003, their report on the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe found that many anti-Semitic incidents were carried out by Muslim and pro-Palestinian groups, and so (according to The Daily Telegraph) a political decision was taken not to publish it because of fears that it would increase hostility towards Muslims.
Got that? The EUs principal fear about an actual ongoing epidemic of hate crimes against Jews is that it could hypothetically provoke an epidemic of hate crimes against Muslims.
And so the more the enemies of free society step on our feet the more we tiptoe around. After the release of the Royal Navy hostages, the Right Reverend Tom Burns, Roman Catholic Bishop of the Armed Forces, praised the Iranians for their forgiveness. Over the past two weeks, said the Bishop, there has been a unity of purpose between Britain and Iran, whereby everyone has sought justice and forgiveness.
Really? In what alternative universe is that? Maybe the insanity is contagious. As the columnist Jack Kelly wrote, The infidels Allah wishes to destroy, he first makes mad. And so these twin psychoses Islamist rage and our determination never to see it continue their valse macabre on the brink of catastrophe.
#1
The quality of your argument is only important if you want to win by persuasion.
Persuasion only works if there are negotiable terms. Islam's goals are non-negotiable, so persuasion is of absolutely no use. Yet, the West especially the EU continues to pretend that nuanced discussion and bargaining will achieve something.
When your enemy is dead set on taking over the entire world, only death serves as sufficient deterrent to such intentions. We are not dealing with a cerebrally hypertrophied cartoon lab mouse; we are in confrontation with people who eagerly seek nuclear weapons to use against us.
Thats the advantage of madness as a strategy. If one party to the dispute forswears sanity, then the obligation is on the other to be sane for both of them.
And it is through this exact strategy that Islam has managed to foist its housecleaning duties upon the West. Our sanity seemingly forbids the logical response to such shirking. Namely, to begin the wholesale attrition of our Islamic foe until they start assuming their fair share in the task of fighting jihadism.
Should they be so unwise as to neglect this obligation, we must not and cannot be so insane as to attempt what they themselves refuse. Only Islam and Muslims possess the ability to winnow through their own ranks and eject the radicals. We might as well try to sift out only the gray colored grains of sand from an entire beach sooner than cull Islam's jihadists.
If Islam forswears sanity, we must foreswear mercy. Such benign actions are only deserved by those who share a common interest in humanity's peaceful coexistence. Islam seeks nothing of the sort and deserves nothing of the sort in return.
#4
You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!
#5
By which I mean we have to stop relying on our governments to protect us. They have demonstrated they will not do so.
They kill a nun. Ten imams are killed. They desecrate a church. Ten mosques are burned. I am not advocating this, of course, because I assume it is illegal to do so. But I am stating a fact about the conclusions our own irrational population will make if the state puppets of our simpering elites no longer wish to defend themselves. The Swedes may allow their daughters to be raped. I cannot see Americans allowing it. And as for Canadians... we worship order. The Germans called our troops the Allies' SS because we were so thorough once we rolled up our sleeves.
#6
The time is coming where the tipping point is reached. Either for the west doing a full surrender, or accepting the fact that total war must be waged on Islam.
As if the summer war which left Lebanon in ruins, and the sit-in protest which left its economy in shambles, were not enough - Hezbollah is now targeting the presidency of the country, in another effort to destabilize it. Hezbollah now wants the next Lebanese President to adopt the so-called "memorandum of understanding" signed by Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and General Michel Aoun. In other words, the "Party of God" wants the next president to be another Hezbollah ally and to be pro-Syrian and pro-Iranian. "Hezbollah agrees on a president who is committed to the memorandum of understanding between it (Hezbollah) and Gen. Aoun," Hezbollah MP Mohammed Raad said in remarks published by the daily An Nahar on Tuesday.
The law states that the president is elected by an absolute majority of one half of the eligible votes + 1, but now Hezbollah want the president to be elected by a minimum of two thirds. "The national Opposition will deem any president who has not been elected by a two-thirds quorum as unconstitutional," Raad said. "Any unconstitutional act will mean total paralysis for six years," Raad warned.
Moreover, in yet another attempt to hijack the laws and rights of Lebanese citizens, Hezbollah is trying to change the rules of electing the president. The law states that the president is elected by an absolute majority of one half of the eligible votes + 1, but now Hezbollah want the president to be elected by a minimum of two thirds. "The national Opposition will deem any president who has not been elected by a two-thirds quorum as unconstitutional," Raad said. "Any unconstitutional act will mean total paralysis for six years," Raad warned.
What the Hezbollah member is saying is not in line with the constitution, but rather the same method used by Syrian president Bashar el-Assad in 2004, when he flexed his muscles as an occupier and forced a change in the constitution to allow for the extension of Lahouds terms. Hezbollah is trying to dictate the future of Lebanon using its arms as a source of power against the will of the Lebanese. Old dictatorial tricks that are known to all.
The Lebanese presidency is a Christian issue and Hezbollah has no business in interfering in internal Christian affairs. Hezbollah has already hijacked the rights of the Shiites, for which many leaders in the Shiite community are extremely bitter, but the Lebanese cannot standby and watch the militia hijack the rights of everyone else. The Christian leaders consult amongst themselves in coordination with Patriarch Sfeir to decide who will run and the parliament usually votes for the designated candidates. The candidate that achieves absolute majority wins, but if no one gets an absolute majority then, like what just happened in France, there will be a runoff for the 2 candidates that obtain the largest number of votes. Again here whoever achieves the absolute majority wins. No one talks about two thirds majority
Hezbollah has promised Aoun the presidency as his price for helping them destabilize the country and for keeping his mouth shut during the war, and now they have to deliver. But the Lebanese are clearly tired of both Aoun and Hezbollah, particularly following their attempted coup in January 2007 which nearly ignited a second civil war.
The parliament was freely elected by the people and the majority in the parliament should have the only say on who will be the next president. Hezbollah has to accept whoever the majority decides on. It is not Hezbollah's business to decide who should run and who should not.
When we heard yesterday that Hezbollah is reaching out and is ready for a settlement we thought great! Finally Hezbollah has put on its Lebanese hat and decided to end the destabilization of the country. But alas it took less than 24 hours to change the dream into another nightmare. Time for Lebanon to tell Hezbollah - Buzz off Time to tell Hezbollah "pack up and leave downtown and go back home, enough damage done and you have overstayed your welcome." Time to tell Hezbollah "you had your chances in shaping the future of the country but you miscalculated badly and left it in ruins."
Posted by: Fred ||
05/02/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hezbollah adds Lebanon presidency to its demands
"If today's Arab anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish propaganda strongly resembles that of the Third Reich, there is a good reason." So writes Joel Fishman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in "The Big Lie and the Media War against Israel," an insightful piece of historical research.
Fishman begins by noting the topsy-turvy situation whereby Israel is perceived as a dangerous predator as it defends its citizens against terrorism, conventional warfare, and weapons of mass destruction.
A 2003 survey, for instance, found Europeans seeing Israel as "the greatest threat" to world peace. How did this insane inversion of reality - the Middle East's only fully free and democratic country seen as the leading global menace - come to be?
Fishman's answer revisits World War I, which is not a surprise, as post-cold war analysts increasingly recognize the extent to which Europe lives still under the shadow of that disaster, whether in its renewed policy of appeasement or its attitudes towards its own culture. Back then, the British government first exploited advances in mass media and advertising to target both the enemy's and its own civilian populations, hoping to shape their thinking.
The Central Powers' publics heard messages designed to undermine support for their governments, while Entente publics were fed news reports about atrocities, some of them false. Notably, the British authorities claimed that Imperial Germany had a "Corpse Conversion Factory" that plundered enemy dead soldiers' bodies to produce soap and other products. After the war's conclusion, when the British learned the truth, these lies left a residue of what Fishman calls "skepticism, betrayal, and a mood of postwar nihilism."
This British disinformation campaign had two disastrous implications for World War II. First, it prompted the Allied public to be skeptical concerning German atrocities against Jews, which bore a close resemblance to the imaginary horrors the British had disseminated, so that reports from Nazi-occupied territories were regularly discounted. (This explains why Dwight D. Eisenhower arranged for visits to the concentration camps immediately upon their liberation, to witness and document their reality.)
Second, Hitler admiringly noted the British precedent in his book, Mein Kampf (1925): "At first the claims of the [British] propaganda were so impudent that people thought it insane; later, it got on people's nerves; and in the end, it was believed." A decade later, this admiration translated into the Nazi "Big Lie" that turned reality on its head, making Jews into persecutors and Germans into victims. A vast propaganda machine then drummed these lies into the German-speakers' psyche, with great success.
The defeat of Germany temporarily discredited such methods of inverting reality. But some escaped Nazis carried their old anti-Semitic ambitions to countries now at war with Israel and attempting to murder its Jewish population. Thousands of Nazis found refuge in Egypt, with smaller numbers reaching other Arabic-speaking countries, notably Syria.
Fishman examines particularly the case of Johann von Leers (1902-65), an early Nazi party member, a protege of Goebbels, a lifelong associate of Himmler, and an overt advocate of genocidal policies against Jews. His 1942 article, "Judaism and Islam as Opposites," lauded Muslims for their "eternal service" of keeping Jews "in a state of oppression and anxiety."
This von Leers escaped Germany after 1945 and a decade later turned up in Egypt, where he converted to Islam and became political adviser to Nasser's Department of Information. There, Fishman recounts, he "sponsored the publication of an Arabic edition of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, revived the blood libel, organized anti-Semitic broadcasts in numerous languages, cultivated neo-Nazis throughout the world, and maintained a warm correspondence encouraging the first generation of Holocaust deniers."
Such groundwork proved its value after Israel's historic victory in the Six Day War of 1967, a humiliating defeat for both the Soviet Union and its Arab allies. The subsequent Soviet-Arab propaganda campaign denied Israel the right to defend itself and inverted reality by relentlessly accusing it of aggression. Precisely as Hitler had analyzed in Mein Kampf, if these impudent claims were at first thought insane, in the end they were believed.
Today's political madness, in other words, is directly linked to yesterday's. Might some of today's anti-Zionists be ashamed to realize that their thinking is, however repackaged, but an elaboration of the genocidal deceptions espoused by Hitler, Goebbels, and Himmler? Might they then abandon these views?
#1
The funny part of this is, had Hitler been triumphant in Europe, he had stated many times privately that he fully intended to eliminate the Arabs just as he was doing to the Jews. He only cozied up to the Arabs because the war machine required vast amounts of fuel. Arabs perhaps disgusted Hitler even more than Jews. It's just that the Jews were at hand in Europe. The Arabs would later be in his way in the Middle East.
In February 2004, Iraqi and coalition intelligence intercepted a message to al-Qaida's "senior leaders." Written by al-Qaida's Iraqi commander, the now-deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the letter outlined al-Qaida's last ditch "surge" plan for defeating democracy in Iraq and avoiding what it saw as a looming, devastating defeat for its totalitarian theology.
Zarqawi's letter lamented al-Qaida's "failure to enlist support" in Iraq and "to scare the Americans into leaving." After Iraqis run their own government, Zarqawi wrote, "the sons of this land will be the authority. ... This is the democracy. We will have no pretexts."
Fearing an American and Iraqi strategic victory (creating a democracy defending itself against terrorists), Zarqawi saw only one strategic option: exploit Iraq's Shia-Sunni religious divide by slaughtering Iraqi Shia civilians. The Shia would respond to al-Qaida's terror attacks by igniting a "sectarian war." He believed the religious war would "rally the Sunni Arabs" to al-Qaida. This war against Shiites, he wrote, "must start soon -- at "zero hour" -- before the Americans hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis."
The February 2006 attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra brought Iraq to the precipice of Zarqawi's sectarian war, but even that failed to produce the apocalyptic schism al-Qaida desired. Credit Iraq's people and its new government with not buckling in 2006, as Shia-Sunni strife escalated.
This week, Reuters reported an Iraqi government claim that Zarqawi's successor, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, had died in a battle with "Sunni Arab insurgent groups over al-Qaida's indiscriminate killing of civilians and its imposition of an austere brand of Islam in the areas where it holds sway." At the moment, that report remains unconfirmed. However, for the last 24 months, conflict between al-Qaida and Iraqi Sunnis has become more open and deadly.
The coalition and the Iraqi government have tried to exploit divisions within the terrorist groups. Al-Qaida's method of exploitation is mass murder of civilians. The Iraqi government employs incorporative politics.
This is tactical and operational exploitation, and though its successes are incremental, they are still successes. However, defeating al-Qaida's totalitarian ideology requires a strategic approach, as well. At the moment, the poisoned minds in Washington won't admit it, but the democracy project in Iraq is part of that strategic approach. Zarqawi understood that democracy robs the terrorists of their breeding grounds.
Al-Qaida presents an ideological challenge. Understanding al-Qaida's origins is essential to understanding its appeal and how to defeat it.
Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Looming Tower" provides the most readable narrative history on the origins of al-Qaida, especially his discussion of Egypt's Sayid Qutb, the modern father of jihadist violence. When I reviewed the book last year, I wrote: "Al-Qaida's dark genius ... has been to connect the Muslim world's angry, humiliated and isolated young men with a utopian fantasy preaching the virtue of violence. That utopian fantasy seeks to explain and then redress roughly 800 years of Muslim decline."
How to defeat the ideology, with its fantasy narrative? Recently, Dale Eikmeier published an essay in the U.S. Army War College's Parameters Magazine. The essay, titled "Qutbism: An Ideology of Islamic Fascism," suggests "five lines of operation" for attacking Qutbism, which he calls al-Qaida's "ideological center of gravity."
First: Attack the message -- an ideological offensive by moderate Muslims. Eikmeier says Yemeni Judge Hamoud al-Hitar has a particularly effective theological counter to Qutbism.
Second: Attack the Messenger -- "Many of Qutbism's proponents are individuals with questionable religious credentials."
Third and fourth: Attack Islamo-fascism's supporting institutions, and support mainstream Islamic institutions -- mirror images. Attack al-Qaida's educational, financial, and informational structures. Support those of Muslim moderates.
Fifth: Inoculation. Eikmeier says this requires education regarding the Qutbists' "anti-human rights and religiously intolerant agenda." Eikmeier says the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights are the alternatives.
#2
First: Attack the message -- an ideological offensive by moderate Muslims.
Support more Islam. Yup, that'll work.
Personally I prefer option 2, "Attack the Messenger"
Failing that, option 6: Install Ann Coulter at water treatment plants all round Iraq, blessing their water at source, thereby surreptitiously baptizing the entire misbelieving population.
#3
Breaking radio silence here because I think this is too important to not comment. The narrative we have to defeat is embedded deeply in Islamic scripture and history:
1. The "emmigration" to Medina and the 10-year struggle to take Mecca.
2. The world-historical advance of Islam during the time whem the tribes were relatively united as an "ummah."
3. The absorbtion and conversion of various invading Turkish tribes... then actually turning them into Islamic instruments of power, e.g. Seljuks, Mameluks, Ottomans.
4. The 100-year struggle against and defeat of the Crusaders.
5. The 50 year struggle against the Mongols and the _conversion_ of the Khans in Persia and Central Asia.
6. The 150 year struggle against colonialism and the subsequent withdrawal of the Europeans (less the Israelis in the Muslim view).
7. Running the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
8. The current struggle to overthrow the Jahili regimes and their Western sponsors with brave muj fighting against and overcoming terrible odds.
That is the narrative the Qutbists have made their own and which must be countered by every instrument of power we possess.
#4
"Why don't Reid and Pelosi and the rest of the dhemmi moonbats believe in democracy?"
Because they tend to loose every fair and honest election.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
05/02/2007 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
First: Attack the message -- an ideological offensive by moderate Muslims. Eikmeier says Yemeni Judge Hamoud al-Hitar has a particularly effective theological counter to Qutbism.
Memo to Bush: Mouthing how Islam is "The Religion of Peace" doesn't help at all.
Second: Attack the Messenger -- "Many of Qutbism's proponents are individuals with questionable religious credentials."
If we are going to "Attack the Messenger", it had better be with more than just "Islamofascism" or other counter-propaganda. We need to attack Islam's messengers with bullets. Starting with Islam's entire clerical aristocracy.
Third and fourth: Attack Islamo-fascism's supporting institutions, and support mainstream Islamic institutions -- mirror images. Attack al-Qaida's educational, financial, and informational structures. Support those of Muslim moderates.
Moderate Islam is so ephemeral and marginal as to be negligible. Crippling the halawa network, expelling CAIR and all of its members, freezing all transactions with and aid to terrorism sponsoring countries, halting immigration from those same countries while destroying terrorist media outlets like al-Jazeera and al-Manar are what is needed.
Fifth: Inoculation. Eikmeier says this requires education regarding the Qutbists' "anti-human rights and religiously intolerant agenda." Eikmeier says the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights are the alternatives.
If you're serious about human rights, start by banning sharia law. This one act will serve to delegitimize fundamentalist Islam more quickly than any other measure. Any inability to do so renders all other actions mere window dressing.
#1
The more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. They dont trust the local mayor, they dont trust the local paper, they dont trust other people and they dont trust institutions.
Excellent as usual from the Fjordman. As a local example of the quote above, I give you Atlanta and Hartsfield-Jackson International Curruptaport.
#2
Boy, that was a depressing read. Just when you get comfortable dismissing the New World Order conspiracy nuts, this kind of crap comes along and makes you wonder if you weren't a tad hasty.
#3
There are indeed some parallels between the USA and Europe. Mass immigration to the US is aided by an unholy alliance of corrupt political elites, Big Business supporters and anti-Western Leftists. There is little doubt in my mind that some members of the political elites in North America are envious of how their counterparts in Europe through administrative decisions have managed to fool their electorates and quietly bypassed the democratic process, gradually abandoning border controls in favor of a regional block.
Sigh.
Americans are currently under the spell of a massively dysfunctional ideology. If the United States remains wedded to Multiculturalism, it will eventually implode as a superpower, perhaps physically fall apart in a Second American Civil War. In the meantime, precisely because they are so economically powerful and culturally influential, they will export a dysfunctional ideology to other nations. Its a bit like having a schizophrenic patient armed with a bazooka, hurting real people while hunting for imaginary trolls.
From Major Chuck Z. who had one of the best "in Iraq MilBlogs" before he (as he puts it) "got blowed up".
In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On May 15th 2007, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.
There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the internet network, and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.
#4
Maybe we should all make an effort to reduce our weekly driving by 20 miles. It would have the same effect and spare the atmosphere. Assiduous trip-linking easily can achieve this goal. Merely make out a detailed shopping list and then figure out how to drive to all of those places in a compact loop. You'd be surprised at how much time and distance can be saved.
One trick that really cuts into unnecessary driving is to stock up on items with an infinite shelf life. Things like toilet paper, razors, handsoap, paper towels, shampoo, liquid laundry detergent and so forth. Not having to run to the store for a single item that has suddenly run out can make a huge difference in your monthly mileage.
#5
get a car that gets good mileage, vehicals have become a type of "fashion", whgich is not good. Your dick size is not really affected by your Ford,Chevy,Dodge (whatever) pickup, or your SUV. get a grip men and be smarter, not slaves to fashion.
#7
I'm in because it is very little effort and makes me feel like I'm sticking it to the man when I'm really not!
Posted by: Braindead Liberal ||
05/02/2007 3:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Amen to all of the above.
Remember, buy Citgo gas if you're anti-Bush, and avoid Citgo gas if you're not. Anti-Bush.
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/02/2007 5:51 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Urban Legends Reference Page debunks the "Gas Out" here.
Still more explanation of why this doesn't work here.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/02/2007 8:58 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Maybe if you smack down the next Luddite and baby seal worshiper who barks again at the next attempt to get drilling done in the Caribbean before Fidel and the Chinese or along the Atlantic shelf, you might just start the process to get supply higher thus stabilizing or arresting the increase in prices. Ship the NIMBYites who've suppressed the building of refineries for decades to places where there is no need for modern conveniences, like Somalia. Downsize government at the EPA that wraps itself up with a ridiculous number of 'blends' of gasoline even though the air is in better shape today than it was forty years ago [and 100 million fewer citizens]. And finally, get the idiots in New England off of fuel oil and on to nuke energy for their winter heating. Otherwise, just have your bitch and pay the pumper.
#13
I have used the same credit card to purchase gas for about 8 years. When the prices went to $3 the first time, I cut out weekly trips to Philadelphia for social life. I also reduced trips to NJ for family visits. Further, I always stop at the supermarket on my way home from other trips, and combine trips to town for multiple purposes. I can cut no further, but I can trace the amount I spend on gas, and it has declined. I went from an oil change per month to an oil change every other month.
Other factors: Set your front tires to about 29 pounds, and invest about $75 in Motor Silk which will improve your mileage and extend the life of your engine and transmission. For Motor Silk, see evergreenamerica.com, no, I don't represent them, this is just an unsolicited recommendation. If the roads you use are bumpy, leave the tire pressure lower for comfort, and don't mess with the rear tires because braking control may be affected. This is for front wheel drives only.
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.
They didn't know what the hell they were doing. That, in a nutshell, is the finding of an official Israeli investigation into the Jewish state's 32-day war against the terrorist group Hezbollah last summer. 
"If today's Arab anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish propaganda strongly resembles that of the Third Reich, there is a good reason." So writes Joel Fishman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in "The Big Lie and the Media War against Israel," an insightful piece of historical research.
