London Mayor Ken Livingstone was positively Churchillian in his response to the July 7 bombings. Rather than blaming British or Israeli policies for terrorist attacks on innocent civilians -- his usual M.O. -- Livingstone condemned the bombings as "mass murder" aimed "at ordinary working-class Londoners" on the day of the attacks.
This week, even before Thursday's attempted bombings, Livingstone was back to his old nasty self. On Wednesday, he told BBC where he placed blame for the bombings: "I think you have just had 80 years of Western intervention in predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil."
Red Ken -- as British papers call him -- also blamed "those governments which use indiscriminate slaughter to advance their foreign policy, as we have occasionally seen with the Israeli government." Oh, and he blamed the United States for helping the Afghans fight off a Soviet occupation -- which makes Americans the "creators" of Osama bin Laden.
That is, at first, Livingstone blamed the bombers. Then, he blamed everyone but the bombers.
In response, the Daily Telegraph ran Livingstone's mug next to those of Islamic radicals Sheik Omar Bakri Mohamed and Anjem Choudary under the heading "The men who blame Britain." Mohamed blamed British voters and mainstream British Muslims for the bombings, while Choudary, the New York Times reported, predicted another attack.
Sounds familiar. Livingstone typifies a certain stripe of lefty that so hates President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair that he or she makes excuses for murderers.
Imagine, as I've written before, if anti-abortion terrorists began killing innocent civilians and said they would stop only if the government outlaws abortion. (After all, if terrorism wins for Islamic extremists, why shouldn't U.S. extremists adopt it?) The Left would not fault pro-abortion policies. The Left would not blame the government for legalizing abortion. The Left -- correctly -- would denounce the terrorists, the violence and any attempt to extort policy by threatening innocent lives.
Yet because the terrorists criticize the Bush and Blair policies, many leftists make excuses for the July 7 murders. These true believers have taken the old saw -- the enemy of my enemy is my friend -- to such an extreme that they have become apologists for homicidal zealots who, given power, would have little reservations about jailing them (or worse) for their gender, sexual practices or "infidel" status.
Livingstone isn't the only Brit to blame Blair's policies. At a press conference Thursday, journalists asked Blair and visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard if they felt responsible for actions -- sending troops to aid in U.S.-led military efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq -- that put Brits and Aussies in peril's way.
"Do you feel that, in a sense, your policies may have put people in this position?" one reporter asked. Said another: "Do incidents like this, coming just 14 days after the horrific attacks, suggest the war against terror is being lost on the streets?"
Howard's answer was on the money: "Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq? Can I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq? Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor? Are people, by implication, suggesting that we shouldn't have done that?"
Howard then added, "this is about hatred of a way of life." And: "We lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse, through a perverted ideology, of people . and their murder."
Howard is right. The terrorists win every time free people blame attacks not on the bombers but on those who didn't blow up civilians on subways and double-decker buses.
Imagine if anti-abortion terrorists killed 52 civilians and themselves, and Americans blamed feminism, or abortion rights, or the U.S. Supreme Court for Roe vs. Wade. Because the equivalent is happening at home and abroad
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/23/2005 18:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
...Call it the Mary Cheney Strategy. Call it desperation. Some on the Left have started a "maybe he's gay" whisper campaign against John Roberts.
Left hits bottom, orders shovel, commences digging ...
It started with Manhattan Offender in a post yesterday asking "How Gay is This Guy?" and then he quoted Wikipedia's entry for Judge Roberts. He zeroed in on some really damning evidence from Roberts' youthful past: the all-male boarding school, studying French and Latin (gasp!), being a wrestler and, oh the horror, participating in choir and drama.
So, it was only one silly post. Today, however, Wonkette picked up the ball and ran with it:
We're not making any conclusions here -- we wouldn't want to comment on an ongoing investigation -- we're just laying out the facts: He is a graduate of an all-boys Catholic school where, as a member of the wrestling team, he regularly grappled with other sweaty, repressed boys. That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake.
What's that about Peppermint Patty?!? Yes, well, that's where the story starts to get interesting. That's a reference to a point raised in today's New York Times profile of Roberts, "Court Nominee's Life Is Rooted in Faith and Respect for Law," written by Todd Purdum, Jodi Wilgoren and Pam Belluck. In the midst of a very lengthy profile, Purdum, et.al. just throw in the little factoid that Roberts' yearbook records that "he played Peppermint Patty in the production of 'You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown.'"
Did I mention that this was when he was in high school? So maybe that snarky little bit is just there for a little color? Ann Althouse has picked up the story and she thinks otherwise:
I do think the NYT piece was subtly constructed to plant this idea. Just look at the series of photographs they chose: young John in plaid pants, young John with his boys' school pals, young John in a wrestling suit with his fellow wrestlers, John with footballers, and -- the final pic -- John smiling in an all-male wedding photograph.
I think she might have a point. Of course it is the height of hypocrisy for the (allegedly) pro-tolerance crowd to start questioning someone's sexual preference. It's a strange and twisted tactic for those who are allied with the gay rights movement to try to make an issue out of someone supposedly being gay.
Who cares? Well, that's just the point: they think we do. They think that they can undermine support for someone among conservatives if they can dredge up some sort of homosexual connection -- or, in this case, just the manufactured whiff of a question.
If it weren't so cruel and small, it would be funny. (It's not just the plaid pants. Some of the commenters on these other sites have been questioning the Roberts' marriage, and even referencing their adopted children. That's just beyond the pale.)
The Kos Kiddies were doing that in the first hour after the announcement; I read that for myself.
The Left didn't learn their lesson when they tried this with Mary Cheney and it backfired. John Roberts may have played Peppermint Patty back in the day, but here and NOW, the Left is playing Lucy with the football... Hat tip to 'Reasoned Audacity'.
#2
By their own principles, being gay is not wrong or bad or deviant. Why is it bad to be gay now? Probably because it suits their needs for the day? The liberals in this country are totally lost and out of control. This guy has never fucked up in his whole life and they can't stand it. They cant believe someone could go all this time without having an affair or molesting a child or stealing some campaign contributions. Sad-ass arent they?
#3
By their own principles, being gay is not wrong or bad or deviant. Why is it bad to be gay now? But you have to be the right kind of Gay. It's kind of like being black. You have to be a Libdim dependent black or a Jesse Jackson hanger on. One thing Dims can't stand is epople who belong to groups the Dims "own", ie balcks, gays, latinos, labor etc, thinking for themselves
#4
pure projection by Wonkette, who's obsessed with anal sex, even more than Andrew
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/23/2005 12:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Left hits bottom, orders shovel, commences digging ...
Shovel, hell.
They've cornered the market on backhoes.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
07/23/2005 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The left thinks that anyone who is homosexual MUST be a leftist. Anything else is evidence of being a repressed traitor who will most certainly persecute homosexuals.
It's twisted, and they can't make a public, explicit argument based on that notion. However, watch for attempts to sink him based on the hints listed above. A former school colleague who claims they had a sexual affair that nobody knew of, or some other attempt to smear him (a male law clerk who says he made sexual advances) and make him look like someone who leads a false life.
Remember what they did to Clarence Thomas. The Left is willing to do anything to attack those who oppose them.
In Thomas's case, the motivation was that the leftist believe any non-white MUST be a leftist else they are behaving like slaves to the Republicans. (This last is really bizarre to me, as I grew up in Europe and knew very well that the Democrats were the party of slavery vs the Republicans being the abolition party.)
#7
Obviously I am not supporting the leftist theory that Roberts is a closet homosexual (in fact I have no evidence to believe anything else but that he is happily married and has two great kids).
Just looking for a pattern in the Left's approach. I think the current leftist noise are trial balloons, trying to lure in someone who will step forth and make up any story that can be used to sink Roberts. Always watch for their trial balloons.
#8
Keep it up, Donks, and in a couple more years there won't be anybody left in your Party except the drooling mucoids from Kos and DU. All the rest will have gone elsewhere, like I did a few years back.
The crazier they get, the more elections they lose; and the more elections they lose, the crazier it makes them. Death spiral.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/23/2005 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
That is when he wasn't the drama club playing Peppermint Patty, for God's sake.
I remember a few years back when there was a big stink about Peppermint Patty being a lezbo. So, maybe John Roberts was ahead of his time? Ya know, he was "a lesbian trapped in a man's body". That reminds me, I saw a guy wearing that on a T-shirt one time...I died laughing "I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body").
Posted by: BA ||
07/23/2005 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Keep it up, Donks, and in a couple more years there won't be anybody left in your Party except the drooling mucoids from Kos and DU.
Much of today's political left seems to actually believe the caricature they've mentally drawn for themselves of the right. E.g., merely invoke the term "homosexual" and religious conservatives will flock to your banner and mindlessly crusade against whomever the label is attached to.
The only really interesting question is whether the Hildebeeste will swoop in to save the Donks with an injection of sanity after they're thumped in the '06 elections or whether she'll leave the fever swamps fully filled and try to profity thereby.
Our sins are beginning to catch up with us. For years, our state either actively encouraged or completely ignored extremism. Now the world has started to zero in on the madness within us. Our madrassahs are being targeted as nurseries of terrorism and the non-existent --or so we say--jihadi training camps are being accused of promoting, planning and executing violence in different parts of the world.
Some are saying our state is weak. It does not have control over a fair portion of its territory. Others say that the Musharraf government is without courage. It is afraid to take on the extremists. Some blame our poverty, others the lack of a decent education system. Some fault overpopulation; others look for clues within our religion. Our innards are being thoroughly probed for a disease by the international media and it is not a pleasant feeling.
The government response has been to launch a crackdown on seminaries and religious schools. Much of this is for show. If there was something wrong with these institutions why was this action not taken earlier? Why did we have to wait for London bombings to discover that there are extremists within us? Why do we need terrorism in the west for the General to call a police conference and personally order an offensive against radicals?
If we have to discover fanatics because terror acts take place in the West, then we are in a worse shape than even our antagonists accuse us of. Our state is weak and governance is in a crisis but surely, it is not so bad that we are not aware of the problems within us. For a variety of reasons, we choose to ignore them but it is not that we don't know what is wrong.
It is for this reason that the current crackdown appears to be a display for foreign eyes. It is designed to signal our serious intent and bolster our claim to be a partner in the war against terror. It may also have impressed the visiting commander of US forces in the Middle East. It is policy as politics is not a definitive strike against the cancer of extremism.
We have been expounding enlightened moderation for some time now, yet not willing to confront those that stand as obstacles against it. As an article on the BBC website notes, we still draw a distinction between foreign Al Qaeda elements and groups that are involved in Kashmir or in Afghanistan. The campaign against foreign elements is pursued with vigour and many have been killed. Yet, other extremist groups are mollycoddled and handled as precious assets.
Elements within the establishment who advocate keeping these jihadi groups alive are not only irresponsible but also reckless. Time and again, the blowback effect of campaigns in Kashmir and Afghanistan has been pointed out but they don't seem to notice. The nexus between jihadi groups and sectarian terrorists within the country is well known. But, it does not seem to affect the tunnel vision of those that think our national interest has been contracted out to them.
These elements see these extremist groups as a reserve army to be launched to achieve objectives that otherwise are unattainable. This has not happened in the past and has only led to widespread suffering; itis unlikely to happen in the future. But, the contractors of our national interest don't think so. They believe that extremists are an ace card up their sleeve and not the snake that everyone else thinks they are.
The BBC article cited above says that security specialists in our establishment believe that ultimately the Karzai government will collapse and a soft Taliban state will replace it. That is why, the expatriate Taliban and their local supporters are being carefully nurtured. This is so ridiculous that it does not even bear serious comment. Have they completely forgotten the involvement of the West and stake of non-Pashtun Afghan groups in the current dispensation?
It only goes to show what kind of pipe dreams some of us believe in. This nation has already paid a heavy price for militarism of both the conventional and unconventional kind. We will suffer more and maybe reach a point of no return if, idiotic and unrealistic visions are not abandoned. We need to focus on our real problems of poverty, illiteracy, poor infrastructure etc, rather than have delusions of grandeur that have only impoverished the nation in the last fifty odd years.
It is in the context of pipe dreams that some new reports are disturbing. One of the best things that had happened in the last few years was a warming of relations between India and Pakistan. This was immensely popular in both countries and had given hope for an end to confrontation. General Musharraf had even called the thrust towards peace irreversible during a visit to Delhi. There are disquieting signs now that this process is getting off track.
We have caught some terrorists in Sindh and a senior police officer has accused them of being RAW agents. Obviously, he would not have the guts to do this without a nod from above. There has also been an increase in militant strikes in Kashmir and an incident at the Babri Masjid site in India. Indian officials blame these on infiltrators from Pakistan. On Thursday, the Indian Prime Minister acknowledged the difficulties and even said that the peace process could get derailed if the people stop supporting it.
Both sides seem to be on a negative track. One thing is obvious. Some manner of militants whether infiltrators or home grown have been ratcheting up the violence in India and Kashmir. What we have to worry about is whether anyone from here is involved. If we care for peace in South Asia, we have to give this as much importance as we seem to be giving to the London bombers' Pakistani connection.
Our establishment made some policy changes in Afghanistan and Kashmir after 9/11, not because it wanted to but because it could not resist the pressure from the Americans.Now there is another kind of pressure after the London bombings and maybe our establishment will be forced to do the right thing by addressing the real reasons that encourage extremism.
Just short-term arrests will not solve anything. It is the necessary conditions and peculiar culture within which a violent ideology grows that needs to be rooted out. This means that Madrassahs not only need to be rid of elements that preach violence but the curriculum needs to be changed. Kids going to these schools need to be taught about the world and about other disciplines besides religious texts.
We also need to finally end our love affair with extremist groups that may have given some temporary advantage but sap the nation from within. Only if we get serious about cleaning the crucible that nurtures terrorism will we have any chance of moving forward.
Posted by: john ||
07/23/2005 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We also need to finally end our love affair with extremist groups that may have given some temporary advantage but sap the nation from within. Only if we get serious about cleaning the crucible that nurtures terrorism will we have any chance of moving forward.
Now why the hell would they want to do that? All the Saudi money would dry up and AQ Khan would lose his R&D budget, the ISI wouldn't be able to intrigue half as much and Sami would have to close down most of his madrassahs.
#2
A Pakistani economist has analysed the economic effects of the Kashmir policy (from the 1965 attack on India to the current jihad launched in 1988).
The 3 percent loss to GDP over the past decades has impoverished the Pakistani people. They could have three times their current mean income now if Pakistan had stayed peaceful.
Their society could be much more stable as well.
Instead they chose to covet Kashmir and launch jihad.
Posted by: john ||
07/23/2005 6:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One of few Muslims with balls.
I hope no-one knows where he lives or works, or has lunch, etc., etc., cause he is a dead man walking - if he said the same in Urdu he will be killed by Muslims in no time.. the FATWAH has already been published...
#4
This confirms that the time is right for the UK to up the pressure on Pakistan.
Where's the ultimatum, Tony? The Taliban got theirs and now Afghanistan is on the rocky path to freedom. Is there room for an anti-Islamofascist alliance in Pakistan?
While yesterday's explosions on London's subway and bus lines were thankfully far less serious than those of two weeks ago, they will lead many to raise a troubling question: has Britain (and Spain as well) been "punished" by Al Qaeda for participating in the American-led military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan? While this is a reasonable line of thinking, it presupposes the answer to a broader and more pertinent question: Are the roots of Islamic terrorism in the Middle Eastern conflicts?
If the answer is yes, the solution is simple to formulate, although not to achieve: leave Afghanistan and Iraq, solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. But if the answer is no, as I suspect it is, we should look deeper into the radicalization of young, Westernized Muslims.
Conflicts in the Middle East have a tremendous impact on Muslim public opinion worldwide. In justifying its terrorist attacks by referring to Iraq, Al Qaeda is looking for popularity or at least legitimacy among Muslims. But many of the terrorist group's statements, actions and non-actions indicate that this is largely propaganda, and that Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine are hardly the motivating factors behind its global jihad.
#1
Great article. Certainly the West's focus on individualism freaks Muslims out. They can't find a sense of belonging and affirmation within the definitions and social frameworks of the West. I saw this years ago among the Middle Eastern college students I knew. The whole situation of life in the West puts them in a bind-- no one really cares who they are or what they do. They are "unrecognized" and cannot find a landing place inside our cultural norms. It becomes an existential void for them. Also, there is a big problem with the wives of Moslem students wanting to commit suicide after a few months here because of sheer loneliness. In a lot of ways the men are a bunch of arrogant, whiney babies caught in a socia/culturall crisis that they don't take responsibility for. Personally, I think they should content themselves with their own male-to-male relationships and stop trying to impress Western men who don't, and never will "get it." Maybe then they wouldn't get so ANGRY. It'd be nice if they focused on meeting the social needs of their own families.
The ones that grow up, or live permanently in the West are probably caught in the same challenging experience. Gotta say, they might feel like there's no point to working and making a living without the social commraderie they have among their own--especially since they do not value women and children highly. Interesting to ponder . . .
#4
Why I Hate Muslims:
1. they are the world's parasites, and contribute nothing to progress.
2. their founder was a vulgar materialistic, lying pedophile and pathological liar.
3. they reject the laws of Western Civilization, while they bring their pig pen ideology here.
4. they are incapable of accepting self-blame for anything, thus have zero moral restraint.
5 to infinity - no time now.
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler ||
07/23/2005 2:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"The Western-based Islamic terrorists are ... a lost generation, .... frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.""
When will OLIVIER (do I smell a frog here?) ROY and the NYT stop psycoanalyzing these bastards! and stop blaming us for what the Muslims do.
#6
Hark! What's that I hear? The mellow sounds of goal posts retreating in the morning?
Lest we forget, following 9/11 the jihadis were immediately described by the knee-jerk left as rabid dogs created, funded, and kept by the west who'd escaped their bonds and turned on their masters. Then we progressed through theories including: a fine sense of history on the part of the jihadis that caused them to be alarmed by the presence of modern-day crusader armies in their holy lands; jihadis as spokespersons for the oppressed peoples of (variously) Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc., and now we come full circle to yet another theory that places the blame squarely on western society:
[E]ven if these young men are from Middle Eastern or South Asian families, they are for the most part Westernized Muslims living or even born in Europe who turn to radical Islam.
Never mind that they come from traditional Islamic families and backgrounds, that fact is irrelevant. And really really ignore the fact that the singular trait they all share is their faith in Islam. The only relevant fact is that the jihadis have generally spent time in the west therefore it is the decadent west that is to blame.
[The jihadis] did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society.
In other words, itâs not Islam that drove them to it; itâs the non-inclusiveness of western society thatâs to blame. If only we tried harder! If only we were more open! More tolerant! Clearly what we need here is a new program! And perhaps a committee or conference! (Taxpayer-funded of course).
It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for.
Look! We can prove the jihadi scum arenât fellow travelers with we leftists! Nevermind that we share goals in common and that we support their movement fully. Just because we love, revere, and cheer them does not mean that they are like us. (So much for the inclusiveness of the left eh?)
The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, unmoored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations.
Here, in the best classic New York Times style, the author never misses an opportunity to deny an inescapable conclusion: Jihadis whoâve spent time living in the west are primarily responsible for terrorist attacks in the west because they have the most solid motive and the best opportunity to involve themselves here. While, of course, completely and utterly excusing the religion that is fighting wars of aggression against nearly every neighbor it has on this planet.
My guess would be that the author has been polishing this piece for some time while awaiting the first significant attack by Muslims born and raised in the west to trot it out in yet another attempt to deflect blame from the blame-worthy.
#7
I accept that they hate us. I also accept the Muslims are bent on world domination. The tool is terrorism. If the Muslims cared about the hatred and the destruction that their brothers and sisters are spreading, they would take care of the problem themselves. Since that isn't going to happen, it is going to be a long war. The religion contains a "bad seed." The Muslim culture is a culture of death.
#8
They do not hate us because of anything we've done.
They do not hate us because of what we are.
They hate us because of what THEY are.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/23/2005 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Nicely done, Nyer4wot. We need to keep logic out there to slash through the self-doubting neurotic arguments of people like the Mayor of London, whose recent statements can only be seen as the logical conclusion of the belief: we deserved this.
Did anyone see the PM of Australia with the media this week? He made much the same kind of arguments as NYer: point after point disproving this false notion that our actions and foreign policies caused these attacks.
I would disagree on one aspect of your comments, though, NYer4wot. It isn't that no place has been accommodated for Muslims in England. It is rather that they themselves choose not to become part of Britain. That rag of a paper, the Guardian, recently proved that with a poll, in which Muslims complained that they have a sense of otherness in England while simultaneously asserting that they shouldn't have to integrate or assimilate with British society.
I think they just feel stupid. Because they are stupid.
Agree with Vlad the Muslim Impaler--both in what was said, and in the name (heh-heh . . . ).
The NYT analysis might be intimating what AzCat points out, but to me it seemed to be saying that they're doing this because well, they just want to do it--it's a violent men's "club" of sorts (if you can call them "men"), and will use any bitch-and-moan to justify it's membership and actions.
#11
I agree w/ AzCat: this piece blames American cultural dominance, and globalization, for MAKING the alienated Muslims what they are. It's all due to global capitalism and American hegemony, see?
Now, if he had said that many Muslim men who buy into the Arab sense of racial and religious superiority have the wind taken out of them when they come into the real world, well then the author would have gotten it right.
That said, I do have some empathy for just how disorienting it is to come from a tightly knit homogenous society into the free-for-all that we enjoy. Hell, even the French and Germans have trouble keeping up. And we'd better not get too compacent ourselves - keep out good legal immigrants, put restrictions on research due to your own religious beliefs and after a while, the good work will be done by good people in other places. But overall, history is pretty clear: the best societies are ones in which there is a lot of personal freedom and people take individual responsibility for what they do and become.
Posted by: too true ||
07/23/2005 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#12
One other point. This article is a salvo in the left's new strategy for winning 2008: now that Iraq is looking like it might turn out okay, we won't criticize involvement there, we'll look at the nasty competitive policies of the fat cat GOP and show that they're responsible for terrorism.
Posted by: too true ||
07/23/2005 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#13
AzCat is spot on with regards to the hidden message and tone of the NHYT article.
The Left is still trying to blame everybody and everything APART from Islam and Moslems. It can only work if Western intellectuals keep promoting an attitude of self-inflicted guilt (for colonialism, prosperity, individualism, freedom of expression, whatever excuse they seize on).
The best antidote I have found is to say -- whenever someone says "we must understand them..." or "what is it that makes them..." or "but it can't just be their religion..." -- to say "are you seeking excuses for terrorism?" THAT will stop leftists right in their track. Then I close the conversation by stating that if they cared to study the Koran and history of Islam they'd know about the cause of it all: the violent, supremacist nature of that ideology. I haven't met a single leftist who has actually studied the bloody history of Islam.
#14
Kalle:
Right. Leftists won't study Islam. One that I know refuses even to spend the 15 minutes required to read the jihad book of the Bukhari Hadith. Their hatred of America is so integral to their personality, that anything that contradicts their worldview, is treated as a harmful threat. www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html
Posted by: Vlad the Muslim Impaler ||
07/23/2005 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#15
www.prophetofdoom.net the best piece of work on the Koran. Read this and there can be no debate, you will not ask why, you will know why.
#16
Yes, the author of the piece is a frenchie, Olivier Roy; I do not know his work, but he's a frequently cited expert on islam and has written several books; while I don't see him as a true apologist, he's certainly not in the RB tone regarding islam and islamism, and is not likely anytime soon to criticize the Master Religion he's spent so much time studying.
At least, unlike his buddy Gilles Kepel he didn't predicted the decline of radical islam a short while before 9/11.
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.
Our sins are beginning to catch up with us. For years, our state either actively encouraged or completely ignored extremism. Now the world has started to zero in on the madness within us. Our madrassahs are being targeted as nurseries of terrorism and the non-existent --or so we say--jihadi training camps are being accused of promoting, planning and executing violence in different parts of the world.
