All Things Beautiful

"The Quickest Way Of Ending A War Is To Lose It"

"Blind Leading The Blind III" by Peter Howson 1991, Private Collection, London

As Caroline Glick reminds me of the George Orwell quip above, the Israeli Government's "desire to attempt to bolster the popularity of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak ahead of the February 10 general elections" looks set to go :

Since Tuesday it has become clear that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government has decided to end the war with Iran's Hamas proxy army in Gaza as quickly as possible. That is, the government has decided to lose the war.

All so called peace proposals on the table consisting of the usual array of EU concilatory 'stop or I'll say stop again' bullshit starting with the assumption that all of Hamas' demands are met as a matter of course, thereby negating all of Israel's by definition, including the all important permanent 'cease fire'. No-one is asking it "to disarm, end its weapons trafficking or commit itself to a permanent cease-fire".

Has everyone conveniently forgotten that Hamas is genocidal? They are not interested in peace or diplomacy, they are simply interested in eradicating the Jews. Period. Hamas militants need the violent clashes. It's what they do. It's their day job, paid for through myriad and seedy channels by Iran, under the general auspice of 'Holy War'. Hamas is an illegal terrorist organization, its purpose the destruction of Israel. Hamas men are Jihadists, all boys future supplies for the course; women, necessary to keep the cycle going.

"The EU is arguably committing a war crime by accepting Hamas as a legitimate side to a dispute. In turn, by accepting the EU as a legitimate interlocutor, Israel itself gives credence to the view that Hamas is a legitimate actor. "

What the hell happened? We have in effect legalized Hamas' illegal aggression, and given it the same consideration as the legitimate defense of the sovereign state of Israel, whilst at the same time making it impossible for her to defend herself against further aggressions without attracting the wrath of the International community. The 'land for peace' in 2005 was a treacherous and ungrateful concept, which simply vindicated the warning that historically any land Israel relinquishes will be used to attack it. Hamas can now comfortably lob rockets from Gaza, giving Israelis 30 seconds to take cover. Yeah right.

The firing of rockets at civilians from densely populated civilian areas is the newest tactic in the war between terrorists who love death and democracies that love life. The terrorists have learned how to exploit the morality of democracies against those who do not want to kill civilians, even enemy civilians.

The attacks on Israeli citizens have little to do with what Israel does or does not do. They have everything to do with an ideology that despises – and openly seeks to destroy – the Jewish state. Consider that rocket attacks increased substantially after Israel disengaged from Gaza in 2005, and they accelerated further after Hamas seized control last year.

The language of the Middle East is clear, why is Israel the only country not allowed to speak it? But speak it they must: "The late King of Jordan had no qualms about using his might to put down a Palestinian uprising during "Black September" in 1970. He ordered refugee camps to be bombed. Between 3,000 and 5,000 people died. The PLO then moved its headquarters to Lebanon. Arafat moved to Cairo and later to Tunis.

Former Syrian President Hafis al-Assad, the father of Syria's present ruler, pulled no punches in fighting insurgent members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He devastated the city of Hama in February 1982, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 civilians. No one accused him of "genocide" -- and if someone had, al-Assad would have asked his critics not to meddle in the domestic affairs of his country."

When are we going to even begin to understand that the war Israel fights is our war. It is the war of today, the war with Islamist extremists who are not interested in diplomacy, and even less in the survival of the infidels. They need a swift and expedient kick in the groin delivered by the entire international community. Zero tolerance internationally, recognition that we are on Israel's side with as many politically incorrect actions as we can muster, and yes I am talking about standing up to Iran:

“......Iran is the most lethal, the most dangerous, and the most aggressive terror master in the world today.” Like the global totalitarian movements and regimes that threatened Western civilization in the last century, the Iranians come with a messianic ideology that admits no compromise with its enemies.  This war will only end with a winner and a loser, not with two contented negotiators. Forget that our enemies want us dead or dominated, they don't want a world at peace in which they will have to deal with real problems of governance.  They are waging jihad, not diplomacy.

“It follows from this that you cannot "solve" Gaza by fighting in Gaza alone, you have to win the terror war.  And to do that, you must accomplish regime change, just as Netanyahu said.  But the crucial regime change must be accomplished in Iran.  Whatever Israel accomplishes in Gaza (and the same holds for our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan), it is only a matter of time before the mullahs reorganize, rearm, and return to battle. And the next battle may involve nuclear weapons.

Hamas is simply acting on the direct instructions of the Iranian Mullahcracy that reigns supreme. Iran is the biggest threat to our way of life, the democracy that we hold dear, the freedom that we cherish and take for granted. In Iran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens that the battle over Palestine is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West.

We are all well aware how Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad is modeling himself on Grand-Master-Über-Thug Ayatollah Khomeini (may he rot in Hell for all eternity).

We also know with certainty, that the Mullahcracy has been desperately trying to build their nuclear bomb at least since the early Nineties. We furthermore know today, that with all the various assurances given to stop production in the past, no such efforts were in fact made. Nothing but bold faced lies.

Finally, we know, that for the period of almost two decades, every promise of co-operation, extracted from the Mullahcracy at various times by the U.S., several EU member states, the IAEA, the UN and other such illustrious parties so as to prevent a nuclear Islamic Republic in the heart of the Middle East, has only ever been feigned with one aim in mind, to buy more time for the Mullahcracy to reach nuclear ecstasy.

And the only variable, determining the time-line, remains unchanged: the war will start when our Thug-In-Chief finally manages to get his dirty mitts on the nuclear bomb. Nothing else, no UNSC resolutions, no diplomatic efforts and certainly no appeasement policies will stop the lethally delusional  Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, nor his Thug-In-Chief.

Victor Davis Hanson tells it how it is:

”There is something especially nauseating about the latest Middle East war — scenes of worldwide Islamic protests with photos of Jews as apes, protesters (in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida of all places!) screaming about nuking Israel and putting Jews in ovens, parades of children dressed up with suicide vests and fake rockets, near constant anti-Semitic vicious sloganeering, Gaza mosques stuffed with rockets to be used against civilians — all to be collated with creepy Hamas rhetoric about the annihilation of Israel. This is the world in which we now live.

Almost no other issue in recent memory has illustrated the moral bankruptcy of much of the international community. Hamas has no pretensions, like the PA, of being a governing authority; it used violence to rout the PA and then bragged that its charter pledging the destruction of Israel remained unchanged. Israel evacuated Gaza; Gazans in response looted their own infrastructure, alienated both the PA and Egypt,and then sent off more than 6,000 rockets against Israeli civilians, while eagerly becoming a terrorist puppet of theocratic Iran.

Nothing could be more clear: either the fact that a constitutional republic was trying to avoid civilian casualties while a terrorist organization was intent on killing Jewish civilians as it used its own citizens as shields to protect mostly young male terrorists; or the world's craven reaction to all this.

Again all very creepy — the stuff of Tolkien's Mordor. It is now clear that the so-called and much praised "international community," the hallowed U.N., the revered EU, all pretty much are indifferent to the survival of a democratic Israel, or are actively supportive of its terrorist Hamas enemy. Only the U.S. (for now) stands by a constitutional state in its war against a murderous terrorist clique, with annihilation its aim and religious fascism its creed.”

I leave you with Barry Rubin's must read:

Today, people ask, why didn't the Jews of Poland understand the Nazis were going to wipe them out, at least in the earlier period when escape or revolt was more possible? According to contemporary and later eyewitness testimony, because they didn't think Germans would act in such an unpragmatic manner.
[...]
Answer: ideology. A doctrine and belief system will make people act in a way that doesn't fit pragmatic expectations. Why should Hamas start a war against a stronger power? Due to believing itself to be stronger and its need to mobilize mass support. Why should Palestinian leaders reject a state even if it means the end of an increasingly small degree of "occupation"? Due to belief that total victory is inevitable, that compromise is treason, and that their enemies are satanic.
[...]
No matter how much diplomatic aid, sympathy, or money the West gives Hamas — and it has saved Hamas and the PLO over and over from their own mistakes — they will not become grateful or pro-Western. Anti-Western and anti-American sentiment is too valuable and too widespread to disappear. The Palestinians — and Iran's regime, and Syria's government, and Hezbollah, and other Islamists — need scapegoats. Who else are they going to blame for their problems? Themselves?

If you save the terrorists today, they will commit more terrorism tomorrow. If you let them escape the consequences of their own extremism, you can guarantee they will stay extremist and take a lot of the masses with them.
[...]
This is the Middle East of 2008 and not of 1958, 1968, 1978, 1988, or 1998. The Palestinian issue has little effect on any other issue. The real conflict is Iran-Syria against Egypt-Saudi Arabia. Islamists are seeking to conquer the region from Arab nationalists. Radical groups are not interested in happy homelands but jihad and genocide.

And so the issue is not why Israel is attacking Hamas in Gaza now, but why Hamas in Gaza is attacking Israel now.

So fasten your seat belts, it continues to be, as it was before, just a matter of time. The Jews are fighting our war, what will it take for us to understand that? As long as we continue to make excuses at every turn and fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room, nothing will change.

But hey, what the hell, as Christians, let's rant and rave in support of Hamas' genocidal tirade of depraved indifference to human life. After all, specially designed for those who wage war against Allah, it passed a Shari'a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority this Christmas legalizing crucifixion .

That nails it for me, what about you? Looking for a banner-waving chanting protest to march to, so we can spit some more insults into Israel's face? After all we need to find someone to blame for the Brits promising the same piece of real estate to the Jews and the Arabs.

Shame on us.

P.S. PLEASE NOTE THAT DUE TO SOME 600 COMMENTS ON PREVIOUS POSTS, THE COMMENTS ON ATB ARE BEING SHOWN IN REVERSE, I.E. LAST COMMENT FIRST.

"We Are All Jews Now!"

The famous painting by Otto Dix 'The Skat Players' 1920, Gallerie der Stadt Stuttgart, Germany

URGENT MESSAGE: Due to the large number of comments on this post (almost 400 at present), and 550 on the previous one, in order to circumvent the new Typepad system which allows only 50 per page, I have changed the display to show newest comments first. You can then click on 'next' to read the previous ones 50 at a time.

Thank you for the hundreds of e-mails of support, begging me not to stop blogging, even if it means a post a week, an image, anything. The jury is still out...

I have been temporarily torpedoed out of my Sabbatical cocoon by this e-mail, in response to my original post called The Myth of Palestine Part II, which happens to be my favorite of all time on ATB (Part I is here). The e-mail sent my heart rate pumping, and reaching for my pills. Perhaps having stayed away from blogging had weakened my stomach for these 'anonymous cowards' who frequently pollute my Inbox. Like this one, more often than not they are in response to my Myth of Palestine posts linked to above:

I disagree. They do exists and have every right to. Racist Israelis such as yourself are one of the problem in the Middle East. If anything, the UN and the US made a mistake by creating a Jewish state. You guys were wiped off by the Romans. I wondered why? Now, with the help the American tax money, you guys are wiping the Palestinians off the map.

While Americans pay attention to China's treatment of Tibet, the world is watching Israel and their annihilation of the Palestinians.

Keep hiding under your yamacas [sic], because Karma is a bitch.

For the umpteenth time....[yawn]: I am not Israeli, nor am I Jewish. I don't wear a yarmulke, I wear Prada. If that makes me 'The Devil', so be it. Just so that we all understand each other, I am a devout Christian, and I am vehemently against the tyranny of Islamofascism. Calling me a racist simply because I am pro-Jewish, is simply ignorant.

Unlike you dear Anonymous, I don't hide under a rock, you can find out who I am simply by clicking 'ABOUT' in the top right hand corner of my Blog.

I have written enough about Israel, the so called 'Palestine', and the whole mess in the Middle East, for everyone to know that I am fiercely pro-Israel. Realizing that the Arabs in Saudi are finally reaching an understanding of the realities facing the conflict in the Middle East, it is uncanny to think that, sanity is prevailing, and the region is accepting that siding with extremists is going to get them killed at best, and let them be seen to be 'sleeping with the enemy' and then get killed anyway, at worst.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: after nearly 40 years of pin-point targeted response to Arab rabid hostilities leading to this perverse situation where the West pays the Palestinian officials, synonymous with terrorism, billions of Dollars so that they can keep spitting into Israel's face, we have come a full circle.

Nothing changes. Let's just sit tight whilst Iran builds its nuclear bomb, so that we can all cry about it afterwards, like we did when we calmly watched Hitler slaughter the Jews.

One of my favorite quotes from Charles Moore @ The Telegraph published a while back, to be never more relevant as it is today:

All I want to ask my fellow Europeans [and Americans] is this: are you happy to help direct the world's fury at the only country in the Middle East whose civilization even remotely resembles yours? And are you sure that the fate of Israel has no bearing on your own? In Iran, the new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad makes the link. The battle over Palestine, he says, is "the prelude of the battle of Islam with the world of arrogance", the world of the West. He is busy building his country's nuclear bomb."

I believe we suffer from acute self-aggrandizement and individualistic hyperbole, which in the final analysis is nothing but ignorant arrogance as it is both hollow and superficial in all its aspects.

In many ways, the term 'Clash of Civilizations' contains the seeds of a most comprehensive truth. I am afraid though that we will have to come to terms with the fact, that the lines will prove to be much more blurred and drawn criss-cross throughout our society. Just when we reluctantly acknowledge the reality of a long-drawn-out conflict centering around religious beliefs; just when we thought that the factions could be limited to those of Judea-Christian beliefs versus Islamic ones, must we realize, that the scope is far wider: Faith versus Skepticism with all its variations such as cynicism, pessimism, disbelief, agnosticism, atheism, and anti-Semitism. In short, the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless, otherwise called Nihilism.

The lines in the sand have been drawn...as I have said before: "We Are All Jews Now"!

As Sir Winston Churchill wisely said, and my father bravely lived: "You have enemies? Good. That means you have stood up for something sometime in your life."

Indeed.

Introducing The Angel Of Death (Repeat)

Crowds of people have congregated as if in anticipation of experiencing a miraculous religious vision - but instead a grotesque dead chicken lies slumped across the cliff-top in front of them. The crowd's inability to recognize the inanity of the object they are venerating, emphasized the futility of their mission.
"Chihuahua" by David Alfaro Siqueiros 1947, Museo de Arte Alvar y Carmen T de Carillo, Mexico City

By now, at the tail end of 2007, we all know who Mohammad-Ali Ramin is. But when I first wrote about him some eighteen months ago he was a relative unknown, and aside from the odd flutter at the beginning of this year, when he claimed in a December 28th interview with a Tehran-based 'Baztab' news website that Hitler was Jewish, he is keeping his powder relatively dry. I still say, fasten your seat belts, it's going to be an explosive ride:

"We will acquire this [nuclear] technology and export it to all the 150 countries. This is the power we have not yet used."

Mohammad-Ali Ramin's looks are deceptive.

He is good looking with his soft, well manicured beard. His looks are either German or Scandinavian, blue eyes, light hair. Nothing threatening, charming smile; you'd invite him to your dinner party without a moments hesitation. Well almost....

Little would you know that you would be wining and dining the very reincarnation of Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Eichmann, Dr Josef Mengele dubbed 'The Angel of Death', you name it, take your pick, improved only in looks and finesse. Pure, unabashed, soft-spoken evil. Measured in tone, deliberate and utterly confident in everything he says. He's not a psychopath, but someone who is absolutely convinced to occupy the moral high ground, certain of his convictions being sanctioned by Allah himself.

Politics Of Terror Reign Supreme

 

What the hell are these people still doing in Great Britain? We will never learn will we. No, not until the politics of terror reign supreme, the delusional denial suffocates us to a painful death and liberal deranged PC-thinking chokes us with the perpetual whining: “we don’t want to hurt people’s feelings..”....eh?

In turn, the Liberals in America have brought every argument of this nature down to accusations of racial prejudice, and ad hominem attacks of being against other cultures if you dare declare that America has a culture of it's own. They have entirely managed to kill any sense of proud heritage they once had, in favor of some sort of misplaced democracy which allows others to spit on their culture. Why? Why should the Americans and the British allow others to spit on their culture whilst living in THEIR country? What's next? We all have to speak Arabic, and live by the Law of Shari'a just so as not to upset our Islamic friends who think our infidel culture is inferior and we should all be dead or converted.

Until the West begins to pay attention to what Muslim extremists are saying in Arabic, Persian and Urdu, rather than what their apologists sprout forth for foreign consumption, the word insulting will not take on the new meaning and level of hatred it should do.

It is a matter of 'demographic time' before Islam will become the religion of the majority, ruled by the law of Shari'a. Just in case we think we are sitting cosily here, and this is someone else's problem, we need to know that Islam is the fastest growing religion in America. Today, the number of followers of Islam in the United States has reached 7 to 8 million Muslims in the United States. More than a quarter of a million people of Arab descent live in southeastern Michigan, making the area the second-largest Arab community outside the Middle East (after Paris, France).

The vast majority (80%) of American mosques are funded with Saudi Arabian money and most subscribe to 18th century Wahhabism that calls for the spread of Islam through violence. Many mosques, "Islamic Learning Centers" and Arab/Muslim Student Unions are distributing large numbers of pamphlets and leaflets attacking Judaism, Christianity and other non-Muslim religions and urging young Americans to convert to Islam.

The so called 'moderates' don't exist. There are only those who admit openly to supporting conversion to Islam through 'Jihad' and those who don't. There are only those who get their hands 'officially' dirty and those that don't. And then of course there are the 'Ellison atheists', and they belong to the 'nutball category'.

The threat of Islam is real. More so than Communism and Fascism ever was, because with Islam, Muslim activists are willing to kill and to die for the cause of spreading their religion. 'Jihad', is a sacred duty for all Muslims to perform, by any support or means available to them. Jihad is not, as asserted recently by apologists in the West a "spiritual struggle", but a Holocaust of non-Muslims.

What Matters More

A compilation of Francis Bacon portraits, ca 60's, held in private collections in London

 

Yesterday morning we woke up to Senator Jo Lieberman's probing question: "What matters more to us, the real fight over there, or the political fight over here?"

Well, as to option-A, fair question, providing of course you have consensus that we are still fighting over there.

Problem is, most Democrats -- and increasingly poll-weary Republicans -- have bought into their own propaganda that the war is already lost; all that is left to do is exercise damage control on the way back home.

Leading us swiftly to option-B: No one wants to be associated with a loss, especially not with a lost war and all the blame that follows in tow.

So, are we really witnessing a 'political fight over here'?

I think not. We are much more treated to front-row seats in an unfolding blame-game of epic proportions.

This kind of constellation brings out the worst in most politicians as they prepare the fight for survival;  as they prepare for a prolonged period of musical chairs.

The sad consequence is an ironic convergence of bad choices made. Ironic, because the resulting actions by both Democrats and Republicans increasingly resemble Gore Vidal's post-Watergate gloom 30 years ago.

Restoring Humility To Our National Psyche In The Face Of Nihilism (Repeat)

 

Preparing for travel, hence not much time for blogging right now, I am re-posting something I wrote last year, on a subject dear to me, as relevant today as it was when I first thrashed it out on my keyboard.

Victor Davis Hanson has a fine essay out called "The Prison of the Present".

I rarely disagree with him and on his many brilliant insights, especially when put so expertly in historical context, as Hanson has again succeeded to do.

The question "..aren't choices usually between the bad and the far worse?.." leads to very relevant historical comparisons, which do not seek to "..excuse present mistakes by citing worse ones from the past--or to suggest that all wars are always the same. Much less should history's examples be used to stifle necessary contemporary criticism that alone leads to remedy."

Instead, Hanson believes that "..knowledge of the capricious nature of wars of the past can restore a little humility to our national psyche":

We need it. Ours is the first generation of Americans that thinks it can demand perfection in war. Our present leisure, wealth, and high technology fool us into thinking that we are demi-gods always be able to trump both human and natural disasters. Accordingly, we become frustrated that we cannot master every wartime obstacle, as we seem otherwise to be able to do with computers or cosmetic surgery. Then, without any benchmarks of comparison from the past, we despair that our actions are failed because they are not perfect.

The key question to me, one which is constantly on my mind these days, is the one concerning the level of the current collective "Confidence" in ourselves as a Nation and whether such confidence or the lack of it, if this is indeed the case, lies at the heart of the acrimonious divide which has beset our nation in the face of the war on terror.

Nuclear Communist Islamofascism

'Winter Landscape with Church' by Caspar David Friedrich 1811, Museum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte, Dortmund

 

'Nuclear Communist Islamofascism' -- you think I am joking, just wait...

During his recent trip to Iran, the German head of the opposition Green party faction, Fritz Kuhn, confirmed how the leading thugs of the Mullahcracy had been caught by surprise after Russia and China supported UNSC Resolution 1737.

On the contrary, they had hoped to isolate the U.S. by splitting away Russia and China, and, with a bit of luck, even most of Europe. What they didn't expect, was the unanimous vote against them.

I don't share many convictions with Fritz Kuhn of the Green party -- bloody champagne communists, the lot of them, if you ask me -- but because the Mullahs know the Green party to be thoroughbred appeasers, because they trust them not to interfere, they'll drop their guard on occasions lower, thus revealing more, than intended. And the likes of Kuhn, or John-America-is-a-"pariah"-Kerry, never seem to disappoint. Kuhn goes out of his way to explain to his Iranian counterparts, all that is needed is to tone down the rhetoric; that they should understand, eventually Israel will connect such rhetoric with the 'Atomfrage' ('atomic question' - some question, yeah right...), "...you know, what would happen, if someone who talks so aggressively, has the atomic bomb at his disposal...That's the thing, you guys in Iran have to understand, that there is a connection...". Wow, really? Now that you are telling me.... My word!

On the other hand, we have the Supreme Thug-In-Chief Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei blinding us with breathtaking logic: American forces plant the bombs in order to create the appearance of sectarian violence. "They are well familiar with the secrets of their seditious job. They know how to provoke Sunnis against Shiites and how to incite Shiites against Sunnis. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran the colonialists intensified their efforts."

Faces Of Evil

"Martyrdom of St Erasmus" by Dieric Bouts the Elder ca.1458, Sankt Peterskerk, Louvain

 

Well, if dealing with naughty 'Hubby Bubba' is all Hillary is proposing to offer as credentials to deal with evil men, one poster child, Hossein Shariatmadari, should pop the cork.

And only days after the first annual International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, it is of particular importance to put a face to evil whenever possible, hence the link to Hossein's picture from Holy Crime's list of Iran's 'Most Wanted' -- don't miss the Mullahcracy's panoptic who's who of butchers and henchmen.

You remember my expose on Iran's current godfather of evil, Mohammad-Ali Ramin, who trumped his Holocaust denial with the recent claim that Hitler was Jewish and the founder of Israel -- all of course in the interest to further discredit the State of Israel in preparation for its destruction.

So, what sets Hossein Shariatmadari apart? Not surprisingly, he joins Mohammad-Ali Ramin as a member of a neo-fundamentalist think tank, another who's who of evil; all are of course sworn supporters of Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and Supreme-Thug-In-Chief Ali Khamenei -- recently voted the 'least popular of Iranian leaders', just over 1%....

Also, Hossein is busy spreading the Holocaust denial propaganda via the Iranian daily, Kayhan, where he is Editor and General Manager of the Kayhan Institute and Publishing Company or, according to the Official News Agency of the Islamic Republic (IRNA), the head of the 'Media Mafia' -- it's a must read, granting us a rare insight as to the extend to which the Mullahcracy have fashioned their entire infrastructure after that of the Nazis.

Shari'a And Human Rights

 

So, what do the Muslims have to say about that?

Emran Qureshi is a journalist and an expert on Islam and human rights. He is currently a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. Emran ought to know, and it seems he does:

The Sharia law, as is practiced in many Muslim countries today, is clearly incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today Sharia is a source of injustice that profanes Islam and shames Muslims who adhere to a compassionate and merciful interpretation of their faith. [...]

Khaled Abou El Fadl, a prominent Islamic intellectual reformer in the United States, has observed of contemporary Islamist intellectuals "Instead of Islam being a moral vision given to humanity, it becomes constructed into the antithesis of the West. In the world constructed by these groups, there is no Islam; there is only opposition to the West." This is sadly true.

These corrosive ideas do not spring from a vacuum. They arise instead from impoverished Salafi and Wahhabi discourses, which are corroding Islam from within. There is a straight line between the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretations - a puritanical, anti-rationalist, misogynistic Islam with a punitive, intolerant Sharia - and the violence, which now bloodstains our faith.

Those who challenge this moral and ethical perversion of our faith are instead attacked as heretics as we can witness in Saudi-Arabia.

These are excerpts from Emran's opening letter, starting a discourse in June and August 2004 (note, this is pre-Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, who since Summer 2005 kindly revealed to the West, what a carefully orchestrated 'moderate' Mullahcracy had been thinking and planning all along) between Emran and a lady in Cairo by the name of Heba Raouf Ezzat. Heba teaches political theory at the Department of Political Science, Cairo University and is co-ordinator of the Civil Society Program at the Center for Political Research and Studies at Cairo University as well as editor of the Global Civil Society Yearbook. She also works as womens' rights activist.

And what do we get? Nothing but empty rhetoric and platitudes from our 'womens' rights activist' in Cairo. Am I glad, that dear Heba hasn't been speaking out for my rights of late.

I find this exchange interesting, because only two and a half years later, we have learned, that Emran is unfortunately incorrect to limit all of Islam's ills to Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims; that Iran's Shia Mullahs are just as passionately murdering in the name of Allah and Shari'a laws.

He is however correct in his assessment, when he says: "I sadly think that a gentler Sharia is unlikely to emerge since today we are presented with the anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, and moral depravity of these self-appointed Salafi guardians of Sharia."

Read the correspondence in its entirety.

Danger And Opportunity

 

"Our two revolutions are at heart the same", Chavez said, comparing Iran's overthrow of the Shah with his self-styled socialist movement.

Such statements always intrigue me.

Could Chavez really be so ignorant and not only fail to grasp the difference, but the sheer enormity of it? Or does he so much like the sound of a catchy phrase, cheerfully continuing the every day practice of endlessly reciting socialistic slogans, in the perpetual effort to placate the mostly uneducated poor and thus condemning them to remain just so? Is it possible, that he doesn't know any better? Or does he choose to ignore the Mullahcracy's all-important emphasis on it being an Islamic revolution; that they couldn't care less about all the worldly and material promises inherent in the western ideology of 'revolutions'.

Back in the dusty streets of Tehran, critics are quick to attack the obvious:

What are our bounds with Venezuela, Nicaragua or Ecuador and Bolivia? Are we neighbors? Do we share the same faith?

Of course not. Chavez is just another Infidel; yes, one of use temporarily, but Infidel none the less. Much in the same vain as Infidel members of the MSM are temporarily praised when promoting Islamofascist propaganda. Case in point is BBC's dramatization of Thug-In-Chief's visit to South America:

"With his eyes fixed firmly on the Middle East, the last thing President Bush wants is another hostile diplomatic front opening up in his own backyard. But with the arrival of the Iranian president in the region, that is exactly what some commentators are predicting", reported the BBC’s Latin America correspondent, adding that, "The most worrying alliance for Washington is that being forged between Iran and Venezuela".

Most worrying indeed... especially as our Thug-In-Chief is most likely promising nukes to each and every one who will support his struggle against all of those nasty nations trying to stop him from fulfilling his promise of a nuclear Holocaust. What a dream scenario: the US surrounded by hostile nuclear powers, giving hell to the great Satan in the North. That ought to buy our Thug-In-Chief some time to sort things out in the Middle East - or so he hopes.

But why worry? The Haute Couture shows in Paris are the biggest ever with almost double the designers parading before overcrowded catwalks. Our love for the monarchy is alive and well, judging by Dame Helen Mirren's success at the Golden Globe awards; a success likely repeated at the Oscars.

Where Was The Outrage?

'The Return of the Prodigal Son' by Rembrandt ca. 1669, The Hermitage, St. Petersburg

 

A dear friend in New York sends me this in an e-mail:

"The last few days’ news coverage in Europe of the pending and then the actual execution of Saddam Hussein has been bewildering. It has removed some of the satisfaction of justice finally being done.  It is unbelievable how the “world” now in a reinvigorated fashion is calling for the ban of the death penalty. Where were these cries when Saddam Hussein, apart from all his well documented atrocities, regularly had innocent people condemned to death and executed by his favorite method – by hanging. But Saddam hanged people publicly letting the poor victims’ bodies remain hung for hours for public display and “games”. Where was the outrage by the world? Where was the outrage of the world when 9 innocent Jews were hung in a public spectacle accused of spying for Israel and where their through the wall air condition units were deemed to be secret radio transmitters? Nothing of what was allowed Saddam Hussein, was ever afforded to his innocent victims – Christians, Jews, Kurds and Shiites.

CNN and the International Herald Tribune have actually inferred that the US may be behind the execution, the trial was unfair, the US should never have handed Saddam over, life imprisonment would have been a crueler sentence, he will be more dangerous dead than alive, he will become a celebrated martyr in the Islamic world for standing up to America, the violence in Iraq will increase dramatically, the world will be outraged and broadly condemn the execution etc., etc. Each statement is ludicrous and irresponsible. It doesn’t only show bias against the US, clumsy and cheap flirtation with the Arab world, but it demonstrates ignorance, superficiality, total lack of responsibility and no attempt to uphold the most basic standards of journalism.

Blind Justice (New Year's Thread)

 

Saddam is dead, but our Thug-In-Chief is very much alive, albeit politically wounded.

I don't know why the news about Saddam's hanging fails to stir any emotion in me. Well, other than being incensed by the reaction from the left. Thanks to Jim @ Gateway Pundit for the display of liberal bullshit, such as this classic from Huffington Post

Saddam indeed was a brutal dictator.

The fact that atrocities worse than those caused by him are now going on during the occupation, should make the Bush administration feel ashamed that they have made Saddam's brutal dictatorship look like a walk in the park.

I believe that every execution is controversial; Hussein's probably the least of all in terms of accumulated guilt -- he certainly deserved to be put to death by his people.

Iran's Middle Finger Is Firmly Up

 

Ahem, this is no surprise to anyone, least of all ATB readers, who had a heads up nudge well ahead of time.

Well, I don't know what the appeasing, rabid anti-Semite ElBaradei was playing at, but the astonishing admission of one of Iran's top officials, that they were playing games with the IAEA so as to gain more time to complete their true nuclear ambitions, namely the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, as I revealed exclusively ahead of the MSM already in February, is something that ElBaradei certainly cannot deny anymore. I have never trusted that man, and his image as the Director General caught sleeping at the wheel grows more suspicious every day.

But, alas nothing. And certainly not at the seemingly perpetual stage of endless so called 'diplomatic wrangling', better described as impotent hand wringing; of utterly diluted UN sanctions, which Iran knows won't bite -- after all, the MSM has made it abundantly clear that any possibility of military strikes against Iran has completely evaporated, so why care about sanctions without any stick attached. All that is left, is a UN, hell bent on pursuing their usual 'stop or I'll say stop again' strategy.

'Show Me The Bodies'

"The Head of Medusa" by Pieter Pauwel Rubens c. 1617, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

 

Deborah Lipstadt, the American scholar who coined the term "Holocaust denier" and who has made it her mission to combat the contention that the Holocaust did not happen said:

"What's in the settlement? How many gas chambers would you like me to settle for? What number of Jews killed should I agree to in the letter of apology? You have to stand up for the truth of what happened."

And stand up and shout out, 'Holocaust deniers' are rabid anti-Semites, or to put it more accurately, they are racists and liars.

Released and unfortunately returning David Irving, serves as a poster child for the mindset and attitude of all those who hate Jews and who prefer for their own ideological reasons to "persistently and deliberately misrepresent and manipulate historical evidence".

Our very own Mac Brachman, who most of you know to be a frequent and valued commenter here @ ATB, was recently rightfully exasperated in the face of such determined vigor to defile the Holocaust Remembrance; apart from feeling sick to the stomach, the only thing left is to name and shame, to cut right to the chase whenever we encounter such mindless or deliberate evil.

There is only ever one purpose behind all of this: To spread hatred, animosity and envy against Jews.

No other motivation could possibly drive these perfidious proponents. And thanks to Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his pet conference, the true intentions and motivations in all their ugliness have once and for all been revealed for all to see.

"Depicting Jews as the overwhelming victims of the Holocaust gave the moral high ground to the Allies as victors of the war and allowed Jews to establish a state on the occupied land of Palestine,"

Oh really? Not quite enough rabid anti-Semitism it would seem for Carter adoring Liberals, who rather busy themselves to minimize the Holocaust Deniers' Conference as a harmless jibe at the West in response to Europe's mixed reaction to the Mohammed cartoons - our Thug-In-Chief expected of course the relentless persecution and prosecution of the cartoonists and, as Danish statutes prohibit the death penalty, the deportation of said offenders to Iran, where the just execution could have been swiftly meted out.

Interesting to note that Ahmadinejad's right hand man, Mohammad-Ali Ramin, has been appointed Secretary General to the newly formed 'World Foundation for Holocaust Studies'. I wrote about him extensively earlier this year in my article The Angel of Death (check it again if you have time) This is a dangerous man we should all be watching very carefully. Mohammad-Ali Ramin who is what Joseph Goebbels was to Hitler, appears moderate, calm and reasonable, yet his views are the same as those that led without fail to the biggest atrocities and genocidal crimes committed by man-kind.

A World Apart

 

Dave Bailey over at FaithFreedom shares with us today his gradual path to the realization, that "despite oft-repeated claims to the contrary, the Koran was definitely not a book of peace".

One week before Christmas, surrounded by the lovely sights and sounds of the Advent season, Bailey's reminder of why most Muslims hate us, seems particularly far removed. But our boys and girls in Iraq face this bigoted hatred every day as they miss their families and loved ones especially badly at this time of the year. So let us 'tune-in', as it were, before we send our prayer and thoughts:

The Race For Souls (Weekend Thread)

'The Adoration of the Name of Jesus' by El Greco 1578-80, National Gallery, London

 

The term, 'Southern Christians' needs our attention and Spengler's reminder of Philip Jenkins' fascinating book, 'The New Faces of Christianity: Believing the Bible in the Global South' is indeed timely. (You must read the entire article, and in particular the second page)

It is timely, because in these foreboding times, clarity of vision is of supreme importance, not least so as to overcome any feeling of despair, but instead, to refocus on how each and everyone of us can do his or her best to forge a better world for our children.

Programs, like the series at the Carnegie Council called 'The Resurgence of Religion in Politics', help us recapture the all important strategic overview, especially, when we are granted a rare understanding of the grand motivator, which is driving key strategic decisions of foe and friend alike:

The fact is, that the race for souls in the most populous parts of the world is won by Christianity.

Could It Be?

 

The Baker-Hamilton Plan is all the talk of course (Iraq Study Group - or ISG for short), which in a nutshell is a proposal to reverse the strategy of taking the war-on-terror to the murdering thugs' home in favor of embracing them à la, 'keep your friends close, but your enemies closer'. Instead of fighting the Islamofascists, the ISG is opting for talks.

So, what does that mean? To be blunt, talking to the Mullahcracies in Iran communicates to the rest of the world two very important messages, both of which carrying enormous consequences:

One, conceding victory to Iran over domestic control in Iraq; fuelling bloodshed on the streets of Baghdad and getting the MSM to lay the blame on our doorstep has been a spectacular success for the Islamic spin doctors and their sympathizers/appologists all round. Surrender now would not be the consequence of failure or our inability to succeed, but because democracy has proven to be as weak and feckless a system as its adversaries assume.

The jihadi's theory of victory is simple; the West can be bullied into not lifting a finger to defend itself.

Victor David Hanson puts this first message, the all-important admission of defeat, into historical perspective when he writes, "A civilization that has lost confidence in itself cannot confront the Islamists."

What would a beleaguered Socrates, a Galileo, a Descartes, or Locke believe, for example, of the moral paralysis in Europe? Was all their bold and courageous thinking — won at such a great personal cost — to allow their successors a cheap surrender to religious fanaticism and the megaphones of state-sponsored fascism?

Just imagine in our present year, 2006: plan an opera in today's Germany, and then shut it down. Again, this surrender was not done last month by the Nazis, the Communists, or kings, but by the producers themselves in simple fear of Islamic fanatics who objected to purported bad taste. Or write a novel deemed unflattering to the Prophet Mohammed. That is what did Salman Rushdie did, and for his daring, he faced years of solitude, ostracism, and death threats — and in the heart of Europe no less. Or compose a documentary film, as did the often obnoxious Theo Van Gogh, and you may well have your throat cut in "liberal" Holland. Or better yet, sketch a simple cartoon in postmodern Denmark of legendary easy tolerance, and then go into hiding to save yourself from the gruesome fate of a Van Gogh. Or quote an ancient treatise, as did Pope Benedict, and then learn that all of Christendom may come under assault, and even the magnificent stones of the Vatican may offer no refuge — although their costumed Swiss Guard would prove a better bulwark than the European police. Or write a book critical of Islam, and then go into hiding in fear of your life, as did French philosophy teacher Robert Redeker.

And we need not only speak of threats to free speech, but also the tangible rewards from a terrified West to the agents of such repression. Note the recent honorary degree given to former Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, whose regime has killed and silenced so many, and who himself is under investigation by the Argentine government for his role in sponsoring Hezbollah killers to murder dozens of Jewish innocents in Buenos Aires.

Two, the permanence of the State of Israel is in play; it's negotiable or as Hamas unabashedly demands "the international community correct its 1947 mistake," while in the same breath affirming that this doesn't negate its readiness to first take over the 1967 territories "without preconditions" - as per the "phased solution" model (i.e. Israel's phased destruction). Caroline Glick shouts out, "Jews Wake Up!"

'Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid'....Eh?

The 1922 portrait of Dr. Stadelmann [mustache removed] by the famous Otto Dix, Art Gallery of Ontario, Toronto, W.Landmann Collection

 

Absolutely furious, and quite rightly so, Mac Brachman kindly sends me the link to Jeffrey Goldberg's WaPo review today of President Jimmy Carter's "despicable book", sending me into a spin of unprecedented proportions on this seemingly peaceful Sunday morning.

President Jimmy 'Cowardly Appeasement Policy' Carter is a disgrace. This we know. We also know that he is a rabid anti-Semite, a coward, and acknowledge the fact that the agreement signed 25 years ago with Iran releasing the 52 American hostages was negotiated and signed by President Jimmy "Cowardly Appeasement Policy" Carter, on January 20th 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, as his last glorious act as President of the U.S. just before he handed the sullied reigns over to Ronald Reagan.

As I have written before, almost all the trouble with the Iranian Mullahcracy and their murderous activities throughout the Middle East are deeply rooted in Carter's ignorance which in no small part resulted in the diplomatic obligations set out in the Algiers Accords Agreement, which codified the January 1981 deal between the United States and Iran under which the hostages were released, approx. 8 billion dollars in Iranian assets were unfrozen, and an arbitration tribunal was established in the Netherlands to settle claims between the two countries. In the first part of the document, the United States pledged that it "will be the policy of the United States not to intervene, directly or indirectly, politically or militarily, in Iran's internal affairs." Elsewhere, the United States pledged to "bar and preclude" any claims filed by the hostages against Iran.

Under the Agreement, the United States is obligated "to terminate all legal proceedings in United States courts involving claims of United States persons and institutions against Iran and its state enterprises, to nullify all attachments and judgments obtained therein, to prohibit all further litigation based on such claims, and to bring about the termination of such claims through binding arbitration...."

Lost In Translation (Weekend Thread)

 

Whilst my good friend Jeff Goldstein @ Protein Wisdom is on a semi-Sabbatical, his guest poster 'Ahem' asks: "Will the Saudis Succeed in Exporting Shari’a to the US?". The post is a must-read, but I was particularely grateful for the link to Robert Locke's brilliant essay:

The laws of Saudi Arabia, based upon the sharia law mandated by the Koran, do not recognize the rights and freedoms guaranteed Americans by the Constitution. The Saudi government makes no secret of its ambition to export Islamic tyranny worldwide, as the Koran commands. What most Americans don’t realize, is that American courts are helping it in a number of ways. For example, they are collaborating with Saudi attempts to squash the free-speech rights of Americans with abusive libel lawsuits....

Charles Johnson @ LGF wryly sums it up as "may the best culture win".

So, is it about culture? You bet. Commenter 'Passerby' from Singapore speaks for the vast majority of Muslims who live outside the Islamic trouble spots. He/she is as much an onlooker as we are, very likely enjoying the same civil liberties and economic advantages as we do -- Singapore has banned wearing the Islamic headscarf in public schools and is well known for its careful policies to manage the second most densly populated country in the world, especially given the fact, that it is a multi-religious society made up of 40% Buddhists, 15% Christians, 14% Muslims, 5% practicing Taoism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Baha'i Faith, and some 15% professing no religion (source).

But, most importantly, 'Passerby' has the same familiar and heartwarming memories surrounding religious ceremonies and regular rituals experienced together with friends and family from the earliest days of his/her life, spanning all the way to the present day. And when confronted with our quest here on ATB to shed light on the threats facing us and our children in the future, it must be difficult to consolidate the personal experiences and the harsh tone with which we take issue with Islam as it presents itself to us every day in the usual trouble spots.

First, I want to say to all the 'Passerbys' of this world, you are most certainly welcome to join our journey and our quest to navigate through the dense forest of disinformation on all fronts, both domestically and internationlly. All here on ATB will most heartily agree with "Hatred against other religion and people in it is certainly a barrier to foster closer ties and to erase any tensions among us all."; all will cheer statements suggesting that knowledge is the only answer to combat bigotry, "so we know what is wrong and what is right."

Most of us thought of Islam as just another religion and would have endorsed Al-Kafirun's call for unbiased religious tolerance. But acquiring knowledge about Islam, not slander, as 'Passerby' seemed to suggest, has caused us to take a different turn -- I can't of course allow questioning our ability to differentiate between the Qur'an and the Hadith to remain unchallenged and suggest to simply paste 'hadith' into the Google Search field on my side bar and search ATB; that should serve to nicely to demonstrate how thoroughly we go about our learning.

Understanding the full extent with which both religious and political leaders in practically all Muslim countries have systematically indoctrinated countless generations with hatred and prejudice against 'Infidels', especially Jews and Christians, gives us the much needed perspective to comprehend and debate such incidents as the cartoon war and the violent reactions to the Pope's lecture in Germany.

Actions speak louder than words. Christian actions were marred by dark periods in history; but unlike contemporary Muslims, we don't deny them nor do we ignore, that we have evolved during the centuries hence into a demonstrably peaceful religion - the era of the Spanish Inquisition has passed since many centuries, but, as 'Passerby' knows only too well, her evil offspring, namely the violent suppression of heresy against Islam is very much alive in Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, to name just a few. Try build a church in Riyadh or organize a Christian prayer group in Islamabad and see how the words from Al-Kafirum hold water.

It is my dearest wish, that all 'Passerbys' would redirect their concerns to the Jews and Christians living amongst Muslim bretheren in Islamic countries; any sadness, in what was mistook for hatred against Islam on ATB, should much rather be caused by the fate of those, whose life is made unbearable by violent attacks because they are either Infidels or have the courage to confront the dark ages ingrained in today's Islam.

Peace is what we thought we had, and all we want. Al-Kafirun's words describe Judea/Christian actions over many many years, but bear no resemblance to the condition prevalent in almost all Islamic countries.

The Day After

 

My Blogfather Hugh Hewitt puts it like this:

Congratulations are in order to the Dems who ran a skillful campaign that kept the focus on the GOP's scandals and away from the left's agenda. The GOP couldn't recover from Foley's repulsive conduct, and the enemy was willing to kill randomly in the run-up to the vote in order to demoralize an American public.

After an eventful night hosted by CNN and surrounded by some of our finest, Ed Morrissey is calling a spade a spade:

I don't think anyone can honestly look at the results tonight and say that we saw anything less than a trip to the woodshed for the Republicans. We may hold the Senate by the barest of margins, but the House is gone in a substantial manner. Some will make comparisons between this six-year election and those past (1986, 1974, 1958) and claim a moral victory in containing the losses, but that simply won't fly.

This is a big loss, and it will hurt the GOP and the Bush administration. Even if we do hold the Senate, we will have to find compromise candidates for the federal bench, and also look forward to more taxes and regulation. Free trade is a goner. The prosecution of the war on terror will get limited by a probable repeal of the Patriot Act, or at least an attempt to do so, and I'm very sure the Democrats will move to defund the operations in Iraq by a date certain in order to force a "phased redeployment".

And that's not even counting the myriad investigations that Democrats will launch against the Bush administration. Republicans will keep it from getting out of hand, but the Democrats will want to build enough damaging allegations to win again in 2008.

Ouch!!!

The Blame-Game

'The Scream' by Edvard Munch 1893, National Gallery Oslo, Norway

 

This is a good question:

On Election Day, when thinking about the effect of your vote on your wallet, it is important to stop and ask yourself: What Would the Democrats Do?

Increase regulation, raise taxes -- Democrats typically mistrust the effects of tax cuts and how they generate windfall individual and corporate tax revenues, which would otherwise not have materialized, because it is an indirect measure and outside of their direct control -- and shoring up entitlements.

But that's on Tuesday.

Today, we need to reflect on the anniversary of a terrible event, some 27 years ago. On November 4, 1979 Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and fellow terrorists seized the United States embassy in Tehran, thus marking a significant milestone in Islam's foray against the West and Judea/Christian traditions and values. Pax Islamica is the goal, as I keep reminding us all; Islamic peace will reign supreme once all other religions have been successfully suppressed and all Infidels either killed or converted.

Most Muslims don't think about their religion in these terms, thank God. But that doesn't lessen the fact, that today's President of the Mullahcracy, governing Iran, was also the leader of those, who unleashed unmitigated terror on 52 embassy staff members for 444 days. It doesn't lessen the fact, that President Carter infused new meaning to the term 'Appeasement' and it certainly doesn't lessen the fact, that the same group of murdering thugs started Lebanon War II and are turning Iraq into a daily showpiece of the full depravity governing Islamic Jihadists.

Tehran knows the significance of this anniversary and duly commemorates it.

Some of our (ex)-leaders instead see fit to lay blame for political gain, completely ignoring the most infuriating outrage of all: 27 years later, Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad continues to terrorize Americans and all those who are seeking to shake off the dehumanizing chains of 'Islam by the letter'.

Their bickering completely fails to acknowledge the fact, that our Thug-In-Chief only came to power Summer 2005. That since then, Iran dramatically increased its terrorist activities and support for its web of proxy armies throughout the region, largely emboldened by the 'Bush lied, People died' camp over here and abroad to shed the theretofore cumbersome efforts to keep their nefarious activities covert. They conveniently ignore, that Ahmadinejad's push for regional hegemony has started a nuclear race in the Middle East because, just like Israel, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia do in fact take the Thug-In-Chief and his threats seriously.

If anything, the biggest blame for the escalating violence in Iraq is the West's impotence vis-a-vis Islamic impunity and violence and the obsession to rationalize their barbaric behavior in terms which are both divorced from its true source, namely the Quar'an and Sharia law and the mindset of the medieval perpetrators. The consequence, as so instructively demonstrated during Lebanon War II, is one hell of a resounding command to all murdering thugs, echoing far and wide, 'All systems GO! The Infidel Yellow Dog has no teeth. Do not fear the mighty army for it is on a leash controlled by a dysfunctional public unable to muster any unanimous resolve to stand in our way."

And therefore, if the blame-game we must play, the biggest mistake of all, was and still is the failure to intimidate the enemy. And that, my Liberal friends, is one fault you can not lay on the doorstep of this administration, but you must seek in front of your own.

No Sigh Of Relief Anytime Soon (Weekend Thread)

 

So, should we breathe in for the long overdue sigh of relief? Can Cpl. Gilad Shalit soon go home and restart his life? It's been over four months now; remember he was captured on Sunday, June 25th after Palestinian terrorists had dug a tunnel to attack an IDF army post in Israel. Let's hope so.

But now we need to look at the cost -- not in the sense of weighing up, of course, but rather in the way of understanding the bigger picture.

Hamas militants need the violent clashes to continue. It's what they do. It's their day job, paid for through myriad and seedy channels under the general auspice of 'Holy War', namely Jihad. [...]

Hamas is Hamas, a terrorist organization, period. It's purpose is the destruction of Israel; to them all Palestinian men are Jihadists, all boys future supplies for the course; women, necessary to keep the cycle going.

Of course they want their murdering thugs back. It's a numbers game: The more bodies to throw into the fight the sooner the genocidal dream is hoped to become a reality. Free them, and we all know, they will come back to kill and maim as many Jews as they possibly can; spare them, and you allow them to attack with increased vigor, for that is what they have been taught to be their single and only purpose in life -- oh, I forgot, apart from ensuring that every future generation carries on with the murderous objective, like so:

On Friday, Palestinian Foreign Minister Mahmoud Zahar kicked things off at a rally in Khan Yunis, bringing down the house by declaring that Israel is "an abomination in the Middle East" that will someday "disappear."

"We will never recognize Israel, and in the end the [fate of] Zionists will be like that of the Crusaders, the Persians and the English, who left," said Zahar, a founding father of Hamas.

"We want all of Palestine, every centimeter, from the river to the sea, from Rosh Hanikra to Rafah. If we can form a state within the 1967 borders we will do so, but this doesn't mean that we will relinquish our right to every centimeter of Palestine's land."

There it is. No room for us Jews. No room for our history, our past presence here. No room for our common ancestry with the Palestinians. No room for Abraham. He was, after all, not from here. He was from Mesopotamia. Let him go back.

There it is. There's not a centimeter that we can call our own. But don't take Zahar's word for it. Listen to a speech from later that same day.

The occasion was the Silver Anniversary observance of al-Quds Day, a national festival of protests the length and breadth of Iran, meant as a tribute to the Jewish-occupied Holy City of Jerusalem (al-Quds in Arabic).

The speaker was Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose opening reference to Israel said that there was no reason for Israel to exist.

"This regime, thanks to God, has lost the reason for its existence," Ahmadinejad told thousands at a Death to Israel pep rally in Tehran.

"Efforts to stabilize this fake (Israeli) regime, by the grace of God, have completely failed ... You should believe that this regime is disappearing," he said.

And, just in case you have been mislead to believe that Israeli violence begets Palestinian violence; that this is all one hell of a vicious circle; that U.S. and UK foreign policies are much to blame, remember the report from British policeman, Superintendent Raymond Cafferata:

"On hearing screams in a room I went up a sort of tunnel passage and saw an Arab in the act of cutting off a child's head with a sword. He had already hit him and was having another cut, but on seeing me he tried to aim the stroke at me, but missed; he was practically on the muzzle of my rifle. I shot him low in the groin. Behind him was a Jewish woman smothered in blood with a man I recognized as a[n Arab] police constable named Issa Sherif from Jaffa in mufti. He was standing over the woman with a dagger in his hand. He saw me and bolted into a room close by and tried to shut me out-shouting in Arabic, "Your Honor, I am a policeman." ... I got into the room and shot him."

Jews don't cut off children's heads, are not known to commit such unspeakable atrocities. In contrast however, look around the world and place a pin on the map wherever such horrendous crimes against humanity are being committed and you will find, that Islam seems to govern almost all the actions of the perpetrators.

No difference some 80 years ago, at the time of the 1929 Hebron massacre, described so vividly by the British policeman. And that, my friends, is what Hamas, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood and all the rest of them, including the me-too clown in Syria, have in mind for every Jew they can lay their bloodstained mitts on. That is what Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad really dreams about, in all its gory detail.

The bomb is second-best, and only a last resort, should it fail to deter the international community so as to look the other way as Hezbollah & Co. do their worst.

The Pallywood Al-Durrah Affair

 

A story which I had managed to miss blogging about completely, was covered extensively by my friend neo-neocon who flew to Paris and attended yesterday the second of the three al-Durrah (four versions of spelling exist) defamation trials at Le Palais de Justice.

But first some background

French Judges are carefully examining harrowing television images of a Palestinian father shielding his son from a burst of bullets.

The ghastly television footage transformed 12-year-old Mohammed al-Dura into an international martyr of the second intifada and ignited a lingering controversy. Six years later, France 2, the state-supported channel that captured the exclusive video, is fighting to protect its reputation in a French courtroom, where it is suing three Internet critics who questioned the channel's veracity.

To confront its on-line detractors, France 2 is invoking the 1881 press slander law that Émile Zola defied when he published "J'accuse" in the Dreyfus affair. In effect, it is an insult law that protects individuals or groups from defamation that "strikes at honor" and reputation.

The channel's lawsuits accuse three Web site operators - an Israeli translator, a Parisian doctor and a former candidate for Parliament turned media consultant - of impugning the station and its Jerusalem correspondent, Charles Enderlin, a gravelly voiced veteran whose work and writing have drawn plaudits from the mayor of Paris and President Jacques Chirac, among others. [...]

In his first report, which France 2 released without charge to other international television stations, Enderlin said simply that the father and his son "were the target of fire from Israeli positions." He was not actually there when the shooting happened but worked closely with a Palestinian cameraman who filmed the scene.

Since then, the debate has shifted from where the bullets came from - it is unclear whether it was Palestinian or Israeli fire - to whether the shooting was a form of street theater staged for propaganda effect.

Neo-neocon is in Paris covering the second trial involving "Pierre Lurçat, a 39 year old Jerusalem resident and president of an association called Liberty, Democracy and Judaism was sued because he is the leader of an organization listed as the legal operator of a Web site,www.liguededefensejuive.com, that urged readers to attend a planned demonstration against France 2 in 2002: "Come demonstrate against the lies of France 2," it said, and "the gross manipulation with an award for disinformation to France 2 and Charles Enderlin."

Those of you who are used to the free-for-all that is the internet are probably more than a bit perplexed as to what the big deal is here. That this sort of statement could be a cause of action in any court in a country that considers itself to be a modern, developed, progressive nation--not to mention a bastion of liberty--is ludicrous.

Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether the accusations this defendant made against France 2 and Enderlin are true, as blogger and historian Richard Landes (and, in the interests of full disclosure, acquaintance and friend of mine) has suggested at his website Second Draft and his blog Augean Stables.

Forget it? Isn't it of the utmost importance? Absolutely of the utmost importance. I happen to believe the evidence is strong that both France2 and Enderlin may have done exactly what Lurçat and the other two defendants have accused them of doing (at the very least the plaintiffs almost certainly lied in their original allegations that the Israelis deliberately killed the boy, and about the amount of footage they had and what it showed; I've written at some length on al Durah/France 2 before, here and here.)

Some more on her latest impressions, in case you missed "the gilded exterior with a hollow heart", whilst Richard Landes @ his blog Augean Stables has extensive backgrounder and has followed the trials personally from the beginning.

Whilst researching, I discovered this extraordinary piece dealing with the Muslims who aggressively demanded the 1741 Voltaire play to be canceled in Saint-Genis-Puilly, due to it's offensive subject. Why stop at blogging Pallywood, why not go 265 years back to the famous "French 18th Century champion of enlightenment" if you can get away with it...

The Devil Doesn't Wear Prada

 

When in touch with his feminine side, he wears a full head to toe veil called a burqa or niqab, covering nose, mouth, everything really, except for a small crocheted grill over the eyes or simply an opening. The devil is showing the world how to disguise totalitarian militant politics as religion, and strip away every ounce of freedom and dignity from its Muslim women. Europe has finally woken up to the fact that their liberty is in danger of getting swallowed in a pile of politically correct apologetic garbage.

"Must one be more Muslim than Mohammed?" It's astonishing how often I am asked this question. Europeans are finally waking up to the fact that it is Islamism, not Islam, that is hostile to everything Europe holds dear. Women's rights. Secular law and education. Tolerance of gays and different faiths.

The very principle of reason as superior to superstition, the science of Galileo and the free speech of Voltaire—all is under threat from a totalitarian politics disguised as religion.

Europe is not about to descend into a new war on belief. But there's no mistaking the change in climate. In Britain, Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, touched off a storm by suggesting that Muslim women should not wear a full-length veil. It was socially divisive, he explained, "a mark of separation" rather than community. When Prime Minister Tony Blair subsequently agreed, he only reinforced the impression that the country is heading toward even deeper tension between Muslims and non-Muslims. The trend lines are similar elsewhere, whether in France (with its riots) or the Netherlands (with new laws banning the head-to-toe burqa in public) or Belgium (where in recent municipal elections the anti-immigrant Flemish Bloc nearly won control of Antwerp.)

Back home

If the latest FBI hate-crime statistics are any indication, of the 1,314 verified offenses motivated by religious bias, 68.5 percent were anti-Jewish.

Only 11.1 percent were anti-Islamic, despite claims of rampant anti-Muslim bigotry in the U.S. by groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations.

Mac Brachman sends me this, from his local Chicago Tribune: 'Displacing a Muslim woman's scarf leads to 40 days sensitivity training'

"Religion is a waste of time," Huffman said without apparent malice, as his fingers traced ceramic tiles that spell out the 99 names of God in Islam. He checked his mobile phone text messages with his other hand.

Zapata, 32, a Mexican-American Muslim convert, winced at the comment, but she later said she was optimistic about the next several weeks.

"I don't know how reflective he's going to be. I feel the resistance," she said. "I think he has good potential."

Indeed. Well I am glad it wasn't me; I am afraid, I would definitely have ended up in jail. I am naturally prone to a fair amount of resistance when having Islam shoved down my throat. I think I'll just carry on wearing Prada, thanks.

Mac continues:

Guess who sponsored the training the young man endured, er, underwent? CAIR's Chicago office. But we must all be sensitive to Muslims, even when they show no reciprocity or insist on veiled anonymity and other gestures to distance themselves from the pluralist society they're supposedly trying to integrate themselves into, while attacking Jews and making them the font of every evil conspiracy on earth (9/11 conspiracy theories, anyone? Holocaust denial, two bags a dollar, cheap?) is perfectly OK. I'll conclude this post before I nauseate myself.

UPDATE: I wish I had this wonderful post earlier, written by the inimitable Fausta, depicting her first experience spotting a niqab, nearly thirty years ago in London, at my old stomping ground 'corner shop' by the name of Harrods.

The Bloody Dance Of The Qur'an

 

My friend Gaius Arbo sends me an important op-ed from the WaPo. Nothing new to readers of ATB, but still a vitally important message we have to keep on sending. "It shows what we are fighting." Gaius tells me. "It is not Islam - it is the Islamist extremist interpretation of Islam. And it is written by a Muslim woman, Asra Q. Nomani."

MORGANTOWN, W.Va. When dealing with a "disobedient wife," a Muslim man has a number of options. First, he should remind her of "the importance of following the instructions of the husband in Islam." If that doesn't work, he can "leave the wife's bed." Finally, he may "beat" her, though it must be without "hurting, breaking a bone, leaving blue or black marks on the body and avoiding hitting the face, at any cost."

Such appalling recommendations, drawn from the book "Woman in the Shade of Islam" by Saudi scholar Abdul Rahman al-Sheha, are inspired by as authoritative a source as any Muslim could hope to find: a literal reading of the 34th verse of the fourth chapter of the Koran, An-Nisa , or Women. "[A]nd (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them," reads one widely accepted translation.

The notion of using physical punishment as a "disciplinary action," as Sheha suggests, especially for "controlling or mastering women" or others who "enjoy being beaten," is common throughout the Muslim world. Indeed, I first encountered Sheha's work at my Morgantown mosque, where a Muslim student group handed it out to male worshipers after Friday prayers one day a few years ago.

Verse 4:34 retains a strong following, even among many who say that women must be treated as equals under Islam. Indeed, Muslim scholars and leaders have long been doing what I call "the 4:34 dance" — they reject outright violence against women but accept a level of aggression that fits contemporary definitions of domestic violence.

Western leaders, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, have recently focused on Muslim women's veils as an obstacle to integration in the West. But to me, it is 4:34 that poses the much deeper challenge of integration. How the Muslim world interprets this passage will reveal whether Islam can be compatible with life in the 21st century. As Hadayai Majeed, an African American Muslim who had opened a shelter in Atlanta to serve Muslim women, put it, "If it's okay for me to be a savage in my home, it's okay for me to be a savage in the world."

Not long after I picked up the free Saudi book, Mahmoud Shalash, an imam from Lexington, Ky., stood at the pulpit of my mosque and offered marital advice to the 100 or so men sitting before him. He repeated the three-step plan, with "beat them" as his final suggestion. Upstairs, in the women's balcony, sat a Muslim friend who had recently left her husband, who she said had abused her; her spouse sat among the men in the main hall.

At the sermon's end, I approached Shalash. "This is America," I protested. "How can you tell men to beat their wives?"

"They should beat them lightly," he explained. "It's in the Koran."

He was doing the dance.

Gaius goes on to say "Nomani is making a point here: How can you expect to stop suicide bombers, jihadists and preachers of violence when it is perfectly acceptable to many Muslim males to engage in domestic violence. She quotes another Muslim woman describing the thought process among too many Muslim males: "If it's okay for me to be a savage in my home, it's okay for me to be a savage in the world."

Well in our culture it is not okay to beat a woman 'lightly' or otherwise. Period.

The 'Humiliation Of Occupation' Rears Its Ugly Head Again

 

I give you Joseph Farah of WND

I've waited to deal with the following news development because it is so disturbing to me personally, I needed to let my rage subside.

I can now speak and write coherently about the latest ghastly statements by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice concerning the Middle East. But it's not easy.

Last week, Rice said America could have no greater legacy than to divide the land of Israel and establish a Palestinian Arab terrorist state to end what she called the "humiliation of occupation." She made the statement at a dinner celebrating the third anniversary of the American Task Force on Palestine.

"The Palestinian people deserve a better life, a life that is rooted in liberty, democracy, uncompromised by violence and terrorism, unburdened by corruption and misrule and forever free of the daily humiliation of occupation," she said. "I promise you my personal commitment to that goal."

Of course, no one can argue that Arabs deserve a better life. As a matter of fact, as an Arab-American who covered the region as a journalist for many years, I can tell you they had one when they were living under Israeli control. Since they have been living under autonomy and under the control of terrorists, life has indeed been miserable.

What chance is there for democracy or liberty or a life uncompromised by violence and terrorism or unburdened by corruption and misrule under leaders sworn to destroy their neighbors and committed to unending war?

It's worth mentioning that these leaders, the ones who are going to usher into existence Rice's fantasy of democracy, liberty and an end to terrorism and corruption, consider all the Jews of the Middle East as occupiers. The only way that occupation will end is by their annihilation. And when Rice feeds their passions with this kind of talk, she is in reality paving the way for a future holocaust.

But she wasn't finished with those insensitive, misguided words.

Islam's Cosa Nostra

 

Never loose sight of the unique threat posed by Iran. It's the only country run by Islamic purists with enormous piles of cash to invest in their evil cause. It's Islam's Cosa Nostra and 'The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution', or Revolutionary Guards for short, are their henchmen.

Kim Yong-il needs to resort to criminal activities and starve his people to finance his court of cronies and maintain power over North Korea; diamond trade in Africa has become more transparent and is increasingly better regulated since 9-11, eliminating the livelihood of some of the usual suspects; Taliban in Afghanistan are a nuisance mainly because of the flourishing drug trade -- curb that and you've killed the Taliban -- but they still depend materially on the support from Iran.

Andrew Higgins at the Wall Street Journal penned an important essay about the business of terror, referred to as 'Revolutionary Guard Inc.' (linked to Iran Focus as WSJ is subscription only). The following organizational chart provides the initial overview: Needless to say, Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad was a member during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war.

In fact, we are treated to a rare insight behind the scenes; the kind where we can get a glimpse of our enemy's determination to sustain Oil riches to pay for the sanguinary cause of imposing Shari'a law on the rest of the world -- well, the Middle East first, then the rest of the world... Higgins heading tells all: 'A feared force roils business in Iran'

The Dichotomy

'Spectre Of Stockholm' by Peter Howson 1992, Private Collection, London

 

"We expect your retaliation; it's what unites us and divides you."

This from the mouth of a common thug and murdering terrorist, who is of course glorified among far too many fellow Muslims the world over as a 'mujahideen' or 'jihadist' fighter, spreading the glory of Islam.

His response is chilling to the bone as he is being interrogated shortly after his fellow Jihadist thugs had just managed to detonate a dirty bomb in the heart of London. A brilliant fictional but chillingly realistic drama called 'Dirty War' produced by British Luke Alkin. Hundreds of thousands dead, many more dying from radiation poisoning; major parts of the City of London cordoned off for the next 30 years due to contamination; countless businesses and lives ruined; property prices in free fall with no respite anywhere near in sight.   

The sanity of his actions were questioned, citing the inevitable retaliation, causing even more suffering among those, he calls brothers and claims to avenge. "We expect your retaliation; it's what unites us and divides you", brilliantly sums up everything that has happened since 9/11. We are dangerously divided over this issue, and it will be our downfall.

It is the most succinct description of the tragic dichotomy plaguing democratic nations and free societies both East and West: In contrast to a history of millennia during which the individual was virtually powerless and exposed to often limitless physical and mental abuse, we are now experiencing an era where never before in living memory one person, or a small group, is able to inflict cataclysmic devastation and carnage on literally millions whilst at the same time enjoying equally unprecedented levels of protection against any civil rights infringement, effectively barring any form of effective interrogation or prevention; this is compounded by the fact, that individuals are allowed to make their murderous intentions crystal clear by countless and unfailingly explicit announcements without fear of repercussion. It's there for all of us to see, hear and read, if only we chose to. But most of us don't.

The Russian Bear Awakes

 

I read Caroline Glick frequently and always with keen interest. Her insight is sharp and refreshingly unabashed by shackles of political correctness. Earlier this year her urgent warning call following Ilan Halimi's barbarous murder in France introduced yet another of her commanding one-liners: "Today, every Jew in the world is on the front lines of war."

As was the case seventy years ago, every Jew today is a target for our enemies, who shout from every soapbox and prove at every opportunity, that their goal is the annihilation of the Jewish people. From 1933-1945, the enemy was Nazi Germany. Today, the enemy is political Islam. Its call for jihad aimed at annihilating the Jews and dominating the world is answered by millions of people throughout the world.

Among the lessons of the Holocaust, there is one that is almost never mentioned. That lesson is that it is possible, and indeed fairly easy to exterminate the Jews. The fact that the Holocaust happened proves that it is absolutely possible for the Jewish people to be wiped off the map - just as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hamas leader Khaled Mashal promise.

Then came the Lebanon War II and UNSC Resolution 1701, which effectively sealed Israel's fate to face yet another war with an even better equipped and supported proxy army in the not so distant future on her northern borders.

Next, President Vladimir Putin of Russia promises the world during the Valdai Club early September, that "Russia would not use its rapidly intensifying and expanding global energy leverage to dominate others like "a superpower" would."

The Palestinian Code Of Honor

"St Mark Freeing a Christian Slave" by Tintoretto 1548, Accademia, Venice

 

My friend JoshuaPundit is quite rightly enraged about the meeting that took place between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the leader of Tanzim, the so called 'military arm' of Abbas' Fatah. He asks: "Anybody remember a certain US president saying, `You're either with the terrorists or with us'?"

Because the Bush Administration wants to look good and curry favor with people like the Saudis and the EU and continue to flush more taxpayer dollars down the Palestinian rathole without actually breaking US law by funding a terrorist government, they are actively working to subvert the Palestinian democracy by supporting Arafat II because he's better at hiding his real agenda - the elimination of Israel.

This kind of hypocrisy is disgusting on every level. Not to mention damaging to our war effort.

So let’s catch up on the background here. As I have said before: The militants from both Fatah and Hamas are hell bent unstoppable on their way to have their prolonged bloodshed. Hamas is in power, Fatah is lurking in the shadows, but make no mistake about it, they are both terrorist organizations, period. Their purpose is the destruction of Israel; to them all Palestinian men are Jihadists, all boys future supplies for the course; women necessary to keep the cycle going. So, don't give me the old toffee about Hamas' charitable work and allegedly incorruptible track record, and Fatah’s wish to legitmize terrorism as their newly elected opposition has. Yeah right.

Arafat's entire life was dedicated to keep the violence going. The West periodically mixed in their pet conspiracies, charging Israel at various stages that it equally wished the violence to continue. Poppycock.

This whole charade is built on logic best illustrated by this statement: "And since Hamas is bad, Abbas must be good." Eh?

No Excuses For Terror

 

An extraordinary documentary on Islamic terrorism aired on Channel 5 in the UK this week. Made by left wing British journalist David Aaronovitch, it spares no punches in its criticism of the leftie sympathy towards Islamic terrorism, whilst they continue to condemn any actions instigated by Israel and the U.S. All 4 parts are a must see, and I have set the video to play all.

I have said it before and I'll say it again: after nearly 40 years of pin-point targeted response to Arab rabid hostilities leading to this perverse situation where the West pays the Arab officials, synonymous with terrorism, billions of Dollars so that they can keep spitting into Israel's face, we have come a full circle.

(h/t LGF)

Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad Caught Red-Handed

'Jews Praying in the Synagogue' by Maurycy Gottlieb ca. 1878, Tel Aviv Museum of Art, Tel Aviv

 

We are all well aware how Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad is modeling himself on Grand-Master-Über-Thug Ayatollah Khomeini, may he rot in Hell for all eternity.

We also know with certainty, that the Mullahcracy has been desperately trying to build the bomb at least since the early Nineties. We furthermore know today, that all the various assurances given in the past, that no such efforts were in fact made, were also nothing but bold faced lies.

Finally, we know, that for the period of almost two decades, every promise of cooperation, extracted from the Mullahcracy at various times by the U.S., several EU member states, the IAEA, the UN and other such illustrious parties so as to prevent a nuclear Islamic Republic in the heart of the Middle East, has only ever been feigned with one aim in mind, to buy more time for the Mullahcracy to reach nuclear ecstasy.

Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani feels quite evidently so secure in his conviction that we in the West still refuse to acknowledge this unyielding track record of utterly determined defiance when he, as part of a feud with a military commander over responsibility for the 1988 cease-fire, released a letter from Ayatollah Khomeini written in 1988 saying "that Iran would need nuclear weapons to win the war with Iraq". And he is right; exposing the deceitful agenda of our Thug-In-Chief and his Mullahcracy does not pass for headline news:

In the letter, Khomeini, who died in 1989, quotes the country's leading military commander of the day on the weaponry Iran would need to continue fighting. The letter also reveals that Iran's economy had been almost destroyed by the eight-year war and that the supply of military volunteers was drying up.

The letter strikes a nerve because the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has denied that Iran plans to develop nuclear weapons. He has said that such weapons would violate Islamic principles.

But the letter suggests that Khomeini, leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, had no such qualms.

We knew of course, that our Thug-In-Chief was lying through his teeth when he stated that nuclear weapons violate Islamic principals. But we couldn't quite prove it. Now we can and that should be big news, especially amongst the apologist Liberals. The word of Khomeini is as good as law for Ahmadinejad; he would never contradict it save for false pretenses in the interest of spreading the dominance of Islam.

Again, I ask my Liberal friends, which part of, "alone of the world's major faiths, Islam was founded by a prophet who used force to win converts" do you not understand"?

"I was ordered to fight all men until they say, 'There is no god but Allah,' " Muhammad proclaimed in his farewell address to his followers in AD 632.

Spare me the intellectually challenged retort of citing missionary precedent of forceful conversions; the spotlight is directed on Muhammad and his teachings, and at the stark contrast in which they stand to those of Jesus Christ.

Instead, and on this Shabbat Shuvah, the Shabbat between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we ought to remember the injustice meted out against the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as it was wrongly blamed for the massacre at Sabra and Shatilla in 1982. In the words of Menachem Begin:

"The whole campaign of blaming Israel for the massacre, of placing moral responsibility on Israel," he wrote, "seems to me, an old man who has seen so much in his lifetime, to be almost unbelievable, fantastic and utterly despicable.

"After the September 14 [1982] assassination of president-elect Bashir Jemayel we decided to move the IDF into West Beirut to prevent a Christian revenge on the Muslim population. It never occurred to anyone dealing with the Lebanese military units which subsequently entered the Sabra and Shatilla camps that they would perpetrate a massacre.

"The first horrific truth is that Arabs murdered Arabs. The second truth is that Israeli soldiers stopped the carnage. And the third truth is that if the current libelous campaign against Israel should go on without a reaction of outrage by decent men - yes, outrage - then within a matter of weeks or months everyone everywhere will have gotten the impression that it was an Israeli military unit which perpetrated the horrible killings."

"How right Begin was", are the closing words by Yehuda Avner, author of this moving tribute (he served on the personal staff of five prime ministers, including Menachem Begin).

I wish all my Jewish friends that you may have an easy fast!

Independent Thought

'The Annunciation' by Bernardo Strozzi 1643-44, Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest

 

'From Beirut to the Beltway' has a refreshing take on Hezbollah's struggle for acceptance at home:

What happened since the Syrian withdrawal, and the latest war, was the gradual descent of Hizbullah from a high plateau engineered by Assad and local elements into the dungeons of domestic politics. This war may not have destroyed Nasrallah's rockets, but it flushed their holiness down the chute of the Lebanese sectarian system. Hizbullah's weapons, once holy and beyond  criticism, are now accused of being foreign tools, and regarded with suspicion. [...]

The "party's" monopoly over all matters resistance and sacrifice is slowly ending. [...]

It is my opinion that Nasrallah is a criminal for keeping us all in his freezer.

Hizbullah constantly markets itself as something better than the militias that reigned during the civil war. Since that war ended, Hizbullah repackaged itself as a resistance movement and placed itself on a higher moral ground, above all other militias and political movements in the country. The alleged "purity" of this militia was employed to advance the notion that their political representatives are honest and above all others.

Even Michel Aoun believes that, and has defended Hizbullah's allegedly untainted record in Lebanon in a recent interview with Elaph. Aoun, like many others, is delusional, for Hizbullah did use their weapons against other Lebanese. I lived in a Beirut neighborhood that saw some of the fiercest fighting between Amal and Hizbullah. In fact, armed clashes between Amal and Hizbullah continued until recently (somehow, these clashes are seen as friendly clashes between brothers or some nonsense like that). Many southern villages are divided along Hizbullah and Amal lines, and there have been numerous incidents that were largely ignored by the media. [...]

In short, Hizbullah is not better than the others. They did kill other Lebanese in the past and their "strategy" continues to kill them in the present. While most parties now look beyond the war, and are making amends, Hizbullah is still stuck in one that is partly of its making.

You can easily get lost in the jungle of Lebanese politics and recent history. As usual, we only see the tip of the iceberg and understand even less. But understanding the intricate dynamics of Lebanese politics as they are unfolding in front of our eyes is more important than I had initially realized, for it serves as a test-bed of things to come in the region and in Europe, set so disasterously on its way to demographically evolve into 'Eurabia'.

Nasrallah and Hezbollah clearly wish to 'convert' Lebanon into the next Islamic Republic, modeled closely after its Iranian Masters. And, as usual for the fundamental Muslims, 'convert' means accept Shari'a law or die. As such, Nasrallah is the only remaining militia warlord in Lebanon today, fully armed and ready to use violence to spread the Caliphat. Who were the others and where are they today?

The Clinton 'Bonfire Of Vanities'

'Nightmare' by Zhao Yannian (born in China 1924) 1989, Spencer Museum of Art, University of Kansas

 

I did not get a chance to write about the Bill Clinton/Chris Wallace interview on 'Fox News Sunday' (video), despite reading the transcript a couple of days ago and finally getting to watch the entire Fox program yesterday as opposed to the segment we all saw prior to the airing of the show.

I have mixed views on this, and was almost not going to take the ball and run with it, but being known for taking the bull by the horns despite being on the opposing side of certain issues, it's a difficult one to simply let slide, and besides, my readers have the opportunity to pulverize my arguments for a change of pace.

Whilst I appreciate that the entire conservative side of the Blogosphere has been spitting on Bill Clinton from a great height this weekend, I find too many inconsistencies in their criticisms to feel comfortable about standing behind them all the way on this one. And yes accusing Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" is simply a part of the new raging 'culture of conspiracy', which the ex-President has fallen victim to, we shall have to put that aside.

The famous question from Chris Wallace that sent the former President into a spin was: "Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President.? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called the Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops."

Well excuse me, since when do we give a hoot about what that monster of a human being says or thinks, unless it's to rearrange his sorry anatomy? Let's face it, ex-President or not, this is an infuriating question, obviously bringing up emotions greatly fueled by the assertions made in 'The Path to 9/11' ABC documentary. Especially if you feel that you have left "a comprehensive anti-terrorist strategy and the best guy in the country Richard Clark..." to carry it out, and for the next President to get on with.

We can all remember that we criticized his Administration at the time for being too obsessed with terrorism and bin-Laden. Despite conservative bloggers now quoting the U.S. Justice Indictment of bin-Laden dated 1998, to disprove Clinton's claim that "There is not a living soul in the world who thought that Osama bin Laden had anything to do with Black Hawk down or was paying any attention to it or even knew Al Qaida was a growing concern in October of ‘93." And yes, we all know how to read (from the Indictment):

At various times from in or about 1992 until the date of the filing of this Indictment, USAMA BIN LADEN and other ranking members of Al Qaeda stated privately to other members of Al Qaeda that the United States forces stationed in the Horn of Africa, including Somalia, should be attacked;

Beginning in or about early spring 1993, Al Qaeda members began to provide training and assistance to Somali tribes opposed to the United Nations intervention in Somalia;

On October 3 and 4, 1993, members of Al Qaeda participated with Somali tribesmen in an attack on United States military personnel serving in Somalia as part of Operation Restore Hope, which attack killed a total of 18 United States soldiers and wounded 73 others in Mogadishu;

We did not have a clue about al-Qaeda in October 1993, and "October 1993" is what Clinton repeatedly said and not November 4th 1998 when the Indictment came out, allowing all those years of hindsight and gathering of intelligence, accusing bin-Laden and al Qaeda's Muhammad Atef, of conspiring to kill Americans.

And yes, we knew about him in 1996 when he declared war on the U.S, and in 1998 when he bombed the embassies in Africa, and in 2000 when he hit USS Cole. But it is simply untrue that we knew about him in October 1993 when Black Hawk Down occurred. At the time we all thought that the Muslim war lord named Muhammad Adid, was murdering Pakistani Muslim troops in their thousands. We went in there with no agenda to establish new Governments or democracy, or investigate an at the time inconsequential bin-Laden, but simply to put Adid's nose out of joint, and eventually transfer power to the ever ineffective UN. As he quite rightly points out we also wanted a quick withdrawal, despite the ordeal having eventually taken six months at the insistence of his Administration.

Osama bin-Laden Dead....Again? (UPDATED)

 

Cross Posted @ NewsBusters

This may be the best present to Israel today for Rosh Ha-Shanah....The Day Of Judgment....How appropriate...

Could this possibly be true? Was it something I said yesterday.....

Via WND I find in the early hours of this morning that a French daily newspaper L'Est Republicain has published that the al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden died within days of contracting typhoid fever in Pakistan.

"According to a commonly reliable source, the Saudi police believe that Osama Bin Laden has died," said a Sept. 21 confidential note transmitted by the Directorate-General of External Services.

According to the note to be published by the L'Est Republicain, the Saudi police "would try to obtain more details, in particular the location of the burial site, and then announce the news officially." The DGSE specified in the note that no "jihadist Internet site has for the moment been made aware of the death of Osama bin Laden."

According to the note, "the head of al-Qaida may have fallen victim to a strong case of typhoid fever while in Pakistan, on August 23, 2006," and may have died within a matter of days.

Developing....

Hope In Fear

 

Hezbollah are fighting a historical battle. The stakes couldn't be higher. The goal is Lebanon, the risk is relegation to fringe status. The allies are Iran, Syria and sympathizers such as Venezuela's Chavez ("To my aboriginal and indigenous brothers, we are the real owners of this land." Ahem, I can't wait to see the long faces of all those dimwits spewing the Israel-is-an-illegal-state mantra, when they realize how Chavez is modeling himself as the Arafat of the 21st century, so as to start claiming back US territories) and Cuba -- North Korea is more jealous than supportive. The list of enemies is growing. Worst of all for Nasrallah, the fat cats in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are seeing the writing on the wall: they're next.

Russia is a valid barometer for the true sentiment of those, who are now motivated by fear of losing their golden egg. Arab pride, grotesquely grandiloquent at best of times, usually prohibits even the faintest inkling of accepting Israel as a permanent state and neighbor. It thus carries enormous weight when the Saudi, Bahrain's and the Russian Foreign Minister independently talk of peace with Israel; the Bahrain official's regurgitation of the trite demands including Israel's full withdrawal from the Palestinian territory, resolving the problem of Palestinian refugees, and creating a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem shouldn't be given too much notice:

Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal of Saudi Arabia and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in separate interviews with The Associated Press around the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, spoke of the urgency for an "end game" that could give a glimmer of hope to both sides in the Middle East by resurrecting a process bogged down for three years.

At a Security Council meeting later Thursday, Bahrain's Foreign Minister Shaikh Khalid Bin Ahmed Al-Khalifa called for initial negotiations between Israel and the Arabs with a concrete timeframe, as well as a report from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the best way to hold those negotiations. [...]

Lavrov said the mood is not limited to Arab countries; agreement also is growing in Russia and among other outside power brokers overseeing the peace process that it must be re-energized to stop more problems from developing.

But most telling is the easily overlooked statement but the Russian official:

Unless the world acts quickly to increase hope among Arab youth, Lavrov warned, it could lose a whole generation in the region to extremism.

That's the driving force, the writing on the wall, no Arab official will say out loud, but this is what all of them fear the most. Hezbollah's antics in Lebanon revealed to them that the genie was out of the bottle, that their pet terrorists (don't miss the video) had grown independent and disobedient. Too long have the fat cats enjoyed the  cushy feeling of absolving their Jihad duties remote control. Now the Jihadists are turning against them, for Iran is picking up the tab.

"We have found for the first time probably a consensus that is very significant about the need of restarting the peace process," al-Faisal told AP, wearing traditional Arab robes and headdress, and speaking in a hotel suite overlooking Park Avenue.

His emphasis on consensus was the strongest statement yet by an Arab nation on the need to revive efforts to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and was echoed by the foreign ministers who attended the ministerial meeting of the Security Council.

There is only one emotion stronger in the Arab soul than 'pride', and that is genuine 'fear'. Good. I say, be afraid, be very afraid, and we may finally get somewhere.

And I don't mean just Israel, but also the long overdue denunciation of the rabidly anti-Semitic UN, for it has finally become the safe haven of all lunatics and murderers, whilst busily paving the way for their future reign of fear and genocide:

The conclusion is hard to resist that the U.N. effort is really about persuading America that it can "live with" an Iranian bomb, just as it lives with a Pakistani bomb, because the costs of economic sanctions or military strikes are supposedly prohibitive. But a glimpse of what the world will look like if Iran succeeds was provided on Tuesday by Gamal Mubarak, the son of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Cairo's heir apparent floated a proposal for Egypt to develop its own nuclear programs, clearly a signal that the largest Sunni Arab country will go nuclear itself to prevent Shiite Iran from dominating the region. And where Egypt goes, Saudi Arabia and Turkey cannot be far behind. Is the international system really prepared to live with five, maybe six, nuclear powers in the Middle East?

The media portrayed this week's U.N. speeches as a soap opera showdown between Mr. Bush and his adversaries. But in the matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is not only the Middle East that is at risk, but the U.N., which is why Messrs. Chávez and Ahmadinejad felt so free to mock its evident failures.

Just Another Monday

"Last Judgment Triptych" by Hans Memling 1467-71, Muzeum Narodowe, Gdansk

 

Whilst our kids look forward to a new iPod or mobile phone at this time of the year, schoolchildren and their parents in Iran received less joyful news on Saturday:

Tehran, Iran, Sep. 17 – A new security organ has been set up to aid police inside schools in Tehran beginning from the start of the new academic year, the chief of police in the Iranian capital announced. Brigadier General Morteza Tala’i announced the formation of a new “Youth Police” which will be present in schools across the Iranian capital.

The announcement appeared in the Saturday edition of the semi-official daily Kayhan. The new security organ will include youths of various ages. “This initiative was taken to help prevent any possible crimes [inside schools]” Tala’i said.

The State Security Forces (SSF) commander in Tehran said that the organ would operate both inside and in the vicinity of the schools. The SSF are already assisted by the Bassij force, affiliated to the Revolutionary Guards, in cracking down on social dissent.

To all who think the West, America and the current Administration in particular, are to blame for the actions of the Islamofascists, I say, poppycock! If anything, American ideals of freedom is what they are attacking in classrooms and in the schoolyard.

Once you understand that, it is clear for instance why Charles Johnson @ LGF doesn't believe the Islamist thugs will accept the Pope's expression of deep sorrow over "the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims".

The Vatican (this is no longer just the Pope talking) is trying to get away with a non-apology apology, to appease the Islamic world’s violent temper tantrums. [...]

This is exactly the wrong way to go, for one simple reason. It won’t work. Islamists can tell the difference between diplomatic words and true surrender, and they want the Pope to utterly abase himself.

It would be far better to stand up, and speak truth about the Muslim world’s insane reaction to his speech. The Pope actually has a golden opportunity right now to bring these issues to the forefront of the public dialog, but it looks like he’s not going to use it.

Personally, I love the Pope's nuance in his reference to the 'reaction' not the content. Translated, it means, 'look in the mirror, you fools. You've just confirmed the accuracy of the quote, which is the reason why you need help.' According to the UK Telegraph, the Holy Father most of all voiced his deep sorrow in the way his lecture  "has been exacerbated by the deliberate manipulation of his words by Islamic firebrands and their slick media operation".

The combination of grievance-nurturing multiculturalism and instant headlines is having a disastrous effect on the worldwide Muslim community. There seems to be no limit to its spokesmen's willingness to voice outrage; and their messages are then picked up by fanatics who mount appalling attacks on Christians in Muslim countries. When was the last time a Muslim leader apologised for such atrocities?

The truth is that barbaric attacks happen weekly. No wonder that Benedict favours an urgent dialogue with Muslims on the subject of religious violence, rather than the usual touchy-feely exchange of compliments.

Well, he has started a dialogue now, albeit not quite in the way that he intended. And it is essential that it continue. A self-abasing apology from the Pope would have postponed that discussion yet again.

We suspect that Western public opinion is not displeased that Benedict has said the unsayable. Now it is time for other churchmen to tell their Muslim counterparts that, in addition to dishing out criticism, they must learn how to take it.

Meanwhile, welcome fodder for the rabid Liberals, who are desperately hoping to extend their 'Bush lied People died' smear campaign from Iraq to Iran, comes from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), run by El Baradei, its General Director:

The Holy Father And The Unholy Truth Of Islam

I combined Francis Bacon's famous "Screaming Pope" with the original "Portrait of Innocent X" by Diego Rodriguez de Silva y Velázquez ca. 1650, Galleria Doria-Pamphilj, Rome, which inspired Bacon's iconic but churlish rendition of a Pope who "tenderly loved his subjects and was scrupulously just". Such is the curse of all who dare to speak the truth.

 

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Amen.

During Tuesday's lecture in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI quoted these penetrating words, which originated some 700 years ago from an exchange between the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

How appropriate for the Holy Father to reflect on the cause, why the religion of Islam has always stood out from all other major religions on this Earth throughout its 1,500 year history:

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats."

And there it is. The apoplectic reaction of the Muslim world, which is barely in first gear of course, couldn't be a better testament to the continuing verity of the Byzantine Emperor's observations; no matter whether 1,500 years ago, 700 years ago or at the present day. Lost is the Pope's powerful call for an urgently needed dialogue between the religions of peace and Islam.

The darling Anchoress justly chastises the MSM for failing to "seriously reflect his thoughtful and deep words without sensationalizing them - the very idea!"

Don't miss reading the Pope's lecture in its entirety!

Whilst I am not able to write something myself on this at present, I must take a moment to pay tribute to one of my greatest heroines, and one of the most renowned journalists of our modern era, Oriana Fallaci, who died of cancer today aged 77. Relentlessly opposing Islamic extremists until her dying breath, she lived a life of passion and died a courageous death, always fighting for what she believed in.

An inspiration to us all, I loved her deeply not only for everything she bravely stood for, but for having the magnificent courage to say it. I am greatly saddened by her departure form a world which needs her now more than ever. Constantly forewarning us of the inevitabilities of an “Islamic colony” formerly known as Europe, she predicted much of the decay we see all too evident today.

Michelle Malkin has the most extensive write up, and don't miss reading Jeremayakovka's brilliant and deeply moving tribute here. To those of you who still need an introduction, read Daniel Pipes, who quotes one of my favorite poignant reminders from Fallaci:

To die a little less when I die. To leave the children I did not have... . To make people think a little more, outside the dogmas that this society has nourished us with through centuries. To give stories and ideas that help people to see better, to think better, to know a little more.

 

Welcome to Saudi America

For avoidance of any doubt, the above is the famous 1495 painting by Hieronymus Bosch called 'The Fourth King', depicting Muhammad (now photoshopped to be Bill Maher instead) standing in the background looking visibly deranged.

 

What is the problem the Democrats have with Religion in general, Christians in particular....umh Jews too come to think of it....obviously Conservatives....but NOT Islamofascists, who are after all in their eyes innocent of all...er....trumped up charges relating to non-existent terrorist crimes dreamed up by the Administration, the great Satan of the West. As I have said before of their pernicious view in my post Converting To Islam Is Harmless:

The liberals have replaced religion with politics, it's hardly surprising that they don't feel threatened by converting to Islam, after all politics is so all-defining and of such paramount importance to them that it defines who they are. Faithless is in, it's cool, it's liberating....into the abyss they go. But it is important for us to know that they are not afraid, that they are brave, that there is no imminent threat and that we are simply fear-mongering at best and bellicose at worst.

So how does the Godless party end up supporting the most theistic religion of them all? Just asking....

One of my editors @ NewsBusters, Noel Sheppard, points the finger at another bright spark of liberal comedy, Bill Maher, who goes on an anti-theistic rant on HBO's Real Time

[...]Maher suggested that, “If converting to Islam is all it takes to get the terrorists off our backs, then all I have to say is, ‘Lalalalalalala!’” He referred to Americans as “Christians in name only,” asserting that "the best part is that nothing that really matters to you will be different. It’s not like we’re asking you to change your e-mail address." And, he stated that converting to Islam would make conservative Christians happy: “You mean we can stone homosexuals instead of just bitching about them on talk-radio? Thank you Jesus…I mean, Allah.”

Adblock

Adblock

Wasn't the atheist Maher the one who said: "The Christian right are now the party of paranoia, and if you’re going to be that paranoid all the time, just get high” Have I lost all sense of humor you might ask yourself, no, I simply know Maher's views are embedded in that shallow grave he calls comedy

We’re a nation enthralled to religious fanatics anyway. Does it really matter which fanatics we’re enthralled to? They’re both filled with moral pieties and codes of conduct nobody follows anyway. So, let’s pick the one that let’s us take hair gel on the plane. Because, no matter what happens, we’ll always be Americans. Nothing can ever change that. Because even if women here had to start wearing burkas, believe me, they would find a way to write the word “Juicy” on their ass!

For the full mind blowing transcript, courtesy of Noel Sheppard, click below:

Show Me The Bodies

CLICK ON IMAGE TO PLAY VIDEO FEATURING THE LIBERAL IDEA OF WHAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD HAVE DONE POST SEPTEMBER 11TH

 

The liberals are attempting to ridicule our dire forewarnings at every turn, busy laughing it all off; it's a pattern, not a stereotype. It's a 'show me the bodies' mentality coupled with "Muslims are the new Jews" (Daily Kos must read rant), making a great concoction of an altogether newly designed derangement syndrome but leaving the tried and tested ingredients unchanged.

Daily Kos contributors are sinking more and more to the same lows as the trained Hamas and Hezbollah distortionists. Posts are culled from unrelated sources to fit the preconceived and fanatically held idea, that this Administration is truly just as evil as the Nazis had been. The tell-tale pattern, unmasking the sheer frivolity of it all, is best observed, when the same set of facts can just as easily be tailored to fit a diametrically opposing and equally preconceived set of beliefs, or more adequately put, paranoia.

Take for instance this cartoon side-by-side used by Kos in an attempt to support their claim, that Muslims today are suffering a comparable fate to the Jewish one, when they'd been persecuted by the Nazis: The 1933 version is clearly anti-Semitic as it aims to 'educate' the population to 'spot' a Jew based on his/her 'looks'. The right one is a perfect example of a political caricature, exaggerating Yasser Arafat's actual looks so as to opine, that he is hiding his true terrorist ambitions behind Abbas' more moderate public persona.

The Kossacs/Lefties, writers and readers alike, are accomplished enough to recognize that of course. But the temptation is too great to resit, to have two big-nosed cartoons side-by-side, with the Jewish one, reeking of the vilest form of anti-Semitism, perfectly setting the tone and neatly tagging the Arafat caricature into the same, otherwise wholly unrelated, xenophobic morass.

World War III Has Already Started

"Mother and Daughter" by Käthe Kollwitz 1919, Private Collection

 

Lorie Byrd reminded me of that heart-wrenching movie from 1991 called 'Not Without My Daughter'.

I had not seen 'Not Without My Daughter' in some time, but it seems more timely than ever watching it now. The movie stars Sally Field and is based on the Pulitzer prize winning book [1987] by the same name, describing the ordeal of Betty Mahmoody, who was held against her will in Iran by her Iranian born husband. She spent two years in Iran before escaping with her daughter in a dangerous trip over the mountains to Turkey. If you have never seen the movie, rent it. It is hard to watch, but it really gives an insight into the way women are treated in Iran.

This year is the 20th anniversary of Betty's escape from her husband, a man rededicated to his Shiite Moslem faith, who kept both virtual prisoners in a land where women are near-slaves. "Betty and her daughter are happy now, although Mahtob still suffers some effects from the terrifying ordeal. They live in the U.S. under assumed names as Betty's husband still threatens to get Mahtob back. However, Betty is no longer afraid of him. "We have so much freedom. I want people to read this story and appreciate their freedom. When they see the American flag or the Statue of Liberty, I want those things to mean to everyone what they now mean to me."

Stories like Betty's give the horrendous suffering and hardship, experienced by millions of Muslim women all over the world, a relatable face, a familiar persona, thus countering an otherwise all too abstract and often far-removed comprehension. Without it, we 'digest' and forget far too quickly. We have a responsibility to keep her story fresh in our minds; not to stoke up hot-headed reactions, but so as to truly understand Amir Taheri's statement earlier today, that World War III "has already started."

Stuart Varney (for "The Journal Editorial Report"): A U.N. deadline for Iran to suspend its nuclear program came and went this week, with that country's president defiantly refusing to compromise, saying Tehran would not be bullied into giving up its right to that controversial technology. The IAEA said Iran showed no signs of stopping its work, beginning enrichment of a new batch of uranium as recently as last week.

Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri joins me now from London. Amir, President Bush compares today's Islamists with the Nazis. And he's drawing a parallel, it seems, with the 1930s and, by implication, the suggestion is that we're headed towards World War III. Do you think we are headed that way?

Taheri: Well, the war has already started. In fact, it started in 1979 when the Khomeinists invaded the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and seized these diplomats hostage. But of course when we say war, we shouldn't think only of planes flying and huge armies with tanks and so on. This war has many different facets--ideological, low-intensity war, terrorism and so on. And this has been going on for nearly three decades now, and we are nowhere near seeing the end of it.

Playing The Board

 

"You can tell everything you need to know about a state by how it treats its women" and "We need to stop calling Iraq a war; that was over a long time ago" are powerful statements. Thomas Barnett does not stop there, but makes his case for his future vision of US foreign policy and the dual role military intervention will have to face so as to tackle three incredibly tough ironies:

1. The shorter the war, the bigger the peace effort
2. The smaller the war force, the larger the peace force
3. The easier the war, the tougher the peace

Iraq is an ongoing testimony to this new paradigm. And al-Qaeda certainly sticks to the game-plan: encourage insurgency, engender chaos and wait for withdrawal.

The biggest mistake is to believe, that the U.S. can do or say anything to pacify the Islamofascists. It's not personal, as Barnett highlights, it's not who we are, but what we represent, namely globalization. The Islamic fundamentalists want to disconnect the Islamic world from globalization's 'creeping embrace' and to reconnect it to an idealized past, they believe it offers a better alternative.

In other words, a change in American foreign policy won't make things better.

Instead, argues Barnett, we need to appreciate, that most of Islam is not at war with globalization, but much more in conflict with itself over how best to join the globalized economy.

Which brings us to Iran as the key to the Middle East. Barnett believes, that we are "looking at the equivalent of late-Brezhnevian USSR, a tired, authoritarian regime we killed with connectivity." And that we can do the same again with the Mullahcracy.

And that is where the trouble starts. Barnett has no hesitation to go after terrorists with a new set of rules, meaning essentially, men with no names (special operations forces) go after men with no states (terrorists). But what if a country is ruled by a group of terrorists, as is the case with the Mullahs's grip on power in Iran since 1979 and in Gaza since Hamas won the elections earlier this year, and Hezbollah since we discovered they rule Lebanon?

Making Iran an ally seems impossible given the deeply embedded Mullahcracy and its terror network throughout the world. And allowing Iran to go nuclear is a risk only possible to contemplate after a regime change is not only successfully completed but has also stood the test of time. One thing is for certain, our Thug-In-Chief and his fellow murdering goons are not leaving without a mighty fight. So, even if a moderate regime should establish itself, daily violence would mar Tehran in much the same way as we are witnessing today in Baghdad.

TO WATCH THE VIDEO CLICK ON THE SCREEN-SHOT. IT'S FASCINATING DON'T MISS IT.

Wal-Mart Can Stop A Nuclear Iran (WEEKEND THREAD)

 

Well there's a title you don't read every day! What's the connection? Simple, tell China, that Wal-Mart will shift merchandise production to competing low-cost manufacturing countries, if it doesn't support a UNSC resolution, stopping Iran from going nuclear. After all, a nuclear Holocaust is also bad for business in China.

Make no mistake, Wal-Mart has that kind of purchasing power: Over 10% of all Chinese exports to the U.S. are bought by Wal-Mart, that's well over $20 billion.

"More than 70 per cent of the products sold at Wal-Mart are made in China. If Wal-Mart were a separate nation, it would rank as China’s fifth-largest export market, ahead of Germany and Britain."

The good news is, the threat would remain just that, for China would yield, we'd continue saving $100 billion each year and the Mullahcracy would have to abandon their expansionist ambitions, which they are planning to extort through nuclear blackmail. There was a time, when 'corporate' diplomacy supported the greater good.

Be that as it may, we know only too well, the time has passed when debating foreign policies was about observing facts on the ground or about calm analysis of actual events, and not about scoring ideological points.

The polarization between, what could ostensibly be called, 'pro-war' and 'anti-war' factions and their respective need of constant and forceful validation, whilst at the same time passionately deriding the opponent's stance, is but complete. Or so it would seem to an alien observer, oblivious to both fact and fiction.

Let's examine the latest political and diplomatic battlefield, unfolding before our very eyes over the Mullahcracy's determination to present the world with a nuclear Iran.

The Nest Of Impotent Islamic Vipers

 

My friend Michael van der Galien has a new co-blogger over @ Liberty & Justice, called Muslihoon who we should be paying a lot of attention to. He is very knowledgeable on Islamic issues, and more importantly bats for our team whilst giving us that all important 'other' perspective we may have been lacking.

The Muslim world (hereinafter "the Ummah") is quite fond of whining and complaining. For decades now, the Ummah has been whining incessantly (and quite stupidly) of the West imposing itself upon and perpetrating inhuman injustices upon the Ummah. They accuse Israel with such stinging words that one must either doubt the existence of their heart or of their mind. Such strong words, such emotion, such vehemence - it does not make sense. But here is where one will fall: there is no sense or reason or civility with, in, or by the Ummah. Holding itself inviolate, it flings accusations and engages in conspiracy at will and whim.

The Ummah fell as a world power when it, full of arrogance, ignored the West. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages and began developing like never before, with a speed and with such momentum as never before was seen in the history of humanity. If the Ummah swallowed their pride and kept a watch on Europe and adopted their changes, perhaps they could have stood against them once Europe began flowing over her banks. But instead, the Ummah ignored the ignorant and uncivilized Europeans, and so the Ummah began to become more and more obsolete and outdated. Once Europe reached the bounds of the Ummah, it easily overpowered it.

This fall was and is difficult for Muslims to accept. According to their mindset, God promised them success, victory, and survival, for He was their God and they His people. If God permitted them to lose, surely something must be amiss. Muslims blamed Europe's ascendancy on Muslim impiety, God's punishment for the Ummah, and other such reasons. But the Ummah never then considered that perhaps, God aside, the Europeans were simply more technologically advanced. And when key Muslims realized this, it was too late.

The fall of the Ummah has been complete. Not one Muslim nation, state, or entity can assert its sovereign will and survive. All are subject to the control and bounds of the West, upon whom they depend. They hate the West and love the West both for the same reasons, mainly the West's advancement and resources and abilities. Jealousy runs through their veins, even though they may not admit or realize it.

CAIR's Useful Idiots

'Personam non animum' from Henry Peacham's 'Minerva Britanna', 1612 Edition, London

 

The wise adage 'less is more' is really epitomized in my friend Glenn Reynold's take on the Mearsheimer/Walt outrage sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

MEARSHEIMER AND WALT:  Idiots, or anti-semites?

Do I have to choose?

Dana Milbank expertly conveys, (h/t Mac Brachman) that they are indeed both, idiots and anti-Semites, the latter of course being of no great surprise.

Apart from being a rabid anti-Semite with definite genocidal aspirations, you'd also have to be a complete idiot to believe, that the U.S., a free and democratic nation, could even for one moment allow itself to contemplate the genocidal sacrifice of another sovereign nation, in the vague and uncertain hope, to avert potential threats from terrorism - Jewish lobby or not. Because that is in a nutshell, what Mearsheimer/Walt are really advocating when they proclaim that the U.S. is facing "threat from terrorism because we have been so closely tied to Israel."

According to Milbank's report, the CAIR audience "chuckled" at this notion, which is an interesting point to debate. What caused the 'chuckles'?

Was it, as Milbank suggests, that CAIR members ridiculed the academic duo for being naive enough to promote such a singular argument - in an humorous way, naturally, as any propaganda against Israel is always most welcome news? Did the 'chuckles' perhaps reveal the kind of smug sense of superiority, which so often coexists with a much deeper understanding, in this case, the knowledge of Islam's global ambitions, than portrayed by the two useful idiots? Did the 'chuckles' perhaps express mild sneer for the extraordinary ignorance, with which the two useful idiots underestimate the need for the West to defend itself against the eagerly anticipated Islamic assault; for completely ignoring that for nearly 60 years, no other democratic nation in the world was, and increasingly is, facing the daily threat of complete destruction from all its neighbors?

The Sordid Godless World Of Shari'a Law

'St Michael and the Satan' by Raffaello Sanzio ca.1518, The Louvre, Paris

 

This is a moving story of a sixteen year old girl, who was executed in Iran for 'crimes against chastity'. Told in a BBC documentary in great detail here, we get introduced to what is perceived to be the ignominious life of young innocent girls in Iran who are subjected to the most degrading acts, in return for which they receive the punishment of imprisonment and one hundred lashes at a time at best, and execution by hanging at worst.

As we speak, there are as many as fourteen or more young girls waiting to be executed under the misogynistic barbarism of Shari'a law for 'the crime' of being raped considered a 'crime against chastity'. And where are the men charged along with these girls? Nowhere to be seen....

Iran, the country proclaiming to advocate the 'religion of peace' where the law of Shari'a rules that the age of sexual consent is to be NINE. Well if the 'holy book' of Qur'an written by the pedophile Muhammad says it's nine, it must be so. I mean why not legitimize the Prophet's own marriage to a child if it was in his power to do so.

Who is this God of theirs who would put its innocent children through such horrors, only to have the so called 'moral police' be the biggest offenders of any morality left in that sordid Godless world, more akin to Satan's hell in life than anything we look forward to in our death. Shame on you, and shame on us for not fighting this evil with all we've got to give.

Adblock

Adblock

Watch it all, and pray very hard that our children's children and our future generations will not be subjected to this hell when we are gone...

I was moved to tears of desperation, anger and sadness; tell me what you thought and felt, I'd like to know....

(h/t Charles Johnson via Michael van der Galien)

Converting To Islam At Gunpoint Is Harmless

"Martyrdom of St Erasmus" by Dieric Bouts the Elder ca.1458, Sankt Peterskerk, Louvain

 

Omri Ceren is one of my favorite bloggers. His own blog Mere Rhetoric is a must read, and he also co-bloggs @ Joe Katzman's estimable Winds Of Change. Today he sent me an e-mail, as usual hitting at the core and hitting hard with his brilliant post "Just Because You Were Forced at Gunpoint to Convert To Islam Doesn't Mean You Were Harmed In Any Way". Watch out for Omri, he is the new shining star of the Blogosphere 

We know we said we were done for today, but really, these people have just lost it:

Two journalists kidnapped in Gaza were released unharmed today after being forced at gunpoint to say on a videotape that they had converted to Islam. The two journalists from Fox News - Steve Centanni, 60, an American reporter based in Washington, and Olaf Wiig, 36, a freelance cameraman from New Zealand - were held for 13 days in an abandoned garage in the Gaza Strip as hostages of a previously unknown group calling itself the Holy Jihad Brigades.

You idiot! You total blistering idiot! Being forced to convert is a harm. It might be the oldest harm short of death - being forced to renounce your faith and your god. Millions of people - literally millions - have died rather than deign to utter words that would force them to give up their faith. No wonder liberal journalists are utterly baffled by fully half of the United States - they don't think having to give up your religion is harmful. We are beyond certain that if Muslim prisoners at Gitmo were forced to convert away from Islam as a condition of their release, the New York Times would not be putting the phrase "released unharmed" into their lede. Way beyond certain. There's a deeper explanation for how paragraphs like this can get written. It's not really bias, as much as it is the blind spots imposed by any ideology. And within that dynamic are questions about the degree of myopia and the room for self-reflection that particular ideologies allow. But don't worry about that right now. Just bask in the beauty of the phrase "forced at gunpoint to say... that they had converted to Islam... were released unharmed"

The liberals have replaced religion with politics, it's hardly surprising that they don't feel threatened by converting to Islam, after all politics is so all-defining and of such paramount importance to them that it defines who they are. Faithless is in, it's cool, it's liberating....into the abyss they go. But it is important for us to know that they are not afraid, that they are brave, that there is no imminent threat and that we are simply fear-mongering at best and bellicose at worst. Do we "need to return to the Iberian peninsula of the 14th and 15th century when the Inquisition forced conversion or the Herodian forced conversions that rent apart society for no purpose" to prove it? I sincerely hope not.

As I have now joined the elite ranks of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled "Nazis" for having the temerity to identify Islamofascists as the true heirs of the Third Reich, and a racist, a xenophobe, as well as of course an Islamophobe, for daring to be in favor of preserving our sovereignty, free of Shari'a oppression, and a bellicose Christian for having the audacity to advocate it vociferously, whilst still confirming my Christian beliefs, I feel the Democrats have now been uplifted to new dizzying heights of verbal lunacy as the elections approach and they desperately rummage around for scraps of policy to cling on to.

So now even keeping English as a unified language is racist. It seems like this verbal disease is spreading through the Democratic party, down from the very highest ranks, who have proven constitutionally incapable of reining in their superciliousness, and spreading the hyperbolic invectives through the ranks to the Democratic foot-soldiers, like a deadly virus. Have these people gone completely mad? According to my friend the gracious Neo-neocon, some time ago, anger is still in style on the left side of the world.

Muslim Glory Predicates Apocalypse

 

Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad confirms it again:

If he ever became the supreme decision maker in his country, [Ahmadinejad] would "sacrifice half of Iran for the sake of eliminating Israel," Giora Eiland, Israel's former national security adviser, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. [...]

The 49-year-old Iranian president, he said, "has a religious conviction that Israel's demise is essential to the restoration of Muslim glory, that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed. And he will pay almost any price to right the perceived historic wrong. If he becomes the supreme leader and has a nuclear capability, that's a real threat."

Maybe Venezuela President Hugo Chavez is secretly assuring China, that he can cover any Oil supply shortfalls once Iran fulfills its promise and consequently lies in ruins following the inevitable and equally devastating retaliatory nuclear strikes. Could be one reason why Chavez is so openly supportive of our Thug-In-Chief's genocidal cause. Nah, he's just backing whoever 'opposes' his capitalist arch-enemy, the United States of America. Pathetic really, especially as in the eyes of our Thug-In-Chief, he too is nothing but an Christian infidel, who either must convert to Islam or otherwise except Dhimmitude, namely second-class status under Sharia law.

Don't you just love it; first lure Israel into a false sense of security by calling for the need of a 'robust' force of up to 15,000 in order to get 1701 passed and implemented, only to do a complete u-turn: Even though we learn today that close to 7,000 European troops will be deployed, French President Jacques Chirac tells us that a level of 15,000 troops was "excessive'' and it made "no sense'' to have such a large contingent alongside the Lebanese army in the region. Go figure...

But why worry about enemies when you have friends like the French: 

In Danger Of Complicity

"Sisters of Mercy" by Peter Howson 1989, The Cleveland Museum of Art, Ohio

 

I love clear and concise summaries that accurately portray often highly complex situations. It would be a mistake to interpret this attraction as some kind of lack of attention or, far worse, lack of interest in the nitty-gritty of detail. Far from it, the most successful campaigns in virtually all aspects of our lives have been characterized by a concise and clear understanding and the effective communication of such summaries.

'Iran Hostage Crisis, Take 2', is exactly the kind of clear and concise summary which fascinates me:

If the U.S. backs down in Iraq, Tehran's mullahs will move in and take the Middle East captive.

If the antiwar crowd and Democrats have their way, the United States will be Iran's hostage once again. An immediate pullout from Iraq would be a victory for Iran, a regime that has declared its ambitions to wipe Israel off the map and establish a  caliphate throughout the Middle East. If we allow democracy to be defeated in Iraq, it will only get harder to release Iraq and perhaps the greater Middle East from the grip of its would-be rulers in Tehran.

Decades ago, the United States underestimated the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's appeal to the Iranian masses and his ability to convert the latent hostility to modernism into political clout. Khomeini overthrew the shah and took more than 50 Americans hostage, thus delivering a significant blow to U.S. prestige and clout in the Middle East.

Now the U.S. is underestimating Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his willingness to use proxies — Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Muqtada Sadr in Iraq. In the short term, Iraqis, Lebanese, Palestinians and Israelis are paying for this sneaky strategy with their lives, but in the long term, it is the United States that will suffer the most. [...]

Iraq is the crucial test of Iran's ambitions. [...]

It makes sense, therefore, that the first line of defense against Iran's ambitions is a stable, democratic Iraq, which would provide a formidable counterbalance to Iran. A pro-Western Iraq that develops its economic ties throughout the Middle East and beyond would compete over growing markets for oil with Iranian economic interests. More important, a democratic Iraq would be a long-sought beacon for the oppressed Shiites of the world, an alternative to the appeal of extremist Iran.

The U.S. military's presence in Iraq keeps Iran in check. An immediate pullout, as prescribed by antiwar liberals and demagogic Democrats, would leave Iraq to Iran — and to the likes of Al Qaeda. And that would be a hostage-taking far more harmful to the United States than the one that happened in Tehran nearly 30 years ago.

Contrast that against the intensifying rhetoric against Israel in the MSM, gradually paving the way for a time, when her existence may be questioned openly by so called respectable members of the chattering classes, always of course under the strictest pretext of wishing to earnestly explore ways to finally return peace to the Middle East. Poppycock...

The UN Staged Chicanery

 

UNSC Resolution 1701 proves to be nothing less than a deliberate and carefully orchestrated chicanery, even though the UK Telegraph Opinion leader only claims that 'UN forces fail Israel': "Whatever the Israeli commandos were doing in Baalbek - seeking to capture a Hizbollah leader or interdict arms shipments - their raid underlines the inadequacy of the Security Council's response to the crisis".

The outrage lives on in the comment section at the Telegraph, as we all come to terms with the fact, that we have been had by a bunch of underhanded UN delegates, who schemed corruption and political chicanery behind closed doors:

"It is breaking my heart that once again the world media and the UN are attacking Israel for doing exactly what EVERY government in EVERY country in the whole world is entitled to do - defend it's citizens!! What do they expect Israel to do? Just wait for another round of ball bearing (or worse) headed missiles to land on its women and children sent by these cowards.
When will the media and the UN recognize that Israel is in the vanguard for all of us.
We are all under attack by these ismlamo-fascists whether we want to acknowledge it or not."

"The major part of this problem is the French with their so-called initiative. The French met with Arab leaders in Damascus before meeting in the UN with the US John Bolton and in so doing compromised the resulting UN Resolution. Unfortunately, the US was too trusting of the French who once more displayed just how devious they are when their own self-interest is in play. Thus the fighting will resume just as soon as Hizbollah feels that it has been replenished by Iran and Syria."

"The Israel-Hezbollah situation is a plain as day: The UN will do what it does best: expensive little. The Islamist determination to destroy the Jewish State will persist. Israel will have to fight again."

The question now is however, will Assistant-Thug-In-Chief Nasrallah repeat Yasir Arafat's bungled coup to oust King Hussein in 1970, which lost him all but the certain rule over Jordan? Will Nasrallah overplay his hand or will he continue to cow the Siniora administration into submission and, with the help of Iranian petrodollars, take over Lebanon and create the next Mullahcracy, never of course taking his eyes of the ultimate goal, namely the annihilation of Israel?

The answer is an unfortunate no; Nasrallah would have studied Arafat's mistakes and learned from them. When you read the detailed account of the attempted coup led by Arafat and his PLO thugs in 1970 in 'Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography' by Barry Rubin and Judith Colp Rubin (Oxford University Press, 2003), the resemblance to the current stand-off between Nasrallah's Hezbollah and the Lebanese Government is absolutely striking.

Apart from the U.S. and Britain's notable change of heart  in the region -- in 1970, Britain had refused to help their erstwhile ally, favoring Arafat over its old friend and assuming he would take over Jordan -- nothing much has changed. Appeasing the murdering thugs is still the going currency in most parts of the West and the clear understanding that "creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza would block the conquest of all Palestine" ('Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography' page 40) still dictates all Arab policies to indefinitely prolong Palestinian suffering until their common goal of annihilating Israel is achieved.

Worse, the term 'appeasement' is mutating, as it ever more stands for thinly disguised anti-Zionism, thus increasingly turning a blind eye to the nearing atomic Holocaust, which no longer just a few fanatics, but now even 'respectable' UN delegates secretly believe to be the only solution to bring peace and quite to the Middle East and the Muslim world as a whole.