Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Introducing The Angel Of Death (Repeat)

Introducing The Angel Of Death
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.

In response to Russian President Putin’s remark, « ..we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole world 7 times over, but [we] do not talk like Iranian leaders do, so why do [they]?« , he says:

« [We have] just woken up after 16 years of forgetting God. […] Only 11 countries in the world [are] against Iran whereas there [are] some 150 states supporting Iran. »

We will acquire this [nuclear] technology and export it to all the 150 countries,” he threatened, adding that “this is the power we have not yet used.

Ramin claimed that Ahmadi Nezhad’s presidency [that’s how ‘Thug-in-Chief’ Ahmadinejad is affectionately called by his close friends and admireres] had created a new global wave and that many world leaders had lined up to speak with him. He also stressed that Europe and the US were entirely incapable of threatening Iran.

Who is Mohammad-Ali Ramin and why should we pay very close attention to what he has to say?

He is what Joseph Goebbels was to Hitler. He is the brain behind « Thug-In-Chief » Ahmadinejad, his hard-line presidential advisor.

He is the editor-in-chief of Emamat monthly, a founder of the Association of the Islamic Path in Europe, director of the Holocaust seminar in Tehran, and secretary-general of the new « world foundation for Holocaust Studies ».

Like Ahmadinejad, he too is a member of the Shi’a branch of Islam, that rejects the first three Sunni caliphs and regards Ali, the fourth caliph, as Muhammad’s first true successor.

He is Ahmadinejad’s architect of the Caliphat, charged with the careful planning and realization of the global Dar-al-Islam, the time when Islam has subjugated the whole world, the time when Islam will be ‘tolerant’ for there will be none left to oppose or differ.

Born in 1954, it is an eerie irony, that he was brought up and educated in the ‘Vaterland’ ; only after  completing his major in Mechanical Engineering and after founding the « Islamische Gemeinschaft in Clausthal e.V. » (Clausthal is an hour’s drive from Hannover, Germany) as well as other unspecified ‘political activism’, did he move his wife and three children back to his native home, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Apart from bringing about the global Dar-al-Islam, his passion and academic work is dedicated to the revision of the Holocaust ‘Myth’. Ramin was the one who initiated the idea of the « relocation of Israel » and also the idea, that « Holocaust is a myth ». Ahmadinejad was just the messenger.

He himself accepted the full responsibility of this action. In an interview with the Financial Times (German version), Ramin stated that he has also initiated the « Holocaust commission » and that he is the founder of the Conference on Holocaust in Tehran.

His logic is as simple as it is evil: Should his committee determine that indeed 6 million Jews had been killed by the Nazis, then another committee must be assembled and determine a just punishment for Germany, which, oh quelle surprise, must include the transfer of German territory so as to establish a Jewish State.

Should it however establish, that Holocaust was a ‘Myth’, Ramin would have successfully vilified the Jews and exonerated the Nazis. He would then hope to re-open the debate questioning the legality of the State of Israel and bring him one step closer to return Israel’s territories to Arab rule. Destruction of Israel is only the last resort option. Much preferred is to usurp Israel ‘peacefully’, and hand control over to Arab leaders. I wonder what he’d call the new nation…

Having first coached his eager pupil Ahmadinejad, Ramin later praised the President for having voiced his doubts over the Holocaust and the need for relocating the Jews to Europe if Europeans really did the massacre during the Second World War. Ramin then suggested publicly that Ahmadinejad establish a committee for clarifying the « real extent » of the Holocaust.

To those, who criticize Ramin and his government’s position on denying the Holocaust, and the serial murders of Iranian intellectuals by the Ministry of Intelligence, he responds:

« The Islamic Revolution has already shaken the world and […] the unexpected epidemics such as the Asian Flu and AIDS [are] emerging […] The world [is] too envious to witness the success of Iran’s young generation. »

To all of you, who reflexively dismiss these clearly stated goals as hype and hysteria, I say, it is with historical curiosity and fascination, that I appreciate your stance, for it allows me to time-travel some 70-75 years into the past and experience first hand what it must have been like for those, who saw the writing on the wall.

I am much more concerned about Ramin than about ‘Thug-in-Chief’ Ahmadinejad. After all, thanks to the President’s forthrightness, Iran has managed to mobilize the whole world against itself in just 6 months.

Mohammad-Ali Ramin appears moderate, calm and reasonable. Yet his views are the same that led without fail to the biggest atrocities and genocidal crimes committed by man-kind. My translation of a short passage from a German interview in June 2004, well before the election of extremist Ahmadinejad, shows why this soft-spoken ideology always ends in disaster:

« We have never claimed to be a democratic system fashioned after the Western model, nor that we even seek to establish one. We don’t believe that Western democracies are the ideal governing system, but believe that other people [« Völker »] with different cultures are able to establish better systems which are truly governed by the people and much more humane [« menschlicher »]. We don’t want a system where people like George Bush can be elected as their leader, but instead want a system where the selection is ensured by reasonable and wise individuals. »

Monday, July 09, 2007

Politics Of Terror Reign Supreme

Politics Of Terror Reigns 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.

How many times are we going to hear the liberal whine: « There’s nothing we can do to be friends? »

And the cold simple answer: « There is something you can do to be friends. You can convert. » Yeah right.

Or the solution to the conflict in the Holy Land according to Abu Saif, a prominent Muslim leader:

« We want the Jews to leave Israel, and to hand the whole of Israel, not just Gaza and the West Bank – the whole of Israel to the Muslims. Only then will the Muslims stop. »

Like I said…yeah right.

Across town from the site of the recent attempted car-bomb attacks, several thousand Muslims gathered in front of the London Central Mosque to applaud fiery preachers prophesying the overthrow of the British government – a future vision that encompasses an Islamic takeover of the White House and the rule of the Quran over America.

« One day my dear Muslims, » shouted Anjem Choudary, « Islam will govern Britain! » Choudary was a co-founder of Al Muhajiroun, the now-banned group tied to suspects in the July 7, 2005, London transport bombings and a cheerleader of the 9/11 attacks.

[…] For Humphries, the response of the Muslims at Islam’s largest house of worship in the UK was telling. « Not one said, ‘You’re not speaking for me’ or ‘Not in my name.’ They stood there and watched and applauded, » he told WND.

Like the UK, Humphries said, the U.S. has three major vulnerabilities to patient, fundamentalist Muslims who believe their purpose for living in the West is to help fulfill Islamic prophecies: The loss of border control, the inability to say no and lack of assimilation.

« I feel like I’m Rusty Revere. I’m out there yelling the Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming, » he said. « But we don’t want to hear it. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. »

Humphries’ interview with Abu Saif underscored the radically different vision many of Britain’s citizens have for the country’s future.

The Muslim leader said he does not believe in democracy and insists there is no such thing as freedom of religion, « because freedom is an absolute term. »

« Are we to say that Muslims can fully practice religion in America, » he asked in an attempt to explain. « Say, for instance, I was a Muslim in America. Could I call for the destruction of the American government and establishment of an Islamic state in America? No. So where is the freedom of religion? There is none. »

Humphries asked: « Do you call for that? »

« Of course, » he replied, « we want Islam to be a source of governance for all of mankind. And we also believe that one day America will be ruled by Islam. »

Abu Saif explained Islam, like Christianity, has a prophetic tradition.

« One of the prophecies of the message of Muhammad was the hour will never come, i.e., the last day – which you also believe in – will never come until a group of the Muslims … will rise and conquer the white house. »

The reference, many Muslims believe today, is to America’s symbol of executive power. Islamic leaders in the U.S. largely have been careful to not assert publicly the Muslim belief that Islam ultimately will gain worldwide supremacy. As WND reported, Omar Ahmad, the founder of a prominent U.S.-based Islamic lobby group, denies a newspaper report that he told a group of Muslims in the San Francisco Bay area they are in America not to assimilate but to help bring about Islam’s rule over the nation. Like other protesters, Abu Saif presented a typical list of grievances Muslims have with the U.S. and Britain, such as the nations’ part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the wars in Afghanistan and Iran. But the Islamic leader admitted he believes Jews and Christians will always hate Muslims, because Allah has said it is so.

But then of course we do have the so called « moderates »:

The leaders of the Islamic Academy are so moderate that they were recently invited to share a platform with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Yet there are growing suspicions that this suburban house is where the origins of the suspected London and Glasgow bomb plots may lie […]

Thursday, May 24, 2007

The Power Of Demonization

The Power Of Demonization

Kenny Pierce continues from his ATB post on The Black Pleasure Of Hatred And Cultural Provincialism:

« From debate on the Senate floor about interrogation tactics at Guantanamo:

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here — I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report: On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold….On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor. If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.   — Senator Dick Durbin

I recently wrote a post expressing my concern about the prevalence of hate-speech and hate-rhetoric in modern American politics, in which I used Senator Durbin’s demonization of the Guantanamo interrogators as an example of objectionable rhetoric. And a good friend of mine, who happens, like Durbin, to detest Dubya and to consider Guantanamo to be an indelible stain on our national honor, had a response that interested me very much. She couldn’t understand why I would have a problem with Durbin’s rhetoric; well, okay. But then, even more interestingly, she in the very same conversation complained about conservatives’ referring to liberals as « unpatriotic » and as « aiding and abetting the enemy. » That is to say, she thinks that sometimes it’s okay to demonize, and sometimes it isn’t, though she’s vague as to how one is supposed to tell what is good demonization and what is bad demonization.

Fairly deep into the conversation she got somewhat plaintive in her frustration over my (to her) incomprehensible take on Durbin’s rant:

Why must [Durbin’s contention] be put nicely? Why is not this remark evaluated on the basis of the truth that underlies and causes the occasion? Why, Kenny…. why, why, why? 🙂

The conversation petered out shortly thereafter and we’ve since moved on to other topics. But the more I think about her question, the more I think it’s a question worth a careful and detailed answer. The problem is, there are several reasons to say that responsible people do not, except under exceptional circumstances (if ever), resort to that particular rhetorical tactic. So I think what’s called for is a series of posts, each one examining in detail a single reason that demonization is a bad thing, something which we as individuals should not engage in and which we as a culture should not deem socially tolerable. My time constraints being what they are, I may not be able to finish the series (I usually don’t manage to finish long series of this nature, because the family-of-eleven things, and the job-that’s-demanding-enough-for-me-to-be-paid-enough-to-support-a-family-of-eleven things, tend to rise up and derail me). But I can at least make a start, beginning with what I think is most important; and perhaps other people can pick up the baton when I wind up dropping it.

Now, the very first thing to observe, is that my friend gets upset when demonization is aimed at the people she agrees with and likes, but not when it’s aimed at the people she disagrees with and dislikes. This would seem to imply that she objects to demonization because she wants to protect the people who are targeted thereby. But this, I think, means that between her perspective and mine there is a great gulf fixed, right from the first step. For by far my biggest reason to urge people not to indulge in demonization, is the damage I believe it does to the person who is doing the demonizing. When I urge Senator Durbin or Paul Krugman not to demonize President Bush, that’s not because I’m worried about Dubya’s reputation or feelings. It’s first and foremost because I am worried about Durbin and Krugman.

In order to understand why I’m concerned on their behalf, we have to make sure we understand exactly what demonization is. It isn’t just calling somebody evil, because the whole implication is that you’re rhetorically making the person out to be worse than he really is. For example, it isn’t demonization to say, « Satan is the devil. » That’s just the literal truth. Nor is it demonization to say, « Hitler was Hitler, » or, « Stalin was Stalin, » or, « Pol Pot was Pol Pot, » or, « Dubya is Dubya, » or, « Teddy Kennedy is Teddy Kennedy. »

In other words, demonization involves some form of exaggeration. It is a subspecies of hyperbole, which is exaggeration for rhetorical effect.

Furthermore, demonization has a particular rhetorical effect in mind. I recently criticized Dubya’s stubborn refusal to alter tactics in Iraq until long after it should have been obvious that the tactics required changing (as tactics, in wars, always do). And I expressed the basic idea of, « Dubya stubbornly insisted on trying to win the war on the cheap, » by accusing him, tongue-in-cheek, of having thought that he could establish a stable and just society in Iraq with « six Marines, a K-9 unit, and some high-tech weapons, » or something to that effect.

Now, that’s actually not demonization, for two reasons:

1. It’s intended for comic effect, i.e., it’s intended to amuse, even though I was in the middle of making a serious point.

2. It’s meant to be impossible to be taken literally — nobody with an I.Q. higher than an oxygen-deprived cocker spaniel would really think that the U.S. has fewer than ten military personnel stationed in Iraq.

Demonization, on the other hand, is intended to evoke or to rationalize outrage (which of course the demonizer and his partisans will describe as « righteous » anger); and it is intended to be something that at least a great many people will think can be taken literally or almost so. The two are related because if the exaggeration is so over-the-top as to be absurd, the initial reaction is likely to be laughter rather than anger, and laughter is most certainly not the reaction the demonizer intends to evoke. Indeed, most of the time demonization isn’t just intended to evoke anger — it’s usually intended to inculcate hatred.

Now, let’s look again at Senator Durbin’s outburst on the Senate floor. Unless we want to consider the Senator a liar, we must presume that he is not trying to convince people of anything that isn’t true. Furthermore, unless we want to consider him a complete idiot, we must presume that he is aware of several facts:

Continue reading « The Power Of Demonization » »

Friday, May 18, 2007

The Democratic Congress’ Fatal Self-Deception

The Democratic Congress' Fatal Self-Deception

I give you my dear friend Kenny Pierce with yet another gem:

« If Fred Thompson doesn’t have all the other Presidential pretenders quaking in their boots — especially the charmless Hillary — then they’re way too bloody stupid to be running the country. His take-down of Michael Moore was masterful in about half a dozen different ways.

Meanwhile the Democratic Congress continues on its suicidal path toward the destruction of its own party. I can’t remember in which on-line forum I said, shortly after the mid-term elections, that I thought the Democrats’ apparent success would turn out to be a disaster for them, and that Hillary’s candidacy had just taken a major hit. My reasoning was that the Congress, being rendered stupid by their hatred of Dubya, would take entirely the wrong lesson from those elections, and would proceed to spend the next two years making it absolutely clear that no matter how bad an idea it is to give Republicans power, giving Democrats power is, mirabilu dictu, an EVEN WORSE idea.

And the Democrats are playing out the script exactly as written.

See, when those elections came in, suddenly everywhere you turned the Democrats were talking about their « mandate, » and specifically they were claiming that they had a mandate « to end the war. » Now, let’s set aside the fact that the Congressional elections were not, in fact, a referendum on the war, and that the Constitution (which the Dubya-terrified insist that Dubya wishes to undermine) certainly does not say that if the opposition party wins control of Congress during a war, then Congress is authorized to usurp the power and function of the executive branch. (When you hear a Democrat complaining about Dubya’s attempts to behave un-Constitutionally, ask them if they object to Nancy Pelosi’s blatant attempts to pursue a shadow foreign policy in direct opposition to and subversion of the President’s foreign policy. Nobody who supports what Pelosi did has any business pretending that it’s Constitutional checks and balances they’re out to defend.) Let’s pretend for the sake of argument that the only issue that anybody in America took into account in casting their Congressional vote this last time around, was the war. What, then, is the real mandate?

I’ll tell you what it is. The mandate is not to stop waging the war. The mandate is to stop screwing around getting nothing accomplished like Bush and Rumsfeld and Co. have spent the last four years s-a-g-n-a. The American people thought that if Bush was allowed to just keep on muddling along and pretending that Rumsfeld was right and you could conquer the world with six National Guardsman, a K-9 unit, and a bunch of high-tech equipment, then we’d continue right on with the slow bleed of Iraq and never get anywhere.

Continue reading « The Democratic Congress’ Fatal Self-Deception » »

Friday, May 11, 2007

The Black Pleasure Of Hatred And Cultural Provincialism

The Black Pleasure Of Hatred And Cultural Provincialism

I give you my great friend and mentor Kenny Pierce:

« Usenet veterans are familiar with the common rule, « Whoever mentions Nazis or Hitler first, automatically loses the argument. » My own feeling has always been that the only way that that rule could possibly be valid, would be if you had a bunch of people in your discussion who weren’t worth talking to anyway — which, I have to admit, does after all describe a great many Web « discussions. »

See, there are two different ways in which I can introduce a comparison to Hitler. In the first, the guy I’m talking to has just embraced a position that seems to me to be more or less the same thing in principle as that of Hitler or Stalin. But I know perfectly well that the guy sitting across the cyberspace table from me is a nice guy who would be appalled at the thought of committing genocide. I therefore point out that his position is very similar to a Nazi position, precisely so that he can explain to me wherein lies the difference. In short, when I say, « It seems to me that you’re taking a position that’s not significantly different from that of the Nazis, » the point is to give my friend the opportunity to say, « Oh, well, I see where you’re coming from with that, but you’re missing something: here’s how my position is different from Hitler’s. » The analogy is directed at exploring his position, with which I strongly disagree but which I suspect I may not fully understand; and there is not the slightest question of any disrespect of his character.

But the other reason to introduce a comparison to Hitler, is precisely in order to attack my opponent’s character as a human being — to show not that he is intellectually wrong, but to prove that he is morally contemptible. In this form, when I say, « You’re just like the Nazis, » the point is not to give my opponent the opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding on my part. It is a vicious personal attack. The point is not to introduce understanding, but to inflame passions. The point is not to enhance the discussion, but to demolish all hope of the discussion’s ever yielding fruit. And when somebody starts throwing Hitler around in that fashion, then the discussion is indeed over; and the question of which person is correct on the original issue pales in importance, compared to what you have just learned about the character of the Hitler-mongerer. For a vicious character is a far worse thing than a false belief.

I have been musing on this recently because of the monotony with which the most horrific accusations are hurled casually and incessantly at George W. Bush, including comparisons to Hitler — and how widespread is this Bush-hatred on the Left. I don’t know whether to believe this poll or not, but if you genuinely believe that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and allowed it to happen, then there is something deeply, deeply wrong with you — but just look at the statistics for what percentage of Democrats think Raving Rosie may actually have a point.

America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

Surely this can’t be right? 61% of Democrats think there’s a decent chance that Dubya was a 9/11 co-conspirator???? That’s millions upon millions of people totally lost to reason, and I’d rather go with Occam’s Razor and believe that one sociologist used some sort of flawed polling methodology than that a third of my countrymen have, on any subject involving Dubya, the approximate IQ of a paranoic-schizophrenic chihuahua who’s had a few too many bad LSD trips. (I’d sure like to know how the pollers phrased the questions that elicited the results that they chose to present in this fashion. If you’re a Democrat who thinks there’s a 1-in-1000 chance, does that mean that these guys count you as « not sure »?)

But let’s figure the methodology’s flawed, and in order to be conservative let’s only count the 35% of Democrats who think it’s more likely that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance than that he didn’t, and to be really conservative let’s round that down to 30%. And we’ll figure that, what, maybe 40% of Americans self-identify as Democrats? A little simple math, and…that’s 36,000,000 people who have talked themselves into believing that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance. Not, mind you, 36,000,000 brainwashed Pakistani or Palestinian teenaged boys who all their lives have been carefully and manipulatively and deliberately shaped to be jihadists. That’s 36,000,000 American voters.

I suppose my memory may be failing me, but I seem to remember that even during the height of the Right’s hatred of Bill Clinton, the folks who were sure that Clinton had had Vince Foster and a string of other people murdered, were looked at by the majority of Republicans as being off the reservation. Does anybody know whether similar polls were run back then? (This is a serious question; I’d like to know, and I don’t trust my memory.) The attitude of most of my Republican friends was rather similar to mine, which is that if you were forced to find the very best possible two-word description of Bill Clinton, those two words would be « white trash. » (I admit that personal prejudice may be at work here, but if so, it’s the prejudice of an Okie against the inbred Arkansas hillbillies, not the prejudice of a Libertarian against the Democrats.) The all too familiar lack of self-control, the all too familiar lack of basic honesty, the all too familiar lack of integrity or indeed of any genuine moral virtue, the all too familiar exploitative attitude toward women — the man was intelligent and he was charming and (this is obviously me talking rather than my Republican friends) he even did some worthwhile things as President, but as a person he was pretty much worthless. White trash. Or, if we’re allowed a few more words of description, white trash with an immense natural talent for politics unconstrained by inconvenient principles of ethics.

But that doesn’t make him Hitler. And what’s more, saying, « Man, how did we get a piece of white trash in the White House? » is a pretty far cry from saying, « Our President is a murderous S.O.B. who’s out to destroy our country and turn it into a Nazi Fascist regime. » And maybe my memory betrays me, or maybe it’s just that every Democratic lunatic nowadays has access to the Internet while ten years ago Republicans were still trying to figure out how to use Al Gore’s novel new invention or something, but I just don’t seem to remember it being commonplace to hear Clinton described as « Hitler. »

Continue reading « The Black Pleasure Of Hatred And Cultural Provincialism » »

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

What Matters More

What Matters More
« Blind Leading The Blind III » by Peter Howson 1991, Private Collection, 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.

Ironic, because crackpots like Gore Vidal were the first to sell crazy, paving the way, as it were, for the dawn of a new era during which populist pandering has effectively stalemated the Democratic majority in both the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate. Senator Lieberman continues:

Unfortunately, for many congressional opponents of the war, none of this seems to matter. As the battle of Baghdad just gets underway, they have already made up their minds about America’s cause in Iraq, declaring their intention to put an end to the mission before we have had the time to see whether our new plan will work.

There is of course a direct and straightforward way that Congress could end the war, consistent with its authority under the Constitution: by cutting off funds. Yet this option is not being proposed. Critics of the war instead are planning to constrain and squeeze the current strategy and troops by a thousand cuts and conditions.

Among the specific ideas under consideration are to tangle up the deployment of requested reinforcements by imposing certain « readiness » standards, and to redraft the congressional authorization for the war, apparently in such a way that Congress will assume the role of commander in chief and dictate when, where and against whom U.S. troops can fight.

Too many times has it been proven, that what matters more is political survival; even at the cost of suspending every sense of civic duty in the process. After all, Hillary « Here’s what I’ve learned, » « I can’t make a mistake » Clinton knows all about that only too well.

UPDATE: From Nofate in the comments:

Interesting update on the « slow bleed » theme at Captain’s Quarters: « Democrats have delayed further consideration to restrict or cripple the Iraq war deployments, apparently stunned by the lack of cohesion among their own caucuses and fearful of the backlash their efforts might produce. Harry Reid has delayed the progress of a Joe Biden bill to revoke the 2002 AUMF, and Nancy Pelosi has started to distance herself from John Murtha ». more

Friday, February 16, 2007

The Jury Is Out

The Jury Is Out

I am baaack!

This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle.

President Bush wryly hit the nail on the head when he was referring to Lt. Gen David Petraeus as the ‘new commander’.

Only last week did the Senate unanimously confirm General Petraeus as the top U.S. commander in Iraq, full well knowing that his appointment « marks the real start of the new US strategy in Iraq, but is also seen as a last chance to turn things around« .

And the new US strategy is what? Is it just more troops — 21,500 extra U.S. troops, to be precise? Does it mean, that these extra « troops are now going to run out and look for gun battles with insurgents in back alleys« , as critics immediately after the President’s State of the Union address had us believe?

Of course not.

When both Democratic and Republican Senators unanimously confirmed General Petraeus, they knew that « it will mark the start of an historic turn in military strategy in Iraq and perhaps in U.S. war-fighting doctrine« .

They knew, « this isn’t a one-off effort as at Fallujah, but counterinsurgency as daily U.S. military policy. »

It is the product of an enormous amount of self-criticism and analysis done by military and civilian analysts in and out of government.

They understood and voted for a solid plan; they knew that this was not some last resort botch-up job.

They read the Mattis plan, which is based on Marine Maj. Gen. James Mattis’ successful Marine experiment to integrate U.S. and Iraqi forces in Al Anbar province, putting « advisers alongside Iraqi units down to the NCO level ».

[Marines] stayed with and fought with their Iraqi counterparts 24/7. And the Marines reported that the Iraqis fought with more confidence and effect, a k a spine-stiffening.

They all received and acknowledged the Army’s new Counterinsurgency Manual released in December, the drafting of which was overseen by the very man they now have put in charge to execute the new counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. They all read at least the foreword on the second page, signed by Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Amos:

Conducting a successful counterinsurgency campaign requires a flexible, adaptive force led by agile, well-informed, culturally astute leaders. It is our hope that this manual provides the guidelines needed to succeed in operations that are exceedingly difficult and complex. Our Soldiers and Marines deserve nothing less.

In short, they voted unanimously for giving General Petraeus a chance to succeed in Iraq with COIN, which includes of course extra troops. Thus, they voted for extra troops, but can’t be seen to have done so by their rabid Bush-hating constituents. Hence the introduction of ‘nonbinding measures’.

Politics prevents politicians from standing upright. That’s all there is to know about this ‘nonbinding measure’ opposing the administration’s plan to increase troop strength in Iraq.
In the words of Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., a West Point graduate who was a flight commander with the Army’s 82nd Airborne: « This nonbinding resolution serves no purpose other than pacifying the Democrats’ political base and lowering morale in our military. »

Let’s hope, that such obvious political maneuvers backfire and, that as a result, the President is regaining his footing. My friend Joe Gandelman thinks the President’s rebound is rooted in the certainty he portrays — everyone knows where he stands, take it or leave it.

And that includes our thugs in Iran. The heat is on for the Mullahcracy, for they are facing a difficult dilemma: Fueling sectarian violence in Iraq, they are convinced, is the best strategy of driving American troops out of Iraq and eventually out of the Middle East. But, on the other hand, if Sunnis and Shias don’t cease their wrangling, Muslims end up turning to secularism as their savior; the ultimate death knell for the expansionist theocracy.

Thursday, February 08, 2007

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

Restoring Humility To Our National Psyche In The Face Of Nihilism

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 on the war on terror.

Hanson certainly seems to think so and believes that we as a Nation are less confident than our fathers and forefathers were decades ago under far worse circumstances and he provides very compelling arguments to support his view:

But why did a poorer, less educated, and more illiberal United States in far bloodier and more error-ridden wars of the past still have greater confidence in itself? Was it that our ancestors, who died younger and far more tragically, did not expect their homeland to be without flaws, only to be considerably better than the enemy’s?

Perhaps we have forgotten such modesty because we have ignored the study of history that alone offers us guidance from our forbearers. It now competes as an orphan discipline with social science, -ologies and -isms that entice us into thinking that the more money and education of the present can at last perfect the human condition and thus consign our flawed past to irrelevance.

The result is that while sensitive young Americans seem to know what correct words and ideas they must embrace, they derive neither direction nor solace from past events. After all, very few could identify Vicksburg or Verdun, much less have any idea where or what Iwo Jima was. In such a lonely prison of the present what are historically ignorant Americans to make of a Fallujah or an Iranian madman’s threat of annihilation other than such things can’t or shouldn’t or must not happen to us?

So, of this present war, I think our war-torn forefathers would say to us that both messy Afghanistan and Iraq are better places without their dictators even if they never will resemble Carmel or Austin.

They would add that it is not unusual to be confronted with new crises even after such apparently easy victories. And they would shrug that however scary Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran now appears, it poses nothing new or insurmountable to a confident and strong United States that has dealt with far more serious enemies in the past with its accustomed wisdom and resolve.

Which begs the question, how would those opposed to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, those opposed to the use of military force to depose dictators no matter how much blood they have on their hands and those who subscribe to the notion of an ‘imperialistic’ America respond to such history lessons. What would their reaction be, after they’d learned about the immense heroism on both the U.S. side and that of Japan during the Iwo Jima campaign? Would it make any difference?

I fear not. I rather suspect, it would be dismissed outright and all involved derided as ‘fools’ and ‘idiots’ at best and ‘war criminals’ at worst.

Which leaves me in doubt as to whether the lack of ‘National Confidence’, if indeed found to be true, is in fact an important reason for the opposition and divide. Furthermore, I am not at all sure whether we suffer from a lack of confidence; on the contrary, I believe we suffer from acute selfaggrandizement and individualistic hyperbole, which in the final analysis is nothing but ignorant arrogance as it is both hollow and superficial in all its aspects.

All the more reason why Hanson’s call for humility is absolutely key. I just don’t believe, that there is anything anyone can do or say that will instill a growing sense of humility other than a growing believe in the power of faith in God the Almighty. And that isn’t exactly a convincing argument is it…

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.

Monday, February 05, 2007

Nuclear Communist Islamofascism

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…), « 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. »

It has to be so, because, wherever ‘security matters’ are in American hands, violence reigns; « But in other areas, where American troops are small in number or have no presence, and the security matters are in the hands of Iraqi forces, there is more security. Thus, the US-led occupiers are the source of insecurity in Iraq. »

But, I am getting ahead of myself; read for yourself:

In the recent years, because the Islamic Republic of Iran was able to achieve a major goal and had the honour to awaken the conscience of the Islamic World, Global Arrogance has stepped up its seditious plots and subversive attempts to divide Muslims. Therefore you see they are doing everything in their power to achieve their sinister goal.

Today in Iraq they want to pit Sunnis against Shi’ites. In Pakistan they are doing the same; as well as in Afghanistan. They will not hesitate to do so in Iran if they had the chance. We have been informed that their mercenaries and agents have even gone to Lebanon and are working and plotting to create divisions between Shi’ites and Sunnis.

These agents who are sowing the seeds of discord are neither Sunnis nor Shi’ites. They neither have faith in the beliefs of the Shiites nor do they have faith in the beliefs of the Sunnis. Not long ago US President George W. Bush in his speech referred to the bombing of the holy Askarayn Shrine in the northwestern Iraqi city of Samarra and tried to hold Salafi extremists responsible for the explosion with the aim of whipping up the sentiments of the Shi’ites.

The Americans have named al-Qa’eda and the Salafis as the terrorists of Iraq, in spite of the fact that they themselves are the instigators and the main perpetrators of such acts (of terrorism). The US and the Zionist intelligence services are encouraging the remnants of the Ba’th minority regime in Iraq to plant bombs in any part of Iraq. Currently the most insecure cities of Iraq are the places where the US occupation troops are present, that is, Baghdad and certain other cities where all security matters are in the hands of the Americans. But in other areas, where American troops are small in number or have no presence, and the security matters are in the hands of Iraqi forces, there is more security. Thus, the US-led occupiers are the source of insecurity in Iraq.

Continue reading « Nuclear Communist Islamofascism » »

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Faces Of Evil

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.

Hossein is not a journalist, who rose to the position of Editor. Instead, he was appointed by the Supreme-Thug-In-Chief Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i to ensure that Kayhan becomes the « mouthpiece of the hard liners« .

Under the title of “How the Media Mafia Was Formed in Keyhan”, IRNA starts by revealing the activities of the “team” that rule over Keyhan under the leadership of (…) Hossein Shariatmadari, (…) a former prison interrogator, who learned the business of bulletin writing (…) at the Revolutionary Guards Intelligence Unit.

“A media mafia has been formed within the Persian-language afternoon daily “Kayhan” for quite a long time now and works to implement a policy of violence”, IRNA says, adding that [at the time] Hossein Shariatmadari had been moved to a centre where he was able to start the work of spreading accusations and fabricating offences”.

According to IRNA, it was in the Qezel Hesar Prison, “where he spent several years”, when Mr Shariatmadari put together a team of repentant members from the outlawed “Arman Mostaz’afin” (Ideals of the Deprived) organization, which he later installed at Keyhan with orders to collect political and intelligence background information on reformers and dissidents.

In keeping with well-proven Gestapo methods, such information was then used to attack and ‘character assassinate’ reformists and dissident intellectuals.

Keyhan’s Managing Editor [Hossein Shariatmadari] had also a hand in the preparation and broadcasting of notorious programs such as « Peyda va Penhan » (Visible and Hidden) and « Hoviyat » (Identity) where leading journalists, politicians, scholars and intellectuals would randomly and indiscriminatingly be accused as being on the “foreigners” payroll.

Hossein’s latest broadside, condemning the UN Resolution against Holocaust Denial, is even more eerie and evil when understood in that context:

The Holocaust, or the slaughter of Jews during of WWII by German Nazis, is a myth and a contrived story. […]

Continue reading « Faces Of Evil » »

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

No Union In The States

No Union In The States
‘St George Fighting the Dragon’ by Pieter Pauwel Rubens, ca.1606-10 Museo del Prado, Madrid

« OK, let’s do it » were the President’s starting words to Nancy Pelosi, moments before the official SOTU speech began.

Do what? Plenty:

The great question of our day is whether America will help men and women in the Middle East to build free societies and share in the rights of all humanity. And I say, for the sake of our own security … we must.

But how?

Shortly after 9-11, President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted, that western diplomacy, including all of UN Security Council posturing, couldn’t even touch a single nerve of the growing threat of so called Islamic radicalism. Both men realized, that the number one priority was to prevent a further escalation of jihadist attacks; that they had no choice but to lead the charge to alter one particular, theretofore well established perception of the West among the Islamofascists, namely that the West is militarily impotent.

Consequently, both men understood that military action was unavoidable and necessary, because it was, what the murdering thugs feared the most, but expected the least — and thanks largely to our opposition’s irresponsible, because politically motivated, defeatist rhetoric, this sense remains unchanged today among all members of the Iranian Mullahcracy, thus in effect prolonging the conflict.

And therefore, irrespective of all successes and mistakes combined, something else was unavoidable and equally necessary, nay, critical for the survival of the enemy: Bloody resistance against the threat of a secular society allied with the Great Satan in the West. The President summed it up for us:

A thinking enemy watched all of these scenes, adjusted their tactics, and in 2006 they struck back. In Lebanon, assassins took the life of Pierre Gemayel, a prominent participant in the Cedar Revolution. And Hezbollah terrorists, with support from Syria and Iran, sowed conflict in the region and are seeking to undermine Lebanon’s legitimately elected government. In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam – the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia – and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day.

To all, who resort to predictable, but no less contemptible I-told-you-so tactics, I shout out, it is time, for you to realize, that these so called Islamic radicals or extremist, be they Shia or Sunni, are in fact Islamic purists, promoting in essence a return to the original teachings of the Qur’an and obedience to the law of Shari’a, which is of course the Islamic canonical law, based on the teachings of the Qur’an and the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad (recorded in the Hadith and Sunna); that they are in fact reformist much more in the Lutheran sense than they are ‘radicals’ or ‘extremists’; that they most certainly have not ‘hijacked’ the ‘religion of peace‘, but want to return it to its glorious heydays of medieval dominance.

I shout out to them, that any military campaign, no matter how well planned and executed, would have encountered this kind of resistance; I shout out to them, that in the circumstances, the now so easily advocated ‘alternative’ not to engage militarily, has never been anything else than a completely fictitious scenario.

And as such, I applaud the President for choosing the words, « And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. » Because if you did, you will be disappointed. Every one of the Presidential Candidates, both Democrat and Republican, knows they won’t stand a chance if abandoning Iraq, if handing over the Middle East to religious war lords of the dark ages, and thus, if abandoning the pursuit of world economic security, would be their proposed solution; if ‘cut and run’ would form the core message of their Presidential ticket.

Which is why nobody is able to come up with an alternative and why Hillary is sidestepping to Afghanistan and why Obama is keeping the backdoor open when he is calling for a 2007 withdrawal whilst arguing « that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict« . So, it’s a threat not a promise… neat.

And then there is the mother of all wild-cards, which would be changing everything: If Iran were to conduct an underground nuclear test in the next 12 months, we’d all enjoy the spectacle of Democrats falling over each other, reassuring the American people that a nuclear Iran would not be tolerated under their watch….Yeah right.
After all, leading Democrats understand the need to succeed, but are busting their brains, figuring out how to deny the Bush Administration every bit of credit, and how instead to claim any future glory as their own. Tom Barnett voices what leaders from both sides of the isle are thinking, « I would caution everybody in this process to admit to the fact that there is no exiting the Middle East, until the Middle East connects to the outside world. »


Tuesday, January 23, 2007

The Big Push – To Take America Down A Peg Or Two

The Big Push - To Take America Down A Peg Or Two
« The Survivor » by George Grosz 1944, Private Collection

Even award winning historians sometimes can’t resist the allure of contortionist acrobatics. I am of course speaking metaphorically as I am referring to Adam Hochschild’s extraordinary efforts to connect National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley’s « the big push » quote to 600,000 killed soldiers with the disastrous « The Big Push » campaign during the 1916 Battle of Somme.

Rarely have we been treated to such spurious foundation, which in a nutshell depend solely on the vivid description of trenched warfare in « muddy, shell-pocketed wasteland » during WW-I and an isolated quip by retired US Army Lieutenant-General William Odom, former director of the National Security Agency, saying: « It’s like finding yourself in a hole and then digging deeper. »

That’s it. That’s all that connects the horrors of World War I with tackling the murdering Islamofascists in Iraq; an analogy in itself, conjuring up the image of trenched warfare and, voilà, we have the headline: « Why the ‘big push’ sounds horribly familiar ».

If we needed more evidence that those surrounding US President George W Bush have a tin ear for the lessons of history, it came this month when National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley referred to increasing the number of US troops in Iraq as « the big push » that would bring victory closer.

« The Big Push » is a phrase that came into the language with another troop surge that was supposed to bring another war to victory. For months beforehand, the Big Push was how British cabinet ministers, propagandists, generals, and foot soldiers talked about the 1916 Battle of the Somme.

I am no longer surprised by the bold-faced audacity, with which the left attempts to discredit all and every efforts to defeat acknowledged evil in the form of proxy terrorists from Iran and Syria, hell-bent to bring death and destruction to our way of life; irrespective whether Democrat or Republican, to them we are all Infidel scum.

But this contortion to fabricate a connection between Hadley’s « the big push » and WW-I, just to be able to deliver the opening broadside of having a ‘tin ear for lessons of history‘, is simply pathetic.

None of that alters the fact, that the Administration is facing growing opposition against the ‘surge’ even from within Republican ranks — and I hesitate a guess, the President’s SOTU address in a few hours time isn’t going to change that — but, at least the arguments are perfectly transparent in so far as they are politically motivated or, as Dean Barnett @ Hugh Hewitt explains, motivated by taking the U.S. down a peg or two.

Monday, January 22, 2007

Danger And Opportunity

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.

And at home, we are promised a watershed presidential campaigning season – not least, because it started earlier than ever.

Two years before the next president is inaugurated and a full year before the first vote is cast, the contest for the White House is off to a breathtakingly fast start, exposing an ever-growing field of candidates to longer, more intensive scrutiny and increasing the amount of money they need to remain viable. […]

Because they do not want competitors to be raising money unchallenged, more candidates are declaring their intentions earlier, which in turn means the entire field needs more money to sustain campaigns for a longer time.

There are now a dozen serious contenders from both parties competing in a presidential race that for the first time in more than half a century will not include an incumbent — either the president or the vice president — on the ballot or even a definitive front-runner.

But the real novelty is ‘us’, empowered by services like YouTube. Citizen journalism will have a real impact during the primaries, especially when either candidates or aides slip up. « Every move they make […] will be on YouTube. The only certainty by January ’08 is that people will be pretty tired. »

This might turn out to be a good thing if it gives the Administration a breathing space to get stuff done behind the scenes. As Condi put it, « The Chinese have a character for crisis; it’s danger and opportunity. And our job now is to press the opportunity. »

Let’s hope that ‘pressing the opportunity‘ does not stand for ‘saving face’ but does instead represent the will for decisive action against would be mass-murderer, Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his entire Mullahcracy.

Thursday, January 11, 2007

Failure Is Not An Option

Failure Is Not An Option
‘The Crucifixion (detail)’ by Matthias Grünewald ca. 1515, Musée d’Unterlinden, Colmar

« Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent, and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. » President Bush, Wednesday, January 10 2007.

Can you say it anymore clearly than that? No, of course you can’t. But who is listening?


To those, who realize the need for us to remain in Iraq in order to push back at the Islamofascists, the President is preaching to the already converted. And according to the ostriches among us, he merely continues with his ‘fear/war-mongering‘ and ‘sable-rattling‘ so as to divert attention away from the no longer so secret agenda of turning the United States of America into a fascist dictatorship, or, depending on whether our ostrich got up on the wrong side of the bed, into a evangelical theocracy.

So, no mileage there. Period.

And period again. That’s the problem. No matter the eloquence, no matter how persuasive the logic and arguments, the opposition has long abandoned any interest in reason. Were it not so, the safety of unconditional hatred would have to be abandoned, which is of course much too inconvenient, for it is tantamount to popping out the pacifier from a baby’s mouth.

The alternative?

Continue reading « Failure Is Not An Option » »

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Where Was The Outrage?

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.

Most of media today have concluded that every reason for the invasion of Iraq was wrong and they applaud Bush Senior’s handling of the Gulf War in 1992. It is amazing that no one has seriously begun to re-evaluate this version of history. The truth is that the ending of the Gulf war before removing Saddam Hussein was one of the most incomprehensible, irresponsible, short term political opportune and cowardly decisions ever. Saddam had not only occupied Kuwait without the slightest provocation. He had killed hundreds of innocent Kuwaitis and many more disappeared without ever being heard from again. He plundered Kuwait of its treasures, he destroyed properties and his soldiers went on raping sprees etc. How can anyone maintain that the responsibility of the free democratic world was only to put Saddam in his place and bring matters back to where they were before the invasion? An incomprehensible conclusion that even more astonishingly till this day remains unchallenged. Bush Senior will unfortunately most likely be devalued in history to a person with no leadership skills and totally lacking in vision. An incurable “number two” type more suited to report to someone than to lead. His son seems to have realized this and tried with far more courageous leadership to do what had to be done. One of the biggest ironies is that if Bush Senior would have gone all the way to Baghdad and removed Saddam (even without the blessings of the French and Russia was in too much of a mess to be able to mount any opposition), he would with certainty have been re-elected President. Instead his “wishy washiness” remained evident to the voters who abandoned him.

Looking back virtually every recent President’s real impact and contributions has been completely reassessed. The media’s unified adoration for Gerald Ford today stands in stark contrast to their accusations during his time in power.

Another noteworthy fact is that George Bush Senior as Vice President was outraged by Israel taking out Saddam’s nuclear reactor (of the cabinet only Ronald Reagan and Alexander Haig gave the Israeli action the benefit of the doubt) and wanted to impose serious sanctions against the country only to later have to accept that the Secretary of Defense during the Gulf War – Dick Cheney – sent a letter thanking the Israeli leadership and stating that the action and victory of the Gulf War would not have been possible without Israel having destroyed Saddam’s nuclear capabilities earlier.

The undignified behavior of the new forces of power in Iraq and the unchecked undercurrent of religious fanatics, only serves to re-enforce the importance of the presence of the US and Western forces in Iraq. To suggest that this behavior will disappear with the withdrawal of troops borders on the infantile at best. There is little doubt that the positive alternatives in Iraq are hard to find, but sparing Saddam’s life would not have been such an event. Rather than more violence being triggered by his execution, the Sunnis now most likely are finally realizing the fact that there is no turning back the “clock”. There was never a successor in the wings to Saddam except for his sons, therefore only Saddam’s complete departure guarantees that all the factions in Iraq are looking forward. »

Jeremayakovka sends me a link to a David Horowitz ‘Revenge Is Justice’ slam dunk comment:

It’s a pinch myself day when the lead news story is about recriminations and regrets that Saddam Hussein, a man who incarnates evil, was not treated more decently at his belated hanging. And the editorial hand-wringing is that this was revenge not justice. As though being nice to someone who put human beings in plastic shredders — head first — and boiled even his relatives in oil, would make us more civilized rather than less. Revenge is justice. Saddam should have been drawn and quartered. The best thing about his execution was the presence of Shi’ia muslims taunting him with the memory of one of his Shi’ia victims. The shameless left and shameless liberals who would have kept this monster in power and are now shedding tears over the fact that he was killed should have the decency to let the Iraqis have their moment of revenge, pitiful as it is compared to the crimes this monster committed. Thankfully, at least one liberal — the editor of the New Rep ublic Marty Peretz — has had some sensible things to say on this subject in today’s Wall Street Journal

Saturday, December 30, 2006

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 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.

But Saddam had lost his power and remained for years nothing but a shaddow of his cruel past. Not so our Thug-In-Chief, even though he was dealt a political blow:

With the results of the twin elections held in Iran last week officially established, it is clear that the electorate have dealt the ultra-radical President Ahmadi Nezhad [Ahmadinejad] his first significant political defeat. Despite some attempt at spinning the results, it is clear that the electorate wanted to serve notice on Ahmadi Nezhad about its concerns over his populist domestic policy and poker-like foreign strategy.

The first and politically more important election concerned the choice of 86 mullahs to form the new Assembly of Experts (AOE) who has the task of electing and, if need be, dismissing the « Supreme Guide. » Since the « Supreme Guide » holds almost unlimited powers under the Islamist constitution, many analysts regard it as the true powerhouse of the Khomeinist system.

Don’t you just wish justice could also deal with our Thug-In-Chief. Don’t forget, he has blood on his hands, plenty of it.

During the crackdown on universities in 1980, which Khomeini called the “Islamic Cultural Revolution”, Ahmadinejad and the OSU played a critical role in purging dissident lecturers and students many of whom were arrested and later executed. Universities remained closed for three years and Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards.

In the early 1980s, Ahmadinejad worked in the “Internal Security” department of the IRGC and earned notoriety as a ruthless interrogator and torturer. According to the state-run website Baztab, allies of outgoing President Mohammad Khatami have revealed that Ahmadinejad worked for some time as an executioner in the notorious Evin Prison, where thousands of political prisoners were executed in the bloody purges of the 1980s.

In 1986, Ahmadinejad became a senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards and was stationed in Ramazan Garrison near Kermanshah in western Iran. Ramazan Garrison was the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards’ “extra-territorial operations”, a euphemism for terrorist attacks beyond Iran’s borders.

In Kermanshah, Ahmadinejad became involved in the clerical regime’s terrorist operations abroad and led many “extra-territorial operations of the IRGC”. With the formation of the elite Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the IRGC, Ahmadinejad became one of its senior commanders. He was the mastermind of a series of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou, who was shot dead by senior officers of the Revolutionary Guards in a Vienna flat in July 1989. Ahmadinejad was a key planner of the attack, according to sources in the Revolutionary Guards.

He too deserves to die at the hands of those thousands he tortured, maimed and killed.

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

Iran’s Middle Finger Is Firmly Up

The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb

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.

Ahmadinejad however is only crazy in the sense that he truly believes what he says. So, what do you do with a delusional egomaniac in power. Amir Taheri’s words keep ringing in my ear, and the realization that Ahmadinejad will not be committed to an asylum anytime soon is a scary prospect

…just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed « the nuclear club », President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into « grand occultation » in 941.

According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or « nails », whose presence, hammered into mankind’s existence, prevents the universe from « falling off ». Although the « nails » are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad’s more passionate admirers insist that he is a « nail », a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations’ General Assembly in New York, the « Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light ».Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a « clash of civilisations » in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the « infidel » West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.

In Ahmadinejad’s analysis, the rising Islamic « superpower » has decisive advantages over the infidel. Islam has four times as many young men of fighting age as the West, with its ageing populations. Hundreds of millions of Muslim « ghazis » (holy raiders) are keen to become martyrs while the infidel youths, loving life and fearing death, hate to fight. Islam also has four-fifths of the world’s oil reserves, and so controls the lifeblood of the infidel. More importantly, the US, the only infidel power still capable of fighting, is hated by most other nations.

The diplomatic track is most definitely coming to a dead end, and the world will soon have to face the deadly consequences. As I have been saying for some time now, Nuclear Jihad is fast approaching and we are running out of time. 

Let’s have fun debating how our friends on the Left convince themselves that this is not so, a position accurately characterized as « wishful thinking », and why they believe that those amongst us, who do take Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad & Co. seriously, are merely promoting politics of phantom fear. Not to omit the reigning fruitcake Professors who never fail to disappoint

The Bush administration, now hobbled in pressing for any further formal wars by a Democratic Congress, may take a leaf from Reagan’s playbook and engage in illegal, covert activities in Iran aimed at overthrowing the theocratic government.

Oh yes and I forget, there is the unhinged theory that the President has orchestrated this whole Iranian drama simply as ‘a decoy’:

The answer is that Iran is a convenient way for the Bush administration to get America’s attention off of the Iraq debacle, rising gas prices, [..] Republican corruption, the massive budget deficit, and a growing number of revelations of how Bush lied to the American people in trying to sell them on the Iraq war.

Nah, Ahmadinejad is simply wishing us a Merry Christmas….sweet no?

Beginning Sunday morning, we will begin activities at Natanz — site of 3,000 centrifuges — and we will drive with full speed,” he was quoted as saying. “This will be our immediate response to the resolution.”

The really sad part is that we have blown it as far as he is concerned with our aggressive ‘stop or I’ll say stop again’ campaign which has worn the Thug-In-Chief right down

« I am sorry for you who lost the opportunity for friendship with the nation of Iran. You yourself know that you cannot damage the nation of Iran an iota, »

Umh but then there is the comfort in knowing that the Iranian finger is indeed firmly up

Many legislators chanted « Death to America » after the vote.

Well that makes the Liberals feel all cozy and warm inside doesn’t it…yeah right. As I have said before, The Devil’s Arithmetic is

the work of our Machiavellian Thug-In-Chief at his best. Do not ever forget where he came from. Taking hostages is the business he knows best. Walking around in that monkey suit with sleeves that are always too long for him, and playing President is a role that suits him the least. This masterful plan however, has worked out like a dream.


Saturday, December 23, 2006

Demonizing Christmas….Has Anything Changed?

Demonizing Christmas....Has Anything Changed?

I wrote this post at this time last year, and I am curious my gentle readers…has anything changed? My friend Francis Porretto, whose blood pressure rises at the mention of the subject, doesn’t seem to think so. The inimitable Ann Althouse points to war on Christmas Chinese style. Meanwhile, see for yourselves…

This is an outrage.

Let me say this out loud and clear: « I am a devout Christian », and whilst I am at it let me proclaim that « I am fiercely pro-Israel ». So there you have it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you rabid anti-Semites, you fanatical Islamofascists, and you militant Jew hating Holocaust deniers.

Now we have that out of the way, we can continue… 

« …Attacks on Christmas dominate today’s headlines – judges banning nativity scenes, retailers renaming Christmas trees « Holiday trees, » schools forbidding children from singing Christmas carols and even banning the colors red and green!

It almost sounds funny, but only if you’re not aware of the powerful, malevolent currents beneath the « grinch-who-stole-Christmas » stories. As WND’s monthly Whistleblower reveals in its spine-straightening December issue, a lot more than Christmas is at stake – Christianity itself is being undermined and attacked with increasing frequency and venom.

In the book « Criminalizing Christianity », Whistleblower reveals the length, width and breadth of attacks on Christianity – those happening now, and those just around the corner – and not just in Communist and Islamic nations where religious persecution is rampant, but right here in the U.S.

« This has become more than a seasonal witch hunt by the ACLU, » said WND Editor and founder Joseph Farah. « The attacks on Christianity in America are alarming. We are witnessing more than religious bigotry now. We are entering the early stages of what could become persecution and outright criminalization of Christianity if it is not exposed and fought vigorously by all freedom-loving people. »
Perhaps the most stunning revelation in this issue of Whistleblower is the extent of the attacks on Christianity in the U.S.

« It’s chillling, » said WND Managing Editor David Kupelian. « Our nation’s founding religion is being attacked as never before. The Constitution is being twisted out of all recognition, history is being rewritten, and Christian teachings and observances are being shut out and shut up. And while we sit around watching this helplessly, we’re bequeathing a different America to our children. It’s time for people to wake up. »

Now, the December edition of Whistleblower gives Americans the information they need, not only to understand the problem, but to effectively fight back.

RightMarch asks: « …So what exactly is going on? As Bill O’Reilly noted on FoxNews, « There is an anti-Christian bias in this country, and it is more on display at Christmas season than any other time. » It’s the same attitude toward Christianity as that held by Michael Newdow, who wants to ban « In God We Trust » from our currency and « under God » from our Pledge of Allegiance.

There IS a War On Christmas. Read on and take a look at a few of the most blatant examples:

Continue reading « Demonizing Christmas….Has Anything Changed? » »

Friday, December 22, 2006

‘Show Me The Bodies’

'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.

Continue reading « ‘Show Me The Bodies' » »

Monday, December 18, 2006

A World Apart

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:

There appears to be a three-part reason for Muslim outrage against the United States, and the West in general:

    1. According to the Koran, any Insult to Islam is a blasphemy that is subject to severe punishment and even death.
    2. According to Islam, the Koran is the inerrant, eternal, and ultimate word of Allah, issued by his final and greatest Prophet. This implies that Muslims, as followers of the Koran, are morally superior to the followers of any other religion. As such, Muslims alone are authorized by Allah to establish law. As the Koran says: 

    [3.110] Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong [through Islamic law], and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors.

    3. Thus the rescue of an Islamic country’s people by a group of Infidel nations, regardless of the bloodiness of that country’s Muslim ruler, can be seen as an unwelcome exposure of Islamic weakness. Additionally, the U.S. and Coalition roles in setting up a democratic and secular form of government is, to devout Muslims, an overt usurpation of Islam’s Allah-given moral authority over mankind. To these Muslims, the “perverted transgressors,” otherwise known as “the People of the Book (Christians and Jews),” are sitting in the seat of power rightfully held by Allah, dictating terms to Allah’s people. This is the ultimate Insult to Islam, which claims to be the steward of divine laws given to Muslims by Allah himself.

More generally, Infidels insult and humiliate Muslims simply by being successful while Muslims and Islamic nations languish in poverty and chaos. Unwilling to question the usefulness of Allah’s perfect laws, the only acceptable explanation for the abject state of Muslims is that there is a vast conspiracy of Jews and Christians against them. This is the conspiracy to humiliate Muslims that Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad railed against in his speech.

Our Insult to Islam is that we Infidels have not learned our proper place, in lowly submission to Muslims. Infidels are to be tolerated, the Koran says, but only on terms that the Koran sets. These terms require subservience. Any relation with an Infidel nation that does not explicitly acknowledge Islam’s superiority is, by itself, a humiliation.

Ahh, perfect time to introduce Matthew 10:34-39 [as well in part Luke 12:51-12:53 and Micah 7:6], who quotes Jesus to have said the following:

« Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn « a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household. »

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. »

As David tells us, « many people have accused Jesus of inciting violence because of these verses. »  So, what sets us apart? The context apart from just about everything else, of course….

The International Bible Society, or IBS, explain the main purpose of Matthew, « to prove to his Jewish readers that Jesus is their Messiah. »

He does this primarily by showing how Jesus in his life and ministry fulfilled the OT Scriptures. Although all the Gospel writers quote the OT, Matthew includes nine proof texts unique to his Gospel (1:22–23; 2:15; 2:17–18; 2:23; 4:14–16; 8:17; 12:17–21; 13:35; 27:9–10) to drive  home his basic theme: Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT predictions of the Messiah. Matthew even finds the history of God’s people in the OT recapitulated in some aspects of Jesus’ life (see, e.g., his quotation of Hos 11:1 in 2:15). To accomplish his purpose Matthew also emphasizes Jesus’ Davidic lineage (see Recipients, p. 1945).

And Bailey continues to put Matthew’s quote into the proper context, explaining that Christians « believe that these verses describe what happens when a person accepts Christ and leaves the religion of his family« .

And that is the crux of it. « Islam is not a religion as we in the United States usually define it, because Islam does not consider religion to be a private matter. »

Instead, Islam claims the power of law – a very public matter. Furthermore, its laws grant legal and economic rights according to each person’s religion, and it gives Muslims political power over non-Muslims. It also gives Muslims a moral imperative to conquer all of the world’s non-Muslims and establish Islamic governance over them. Thus Islam can be better understood as a political ideology than as a religion.

Islam feels respected only when all other powers, be they religious or political, submit to it. Islam also declares that its adherents can justly exert lethal force when they believe Islam has been insulted by a lack of proper respect for its superiority.

Nowadays, when I hear someone say that Islam is a religion of peace, it reminds me of a line from Tim Burton’s disturbing comedy, Mars Attacks: “We have come in peace, please surrender the planet immediately!”

Translated in everyday terms, one needs only observe Iran’s latest election for the 86-member Council of Experts; or rather clerics, who, in order to qualify, « must pass a difficult theological exam – and must be approved by the Council of Guardians, which, as with anything that really matters in Iran, is controlled by the supreme leader. The six key mullahs out of the council’s 12 jurists are directly appointed by the supreme leader. So inevitably the election for the Council of Experts had to be supreme-leader-controlled. »… and on and on and on.

A world apart indeed; so much so, that it should send every Liberal into a complete spin, galvanizing unwavering resolve to ensure, that the spread of such dictatorial evil shall never be allowed to exert any power over our national and international interests and those of our allies.

Wake up! Anybody listening?

Sunday, December 17, 2006

Politicizing ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (Repeat)

Politicizing 'An Inconvenient Truth'
« St Roch Asking the Virgin Mary to Heal Victims of the Plague » by Jacques-Louis David 1780, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Marseille

I received an e-mail this morning from Alex Muchow @ Across The Board, a new reader of ATB, who is passionate about the subject of global warming: « The crisis that the earth faces is real, and the evidence that suggests that humans are responsible for global warming is indubitable and overwhelming. I think it is very important that we make this issue known to the world. Very important indeed. »

Alex panged my conscience and prompted me to re-post below what I wrote a few months back, and re-visit this important subject once again, the relevance of which cannot possibly be forever stained by the mere fact that Al ‘Truthiness’ Gore seems to have monopolized the subject and given it the all too evident liberal spin. As I say below: « Think of Gore and his message what you will, the issue is far bigger than that. » And it is.

Are we too blasée? Do Republicans not care for the environment? Are we placing partisan ideology before the healthy future of our children?

These and a flurry of related questions that have been bugging me over the last few days since Vice President Al Gore’s documentary « An Inconvenient Truth » hit the silver screen, giving his high-profile campaigning on the threat of global warming a decisive push.

Let me be upfront and tell you outright, that I have not been able to reach any halfway satisfactory let alone conclusive answers to these fundamental questions. How could I.

Calling us « a renegade band of rightwing extremists« , didn’t help shoring up sympathies for his cause. But neither did Bill Gray’s sensationalist and holy unrelated comparison, « Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews« , add any credibility to his claim that Global warming is a hoax.

So what is a blogger to do? Take up the study of climatology and question the research and data hurled back and forth between scientists of both camps, with the media pitching for a position of their own? I don’t think so…

Continue reading « Politicizing ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ (Repeat) » »

Friday, December 15, 2006

The Race For Souls (Weekend Thread)

The Race For Souls
‘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, that the race for souls in the most populous parts of the world is won by Christianity.

The distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Pennsylvania State University, Philip Jenkins doesn’t tell us what spurs Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, but his statistics do:

In fact, if you want to project the countries in the world that will have the largest numbers of Christians by 2050, here’s one projection. At the head of the list would still be the United States, followed, in no particular order, by Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, the Congo, Ethiopia, the Philippines, and China. Let me give you a list of the countries that were not included in that list: Britain, France, Spain, Italy. Is anyone here old enough to remember something called « Western Christianity? » […]

Well, if this was just a change of geography, a change of ethnicity, then it would be interesting. But I’m suggesting that it is rather more than that, because   the kinds of Christianity that are growing in the Global South—a term by which I mean Africa, Asia, Latin America—are different from what we are used to in the Global North. They are much more enthusiastic; they are much more supernatural-oriented; they have much more of a belief in trans-stream vision, prophecy. […]

The sooner we understand that our Thug-In-Chief is performing to all Muslims across the globe, we realize his ambition to counter Professor Jenkins’ projections.

Anti-Western rage fueled the 1979 Iranian revolution, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has tried to rekindle its energy by spreading Iran’s influence beyond its borders. Battling Washington, chiding Arab leaders and claiming to promote the Palestinian cause have made him extremely popular on the streets from Cairo to Morocco. […]

Others see an even more ambitious post-Iraq agenda reflected in Mr. Ahmadinejad’s high profile on the issues of Jews, the Holocaust and Israel.

“It is for public consumption in Arab countries,” said Mustafa El-Labbad, editor of Sharqnameh, a magazine specializing in Iranian affairs and published in Cairo. “It is specifically directed toward deepening the gap between the people and their regimes and toward embarrassing the rulers so that the regional power vacuum, especially after Iraq, can be filled by Iran.”

Or, you could call it Phase-1 in his master plan. Controlling Middle Eastern Oil supplies by toppling one regime after the other, is the starting point in his quest for the creation of a global, Shi’a dominated, caliphate (don’t miss Andy McCarthy’s succinct summary of Arthur Herman’s action plan against the Mullahcracy).

Asia, and China in particular, depend on Arab Oil; a dependency, which our Thug-In-Chief certainly intends to put to good use (all it take is a Chinese UN-veto to ensure the continuing slaughter of Christians by Muslim Jihadists on the African continent). For his vision to succeed, he must reverse the rise of Christianity amongst his favorite demographic, the poor in the South; those, who can be most effectively inculcated with Islam’s murderous teachings, namely Jihadist doctrines. Professor Jenkins continues:

Let me stress one word. When we look at the emerging Christianity which will be such a force in the 21st century, there is one word I stress: poverty. The average Christian in the world today is a very poor person, inconceivably poor by American or European standards.

If you look at the world’s poorest today, then I suggest a rather surprising observation. The largest single religion among the poorest is not Islam, it is not Hinduism. It is Christianity. The problem of extreme poverty in the world is, above all, a Christian issue. This radically affects the way in which people read the Bible, a book which was written by and for a very poor community.

Jenkins’ research explains also otherwise often hard to understand motivators for us ‘civilized’ Christians, that are guiding our friends at the Vatican, most of all the Holy Father, in matters of abortion, birth control and homosexuality: ‘Southern Christians‘, and in particular those in sub-Saharan Africa reject, what Spengler terms, the ‘issue of syncretism‘.

The Christian problem of having one’s cake and eating it, too. Christians too often wish to keep one foot in their Gentile past and another in the Kingdom of God. This dichotomy, I have argued on previous occasions, ultimately doomed European Christianity.

The Vatican knows, that it must resist liberal re-interpretation of biblical doctrine to avoid losing appeal to millions of Southern Christians and potential converts – over 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity every year.

Despite the fact that Muslims by virtue of being poor and uneducated are much more reproductive than others, Islam as a religion is not growing but dying fast.

More and more Muslims are discovering that the violence evinced by some of their coreligionists is not an aberration but is inspired by the teachings of the Quran and the examples set by its author. Muslims are becoming disillusioned with Islam.

No small surprise, especially when you read the whole transcript of Professor Jenkins’s lecture; you will understand why both the Old and the New Testament have such a strong appeal in poverty stricken, predominantly agrarian communities in Africa and Asia; and why our Thug-In-Chief is in such desperate need to whip up hype to distract from his domestic morass (let me just mention the fast spreading news of the already widely known hypocrisy on Iranian streets, which basically reduces Islamic clerics to nothing more than dirty little pimps), why he is afraid that he is loosing the battle for souls.

I leave you in hope that like me, you too take courage from more myth destroying gems courtesy of Professor Jenkins:

One of the most important changes around much of the world in the last decade or so has been the spread of sub-replacement fertility. […] In the last twenty years, the birth rate in Iran, for example, has fallen from six children per woman to two. So the United States now has a higher fertility rate than Iran.

Most Muslim countries in the Near East and North Africa are now rapidly approaching European birth rates—Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco. All these countries are now heading basically for Spanish and Italian rates—not just without government encouragement, but despite government encouragement in many cases to do the opposite. The places that still have the very high rates in the Muslim world are places like—well, you can guess—Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, the Gaza Strip.

So that [the spread of sub-replacement fertility] is spreading as a global factor right now.

No wonder, why Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his fellow Islamofascists are so hell-bent on keeping at least Iraqis, Afghans, Somalis and Palestinians under their draconian yoke – otherwise, who would be left to strap their suicide belt on, other than some of our disgruntled academics…

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Point Of No Return

‘The Fall of Icarus’ by Pieter Pauwel Rubens 1636, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels

Just as the Iranian president does not draw any connection between the occupation and his desire to nullify Israel’s existence, the world should also view the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the Iranian threat to Israel as separate issues. Ahmadinejad does not recognize the 1967 borders – or any borders – for a Jewish state. He uses Holocaust denial to eradicate the moral basis for Israel’s existence, and even says so openly. That was the explicit explanation that the Iranian foreign minister gave for why it is necessary to discuss the « myth » of the Holocaust right now. To counter this, it is necessary to create a moral, diplomatic, political and even military front – one that will be activist rather than sleepy and apologetic, and that will make the discussion of Israel’s destruction unprofitable for the Iranians even before any discussion of the goals of the nuclear capabilities they are developing.

This from Haaretz today, entitled « Iran grows strong, the world yawns« .

It is with deep frustration and even deeper sense of brooding anxiety, that I am forced to face this awful reality all around us; the world yawns in the face of Israel’s looming doom, and never more so, than after Lebanon War II.

Articles, editorials and valued opinions are more outspoken than ever, yet in a tragic way, instead of arousing the desired sense of urgency, they seem to intensify the feeling of despondency and inevitability.

The only thing worse to a heated debate against someone, who is fuelled by anti-Semitism and bigotry is a dejected ‘whatever‘. It almost seems, even outgoing Kofi Annan feels a point-of-no-return has been passed:

« Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel’s behavior, » Annan said. « But one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians. »

Describing decades of resolutions and a proliferation of special committees, Annan asked if this had any effect on Israel other than to strengthen the belief « that this great organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process. »

« Even worse, some of the rhetoric used in connection with the issue implies a refusal to concede the very legitimacy of Israel’s existence, let alone the validity of its security concerns, » Annan said. « What was done to Jews and others by the Nazis remains an undeniable tragedy, unique in human history. »

And there it is again. The existence of Israel linked to the horrors of the Holocaust. Just as Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad is relying on:

Iran is helping make clear that the « Arab-Israeli conflict » is not about borders, settlements or refugees, but about the radical Islamist refusal to accept the right of a Jewish state to exist in any shape or form.

The Iranian conference illustrates the linkage between Holocaust denial and Israel denial.

Who would have thought, that utterly traumatized Holocaust survivors and Jews from all over the world, effected by the long process of coming to terms with these unspeakable events, may one day be held accountable for the manner, in which the process of recuperation could possibly have been allowed to dominate the otherwise indisputable right-of-claim based on millennia of Jewish heritage in this area. If anything, this conference, « serve as an opportunity to debunk the claim that the historical, legal and moral basis of Israel’s existence is solely, or even mainly, born of European atonement for the Holocaust. »

It was 89 years ago this month that Lord Arthur Balfour declared: « His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine… »

In 1922 this policy was ratified by a vote of the League of Nations, which gave the British a mandate over Palestine with the express purpose of creating a « Jewish national home. » The justice of this – decades before the Holocaust – became more obvious as the world came to recognize more than a dozen new Arab states at about the same time it accepted one Jewish state, Israel.

While most of the new Arab states had no national historical antecedents, the Jewish state, of course, did. The capital of Israel became Jerusalem, the city that King David established as his capital some 3,000 years before, where the First and Second Temples had stood for approximately 1,000 years, and toward which Jews had prayed for 2,000 years.

The point of Iran’s « study conference » is to argue that Israel is an alien colonial implant. Actually, the Jewish state could not be more indigenous to this area, and its revival represents perhaps the greatest example of restorationist justice in history.

What are we to do, if such overwhelming historical facts are merely shrugged off with a yawned ‘whatever’?

Monday, December 11, 2006

Could It Be?

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 Mullahcrazies 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! »

The main incentive Baker advocates offering is Israel.

Baker believes that Iran will agree to temporarily hold its fire in Iraq in exchange for US acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power and an American pledge not to topple the regime. Syria will assist the US in exchange for US pressure on Israel to hand over the Golan Heights to Syria and Judea and Samaria to Hamas.

Obviously, if implemented, the Baker-Hamilton group’s recommendations will be disastrous for Israel. Just the fact that they now form the basis for the public debate on the war is a great blow. But it isn’t only Israel that is harmed by their actions. The US too, will be imperiled if their views become administration policy.

So, could it be, that our leaders, left or right, majority or minority, fall for this?

As evidence of Iran’s readiness, the sources say, Larijani earlier this year publicly accepted an offer made by U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad to hold talks with Iranian officials in Baghdad. But in Iran’s view, the U.S. withdrew the offer and that undercut Larijani’s standing inside the regime, strengthening the position of more hard-line elements, including Ahmadinejad. « It was a missed opportunity, » contends the expert on U.S.-Iranian relations.

And, in light of the debates that continue to swirl both in Tehran and Washington over whether to talk to each other, it may not have been the last one.

Could it be that our politicians are this predictable in the face of an electoral crisis; don’t tell me that not every single one of our leaders quietly but collectively and hole heartedly concurs with Robert Kagan and William Kristol’s simple but brilliant synapsis of the ISG recomendations – no matter how they dress it up later to square it with their political concsience:

So let’s add up the ‘realist’ proposals: We must retreat from Iraq, and thus abandon all those Iraqis … who have depended on the United States for safety and the promise of a better future. We must abandon our allies in Lebanon and the very idea of an independent Lebanon in order to win Syria’s support for our retreat from Iraq. We must abandon our opposition to Iran’s nuclear program in order to convince Iran to help us abandon Iraq. And we must pressure our ally, Israel, to accommodate a violent Hamas in order to gain radical Arab support for our retreat from Iraq.

Could it be, that in the space of just over 5 short years, even a wake-up call of the epic proportions of 9/11 has been distorted to such a degree, that we have to acknowledge today, an even bigger attack is needed for us to accept the need to defend and fight for our freedom; that our Judea-Chrisitan values and principles are exposed as hollow and meaningless and their dependability to be mere relics of a bygone society.

Sunday, December 10, 2006

‘Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’….Eh?

'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…. »

Here is the crucial Document, part of the United States-Iran Agreement on Release of the American Hostages Executive Order 12283, January 19th 1981 : Non-Prosecution Of Claims Of Hostages And For Actions At The United States Embassy And Elsewhere

The other parts of the Agreement, largely relevant to the release of all Iranian assets, including the property of the former Shah of Iran, and the revocation of trade sanctions against Iran, can be found here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

The Agreement of course has President Jimmy Carter’s fingerprints all over it. President Reagan was inaugurated the day the hostages were released, and lumbered with the Algiers Accords agreement already signed on that very day. The hostages were released 20 minutes after the inauguration speech was delivered.

Carter’s announcement on the morning of January 20th 1981: « I know you have been up all night with me and I appreciate it very much. We have now reached an agreement with Iran which will result, I believe, in the freedom of our American hostages. The last documents have now been signed in Algiers following the signing of the documents in Iran which will result in this agreement. »

Jimmy Carter’s last full day as President of the United States was a marathon struggle against the clock and the seeming determination of the Iranian authorities to deny him a reunion with the American hostages as a climax to his Presidency. Throughout a night and day of sustained tension, Carter and his aides clung to the hope that he would be able to greet the hostages on their arrival in West Germany, then return here in time to attend Ronald Reagan’s inauguration.

The prospect of ending the crisis and making the trans-Atlantic dash in the closing hours of the Carter Presidency had enthused his staff like nothing else since his defeat on November 4th 1980. But it was not to be. Shortly after Pars, the Iranian press agency, gloated publicly that Carter would not be able to welcome the hostages as President because their release would be delayed until after his term expired – a claim that remained to be proved – Carter bowed to the inevitable and accepted Reagan’s request that he serve as a special envoy to greet the hostages.

In the closing moments of his pitiful presidency Jimmy Carter would have been prepared to sign anything Iran had to offer, simply to have the glory of the release of the 52 hostages, and the end to the Iran crisis, attributed to him, as a sealed climax to his presidency. His dearest wish above all else to have a triumphant end to his presidency, but at what expense. This is the agreement that the State Department is dumped with today, but of course the ever biased MSM would never mention that.

Continue reading « ‘Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid’….Eh? » »

Saturday, November 11, 2006

Lost In Translation (Weekend Thread)

Lost In Translation

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.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

The Day After

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.


Continue reading « The Day After » »

Monday, November 06, 2006

May Your Voice Be Heard

May Your Voice Be Heard
« Angel Annunciating » by Lorenzo Lotto 1527, Church of St.s Vincent and Alexander, Ponteranica, Italy

Victor David Hanson echoes my progressively bemused sentiment: « what is it about George Bush that seems to reduce once sober and experienced liberal pros to infantile ranting? »

I mean, if this sorry display of pure aggression and absolutely zero substance by Cliff Schecter is elevated by his fellow Lefties as handling « the talking heads perfectly« ; if such a performance of almost pure thuggery on national TV is the kind of reference card to be celebrated as « by far one of the best strategists the Democrats have going from [sic] them« , all rationality is indeed lost.

Maybe it is this very ‘Anything-Republican Derangement Syndrome’, which is causing voters to feel increasingly nervous to hand over the reigns, « as they realize that no matter what the problem is, the answer can’t be more Democrats« .

After all, maybe it isn’t such a good idea to be entirely « Under the Influence of Liberalism« :

I find it interesting that, in today’s maniacal media world, conservatives are taken to task for every syllable they utter, but liberals are given a pass.

A GOP gaffe will be replayed ad nauseam on news broadcasts, news magazine programs, and comedy shows. Then, it may get a second round of play on liberal talk radio and ripped-from-the-headlines TV dramas.

But when a liberal makes a rhetorical blunder, he or she is excused because, after all, he or she really didn’t mean to say it. The guilty party is too erudite or too compassionate for the remark to be taken at face-value.

Sen. John Kerry is the latest case in point. Kerry indicated this week that if you’re a student who does not study hard and do your homework, you will end up “stuck in Iraq.” It should be evident to every American that this is an insult to the fine men and women who have put their lives on the line to try to rebuild Iraq and keep us safe from Iraqi-sponsored terrorism.

But a number of journalistas are telling us that no, the Democrat from Massachusetts couldn’t possibly have meant what he said, given the fact that he himself is a veteran of war. No, we’re told, he just botched a joke. After all, Kerry is no David Letterman.

It seems to me that a more likely excuse is that he was speaking under the influence of liberalism. […]

Free speech is, indeed, priceless. But when it is misused, the costs can be high for our democracy and our security. It’s one thing for a radio talk show host to spout off—it’s quite another for a Senator to criticize our troops in wartime.

And that’s the problem. The utter erosion of any remnants of any kind of civility and reasonableness is, if not caused outright, at least compounded by a generation, which according to Derek Bok, Harvard’s current president, doesn’t understand the first bit about quantitative reasoning and has failed to acquire « the knowledge needed to be a reasonably informed citizen in a democracy« .

Suzanne Fields elaborates in today’s must read and connects this sad phenomenon to John Kerry’s remark:

An honest embrace of diversity and multiculturalism would require inclusion of the military. But in the Ivy League not all diverse cultures are equal. Faculty and students share John Kerry’s contempt for the military man and woman.

But the senator’s inadvertent insight hasn’t received the notice it deserves: A college education doesn’t necessarily make someone smart. […]

Worse, they don’t know what they don’t know. Surveys show these naive relativists, destructive deconstructionists and superficial sophomore philosophers, incapable of analyzing and dissecting even their own ideas, to be immensely pleased with their educations. Maybe it’s just as well they don’t serve in the military.

But problems emerge when the schism mentality expressed by John Kerry fuses contempt for military service with a sense of superiority for not serving. In « AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America’s Upper Classes from Military Service — and How It Hurts Our Country, » Kathy Roth-Douquet and Frank Schaeffer expose the core of such elitism. « When those who benefit most from living in a country contribute the least to its defense, and those who benefit least are asked to pay the ultimate price, something happens to the soul of that country. »

A prejudice against the military, coupled with grade inflation and lack of intellectual discipline, combine to create spoiled and pampered students who lack the will to defend their country from those who would destroy it. It was not always thus. In World War I, a draft was established in part to prevent the nation’s most privileged young men from volunteering, compelled though they were by a sense of honor and a desire to serve. They were needed more, so it was argued, for civilian jobs and leadership at home.

Continue reading « May Your Voice Be Heard » »

Saturday, November 04, 2006

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.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Life Is What Happens When You Are Making Other Plans

Life Is What Happens When You Are Making Other Plans

This is what one of my readers wrote to me today, whilst gently reminding me that he hopes all is well with me: « There must be many things that press upon your time, but please know that many people look forward to your writing and your blog. I’m certain that you are in the thoughts and prayers of many, most certainly in mine. »

Kind and thoughtful as all my readers are, he reminds me that I have been truly blessed with the most incredible people who read my blog and genuinely care about what I write.

Life right now is what is happening and it’s most inconvenient, as my fingers are itching to hit the keyboard again and bring you some of that ATB magic you have all said you have been missing so much….

Whilst I am on the subject of ATB, and unbeknown to me, TypePad in their infinite wisdom and fight against spam, have prevented us from having full HTML in the comment sections, hence all your links will have to be in the raw format, without our dinkey little <a href=…. symbols that we have all grown to love and which make the text so much neater. You can still use the usual HTML for blockquotes and italics and bold symbols etc. [correction, Francis Porretto in the comments below seems to have posted a normal HTML link, so I give up trying to understand TypePad] However I have to warn you, I have spent the last two days trying different permutations to post a comment from one of my commenters who has been labeled as spam by TypePad and I have failed to post it for him, despite trying every single way. If you have problems let me know, but make sure you save your comments before posting.
And so on an entirely different note, with 6 days to go, we’re set for the sprint to the finishing line to begin: All eyes are of course on Missouri Republican Sen. Jim Talent, who is still slightly ahead (1-2% according to latest Zogby Interactive polling – comprehensive analysis here) of Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill; and then there is of course the cliffhanger in Tennessee: Republican Bob Corker leads by a hairbreadth over Democrat Harold Ford Jr. « in the race for the seat that will be vacated by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist ».

Ohio’s Senat race remains hotly contested. Incumbent Republican Sen. Mike DeWine pulled to just two percentage point behind Democrat Sherrod Brown. In the prior three polls, DeWine was about four points behind. Pollster John Zogby says DeWine is seeing growing support from the state’s Republican base, with about 90% of Republicans in the most recent poll saying they will vote for him, up significantly from earlier polling rounds. Brown leads DeWine 59%-33% among independents.

And what’s up in Pennsylvania, guys? Democrat Bob Casey Jr. is racing ahead of Sen. Rick Santorum (nearly 10% according to latest polls) – we need a reversal here and whilst we are at it, bring back a lead for incumbent Sen. George Allen over in Virginia; Democrat Sen. James Webb is leading currently, cashing in on his pedigree earned during the Reagan era as secretary of the Navy. Could it really be, that Allen’s absolutely normal instincts to protect his mother and her haunting insecurity, which has remained so tragically alive in her own mind over so many years, is costing him votes…
Well, according to Salon, Kerry’s « botched joke » (h/t Rick Salant) has interrupted the Democrat’s hegemony over the MSM — it’s refreshing to have such an unabashed admission from the horse’s mouth:

It’s not that what Kerry said will, in and of itself, change the course of the election. But after weeks in which the Democrats have won news cycle after news cycle, weeks in which the Republicans have been stuck talking about George W. Bush and defending or distancing themselves from his war on Iraq, Kerry gave the Republicans the break they couldn’t buy for themselves. For the last 24 hours, cable news and talk radio has been filled with talk of Kerry’s words rather than Bush’s woes. For the last 24 hours, Democrats have been denied the chance to build on the wave that might sweep them to victory next week

Good! More interruptions please. Let’s interrupt the bloody MSM and their unprecedented bias and hold on to the house shall we?

Saturday, October 28, 2006

No Sigh Of Relief Anytime Soon (Weekend Thread)

No Sigh Of Relief Anytime Soon

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.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

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,, 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…

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

The Devil Doesn’t Wear Prada

The Devil Does Not 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.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

The Bloody Dance Of The Qur’an

The Bloody Dance Of The Qu'ran

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.

Friday, October 20, 2006

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.

Continue reading « The ‘Humiliation Of Occupation’ Rears Its Ugly Head Again » »

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

A Matter Of Interpretation

A Matter Of Interpretation
‘Family of Marsupial Centaurs’ by Salvator Dali 1940

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia commenting on abortion and homosexual rights vis-a-vis the Bill of Rights. As a primer on the subject, a quote from Justice Scalia’s book, ‘A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law‘:

The American people have been converted to belief in The Living Constitution, a « morphing » document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean. And with that conversion has inevitably come the new phenomenon of selecting and confirming federal judges, at all levels, on the basis of their views regarding a whole series of proposals for constitutional evolution. If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew they will, by God, write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. By trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all. [Emphasis mine]

Video Transcript:

I’m in the business of enforcing democracy. What democracy means is that on controversial issues, even stuff like homosexual rights, abortion, whatever, we debate with each other and persuade each other and vote on it. Either our representatives or through a Constitutional amendment in the states, we decide the question. Now there are some exceptions to that in any liberal democracy, and in ours, most of those exceptions are contained in the Bill of Rights. But that Bill of Rights was adopted by the majority which is why it is proper in a democracy to have a Bill of Rights, because the majority adopted it.

Now when they adopted it what did they take out of that general principle? What did they take out of that general rule of democracy? That we allow open speech, we persuade each other and we vote. What did they take out of it? They never took out these issues…abortion, homosexual conduct. Nobody ever thought that they had been included in the rights contained in the Bill of Rights which is why abortion and homosexual sodomy were criminal for 200 years. Now whether that’s a good idea or bad is not what I’m talking about. That’s not my job to say that. It is my job to say whether the Bill of Rights has taken it out of the realm of democratic debate. Just because you feel strongly about it…it isn’t necessarily in the Bill of Rights. [h/t Jay @ Stop The ACLU]

Anybody got a problem with that?

The irony of course is that Justice Scalia spent his life defending what the Liberals keep alleging to be the worst offences committed by Consveratives: usurping the democracy by circumventing strict formalistic processes. Yet, their charge against Scalia is, that he is too formalistic.

Of all the criticisms leveled against textualism, the most mindless is that it is « formalistic. » The answer to that is, of course it’s formalistic! The rule of law is about form. If, for example, a citizen performs an act–let us say the sale of certain technology to a foreign country–which is prohibited by a widely publicized bill proposed by the administration and passed by both houses of Congress, but not yet signed by the President, that sale is lawful. It is of no consequence that everyone knows both houses of Congress and the President wish to prevent that sale. Before the wish becomes a binding law, it must be embodied in a bill that passes both houses and is signed by the President. Is that not formalism?

A murderer has been caught with blood on his hands, bending over the body of his victim; a neighbor with a video camera has filmed the crime; and the murderer has confessed in writing and on videotape. We nonetheless insist that before the state can punish this miscreant, it must conduct a full-dress criminal trial that results in a verdict of guilty. Is that not formalism? Long live formalism. It is what makes a government a government of laws and not of men.

Right there, another glaring proof of Liberal hypocrisy. The conservative vote matters more than ever.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Islam’s Cosa Nostra

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.
Revolutionary Guard Inc.

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’

Continue reading « Islam’s Cosa Nostra » »

Saturday, October 14, 2006

The Jagged Edge Of The American Left (Weekend Thread)

How Did Europe Become Home To 20 Million Muslims In A Mere Three Decades

« Game Boys » by Peter Howson 1991, Private Collection London

Matt Shefield, my executive editor @ NewsBusters leads the charge:

Last week, the CBS News staff nearly revolted when [Katie] Couric and her producers dared to allow someone to say on the show that school violence is the product of people taking religion out of public schools.[…]

For all their talk of being impartial and balanced, the fact is that network news is run by secular leftists who will continue spiraling ever downward in the ratings rather than adopt a more tolerant attitude and start hiring conservatives and religious people. They have a perfect example of success in Fox News but they deliberately choose not to follow it because they perceive news which isn’t left-wing to be illegitimate. [emphasis mine]

Peggy Noonan picks up the theme of the intolerant left and their warped idea of free speech @ The Wall Street Journal in her latest piece:

It is not only about rage and resentment, and how some have come to see them as virtues, as an emblem of rightness. I feel so much, therefore my views are correct and must prevail. It is about something so obvious it is almost embarrassing to state. Free speech means hearing things you like and agree with, and it means allowing others to speak whose views you do not like or agree with. This–listening to the other person with respect and forbearance, and with an acceptance of human diversity–is the price we pay for living in a great democracy. And it is a really low price for such a great thing.

We all know this, at least in the abstract. Why are so many forgetting it in the particular?

Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don’t. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn’t come quickly, they’ll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.

And they don’t always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.

And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America. […]

What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace–of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn’t had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.

« Why do Americans on the left think only they have the right to dissent? » she asks. Why indeed.

And the root cause for such ironically domineering attitude, as it has been shown time and time again in the Left’s campaigning style and content, is that the vast majority of its base is driven in their personal lives by destructive emotions such as envy, resentment, bitterness and most of all, pure and gut-wrenching hatred which, like any pressure cooker under too much heat, needs to release its steam through the emergency valve.

But, just as with steam, a retort in kind is never part of the equation. After all, the underlying perception is a righteous condemnation of the outside world; for it has caused the misery, it is to blame for all hardship and wrongs brought upon the individual. How dare the collective ‘they’ then have the audacity to add insult to injury.

The Right is not free of such unfortunate supporters, but the overwhelming majority are people who are driven by an urge to achieve, to improve, to advance, to build; not to tear down, to destroy and to systematically debase the key ingredient of success: excellence.

The liberal media simply continues to spin it’s own web of deceit in full support, sinking deeper into their ignorant oblivion…

Friday, October 13, 2006

The Dichotomy

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.

Continue reading « The Dichotomy » »

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Ignorance Is Bliss

Ignorance Is Bliss

Arafat learned to manipulate the West, and Abbas is even more adept at telling us what we want to hear. But behind our backs the same old message is going out: ‘Humour them. One day they’ll drop their guard, they’ll be weak and then we’ll wipe them off the map.’

Disturbing in itself, of course; but, for me, much more disturbing is the constant need to debate and persuade those around us. They are no fools, to be sure. They are ‘just’ ignorant of the facts. The little bit they do pick up here and there is garnered from fleeting moments on CNN and daily newspapers, in short the MSM.

Conversations go like ‘Oh, that is interesting, but I remember hearing/reading quite a different account … are you sure you have got your facts straight?…’ Then the really aggravating moment follows: Eyes glaze over before even the first sentence is out. Most people just don’t care either way. The saying, ‘Ignorance is bliss’ describes the true nature of their carefree oblivion perfectly.

North Korea’s nuclear blast, whether real or hyped up, and Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad’s promise to wipe Israel of the map couldn’t be more disconnected as far as they are concerned. ‘What has this commie lunatic to do with the Middle East conflict’.

A lot. Apart from being a global add campaign — don’t bother building it yourself, we’d be happy to supply you with all the know-how or with as many nukes as you care to order — it proves to the Mullahs and their jihadist armies the world over, once you’ve got it, nobody is going to touch you any longer.

Continue reading « Ignorance Is Bliss » »

Monday, October 09, 2006

The Russian Bear Awakes

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. »

Continue reading « The Russian Bear Awakes » »

Saturday, October 07, 2006

‘The UN And The Jews’ Indeed (Weekend Thread)

'The UN And The Jews' Indeed
‘Dream of Solomon’ by Luca Giordano ca. 1693, Museo del Prado, Madrid

You know, I take courage when the consistently anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic UK newspaper, the Guardian expresses despair over the increasingly likely selection of, what they say is a ‘faceless’ successor to Kofi Annan; I am talking of course about Ban Ki-moon, the current South Korean foreign minister.

Breaking the mold of the longstanding tradition among UN officials throughout the ranks to fashion the UN into « the foremost global platform for anti-Semitism« , must indeed drive senior UN officials to despair, together with their faithful MSM minions.

« The mood among staff is glum, » one of the officials said. « We are not very excited about the outcome. » With morale low at the UN after five years dominated by divisions, deadlock and corruption, they are sceptical about Mr Ban’s ability to turn the organisation round or provide the strong, inspirational leadership they had been hoping for.

Yeah, ‘strong, inspirational leadership’ in the fight against the hated Zionist state is what they were hoping and looking for. Let’s refresh our memory with Anne Bayefsky’s incredibly crisp and concise analysis, ‘The UN and the Jews‘, mentioned in my post ‘UN’s Global Mission: Reviving, Spreading And Fueling Rabid Anti-Semitism‘ in July.

Where the UN has fallen markedly short is in the application of these principles [meaning the principles of self-determination, which are now taken to entail not just the basic right of political independence but guarantees of non-interference by other nations, a realm of domestic jurisdiction and national sovereignty, and the preservation of historical, cultural, and religious particularities], and in no case more strikingly than that of Israel. The key factor has been the changing composition of the international body. From the late 1940’s to the mid-60’s, the original membership more than doubled. Of the 67 new states joining in this period, 80 percent attached themselves to the Group of 77—the UN’s third-world caucus, made up of many former European colonies—and some 40 percent had Muslim majorities. By 1977, the five members of the Arab League who helped to found the UN had been joined by all sixteen others.

To this radicalized and often Soviet-influenced contingent, self-determination was invoked in UN circles not as a general principle but as a tool to wield against the West, especially the U.S. and its increasingly stalwart ally, Israel. Self-determination was a right of the oppressed, to be exerted against oppressors. In the prosecution of this cause, the weight assigned to historical claims was itself selective and discriminatory: those who rejected the UN’s 1947 partition plan for Palestine were labeled the oppressed, while Jewish victims, from Palestine to Europe, were characterized as the oppressors.

By this means has the UN negotiated the passage from omission to commission. Not only has it consistently failed to appreciate or even to acknowledge the state of Israel’s preservation of Jewish independence and identity, it has become the loudest and most determined foe of the Zionist project.

They don’t want a man who will focus on « administrative detail »; that would curtail their gravy train. They don’t want a leader who « knows to disagree without being disagreeable »; that would forgo juicy Israel bashing headlines. They don’t want a man with strong convictions; that would jeopardize the continuation of mindless anti-Zionist propaganda.

In short, they don’t want a man who is described as « intelligent, polite, moderate and honest » and who supports « UN reform, transparency and the free market ».

We may of course find to our dismay, that Ban Ki-moon has little sympathy for a beleaguered Israel, but in absence of a confirmed anti-Semitic, Muslim candidate, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and look forward to rid the airwaves of the spineless and hopelessly corrupt Kofi Annan.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

The Palestinian Code Of Honor

The Political Correctness That Strangles Debate On Islam
« 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?

Continue reading « The Palestinian Code Of Honor » »

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Don’t Get Me Started….

Don't Get Me Started....

Don’t get me started on ex Florida Rep. Mark Foley and how the whole sordid affair is playing out – just get on with it already, Speaker Dennis Hastert,  Majority Leader John Boehner and all the rest of you; I refuse to talk about it on ATB.

One of Michelle Malkin’s readers echoes my sickened sentiment:

I am sick and tired of people turning everything into a political issue. Foley is one sick individual who should have never been in congress in the first place.  I couldn’t care less if he’s a republican or democrat,  he’s a deeply disturbed man.

But back to politics. I liked the New York Sun’s headline ‘General Schumer’s Secret Agenda‘. The Sun picks up on Schumer’s quote, « This is war » and rather skillfully addresses the main reason for my state of despondency:

His metaphor was a dagger aimed at the heart of those many moderate and independent-minded Americans who want to fight a war on Islamic extremist terrorists, a war on cancer, a war on poverty — but not a war on Republicans. Mr. Schumer is described further in the article [Friday’s Wall Street Journal] as among those arguing that the Democratic Party should keep its agenda secret from the voters. « For more than a year, Democrats debated what platform to have for 2006, or whether to have one at all. Mr. Schumer was among those mostly content to bash Mr. Bush, » the Journal reported.The newspaper quoted General Schumer as saying, « For us to put out a big range of ideas gives Republicans a target and gets the message off George Bush. »

General Schumer is a lot of things, but he’s not stupid. So if he wants to keep the Democratic Party’s ideas secret from the American people in a closely fought election, it just may be that he realizes how unpopular his party’s ideas are with the American people. The Democrats want to cut and run in Iraq, retreat into a defensive crouch in the war on terror while making good relations with France the top priority in American foreign policy, impose huge tax increases on American businesses and families, and appoint judges who are soft on violent criminals but easy on ambulance-chasing plaintiff’s lawyers. With those kinds of ideas dominating his party, it’s no wonder General Schumer wants to keep them a secret from the voters.

That’s it, isn’t it. The ‘smart’ opposition intends to hoodwink its more thoughtful voters, hoping that the ‘Bush-lied-people-died’ smear campaign, with all its offshoots, sufficiently distracts from real issues and from the debate as to how the Democratic Party is proposing to tackle them. Michael Barone observes this morning that….

…Their pit bull attacks on President Bush, their constant references to the Abu Ghraib abuses as if they were typical, their opposition to letting the NSA listen to conversations from Al Qaeda suspects to persons in America, and to letting interrogators of unlawful combatants use techniques that have helped us foil those plotting violence against us — these amount to a strategy of rule or ruin.You must let us rule this country, or we won’t regard it as « our » country anymore. So much for the first person plural.

Well, what can I say, now General Schumer must rethink his Bush-bashing strategy and how best to include Hastert & Co.

It’s time for some celebration to lift the mood, I say. Congratulations are in order to my dear friend Ed Morrissey on his three year anniversary yesterday, of unstoppable brilliance and simply awesome stats. My darling friend the Anchoress, my mentor and guide in troubled blogging waters has my heartfelt congrats on her 2 million visit milestone.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

No Excuses For Terror

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)

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad Caught Red-Handed

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!

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Independent Thought

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?

Continue reading « Independent Thought » »

Monday, September 25, 2006

The Clinton ‘Bonfire Of Vanities’

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.

Continue reading « The Clinton ‘Bonfire Of Vanities' » »

Saturday, September 23, 2006

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.


Continue reading « Osama bin-Laden Dead….Again? (UPDATED) » »

Friday, September 22, 2006

Hope In Fear

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.

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

« The Path To Hysteria »

The Path To Hysteria

Certain things need to be just left alone and appreciated in their entirety. Cyrus Nowrasteh’s response to the rabid crazies in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal is one of those essays. He wrote the screenplay for « The Path to 9/11 » and lived to regret it.  TigerHawk  aptly concludes, « When conservatives try to discredit somebody by reference to race, religion or other suspect affiliation, the world justifiably howls in outrage. Manifestly liberal newspapers seem to live by a different set of rules. Why? »

So, without further ado, let Cyrus speak:

I am neither an activist, politician or partisan, nor an ideologue of any stripe. What I am is a writer who takes his job very seriously, as do most of my colleagues: Also, one who recently took on the most distressing and important story it will ever fall to me to tell. I considered it a privilege when asked to write the script for « The Path to 9/11. » I felt duty-bound from the outset to focus on a single goal–to represent our recent pre-9/11 history as the evidence revealed it to be. The American people deserve to know that history: They have paid for it in blood. Like all Americans, I wish it were not so. I wish there were no terrorists. I wish there had been no 9/11. I wish we could squabble among ourselves in assured security. But wishes avail nothing.

My Iranian parents fled tyranny and oppression. I know and appreciate deeply the sanctuary America has offered. Only in this country could a person such as I have had the life, liberty and opportunity that I have had. No one needs to remind me of this–I know it every single day. I know, too, as does everyone involved in the production, that we kept uppermost in our minds the need for due diligence in the delivery of this history. Fact-checkers and lawyers scrutinized every detail, every line, every scene. There were hundreds of pages of annotations. We were informed by multiple advisers and interviews with people involved in the events–and books, including in a most important way the 9/11 Commission Report.

It would have been good to be able to report due diligence on the part of those who judged the film, the ones who held forth on it before watching a moment of it. Instead, in the rush to judgment, and the effort to portray the series as the work of a right-wing zealot, much was made of my « friendship » with Rush Limbaugh (a connection limited to two social encounters), but nothing of any acquaintance with well-known names on the other side of the political spectrum. No reference to Abby Mann, for instance, with whom I worked on « 10,000 Black Men Named George » (whose hero is an African-American communist) or Oliver Stone, producer of « The Day Reagan Was Shot, » a film I wrote and directed. Clearly, those enraged that a film would criticize the Clinton administration’s antiterrorism policies–though critical of its successor as well–were willing to embrace only one scenario: The writer was a conservative hatchetman.

Continue reading «  »The Path To Hysteria » » »

Monday, September 18, 2006

Just Another Monday

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:

Continue reading « Just Another Monday » »

Friday, September 15, 2006

The Holy Father And The Unholy Truth Of Islam

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. »


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.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Iran’s Blink Is NATO’s Wink

Iran's Blink Is NATO's Wink

Has Iran « finally blinked« ? If you consider ‘temporary suspension’ a useful progress, yes… maybe.

Iran has finally blinked, reportedly agreeing to a temporary suspension of uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, as a confidence-building measure in response to growing international pressure.

But in truth, it only serves one purpose: it seeks to derail consensus over sanctioning Iran over its non-compliance to permanently abandon uranium enrichment.

Interestingly, the author, Kaveh L Afrasiabi, thinks this to be « a welcome development« , for it « can potentially take the wind out of the sails of the ship of sanctions planned by the US and its allies at the United Nations Security Council. » Whose side is he on?

But we’ve asked for it in the interest of proving our resolve to the international community to explore all diplomatic avenues before stopping a nuclear Iran militarily:

On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested that a temporary suspension might be enough to clear the way for formal negotiations.

Can you call it ‘blinked’, as Iran is observing and analyzing NATO’s latest disgraceful refusal to honor their commitments to fight the Taliban thugs in Afghanistan? Ed Morrissey’s criticism of Europe’s and NATO’s duplicitous behavior is music to Iranian ears; especially because they know how complex and intewoven the roots for these repeated letdowns are:

Perhaps people might recall the insistence of Europe and many here in America on engaging Afghanistan and Iraq through international alliances. We tried in both cases, and we had a lot more support from our allies with Afghanistan, as it had created much less controversy than the war against Saddam Hussein. Our relief by NATO was supposed to show America the benefits of « true » international coalitions in dealing with the complex problems of Southwest Asia.

However, once again, we see that the global community lacks the fortitude to make good on their promises and meet the challenge of their own demands. The same nations that scolded us over our supposedly unilateral approach now refuse to answer the phone when NATO calls on them to meet their pledges of troop support. The French do not belong to NATO, but the rest of Europe will blithely sit and watch Afghanistan’s new democratically-elected government fall victim to a resurgent Taliban rather than lift a finger to help. Even Germany, with 2700 troops stationed in the quiet north, refuses to redeploy to assist the US, UK, and Canada in the more volatile southern region.

As with Lebanon, we hear a lot of posturing from Europe on how to conduct war and demands to implement their peace strategies. When it comes time to put themselves on the line for their strategies and goals, they increasingly go AWOL.

Much more indicative is yet again what Iran really fears: it’s own people. Don’t miss the latest testament entitled « One Last Nail To The Coffin Of Independent Media in Iran« .

Saturday, September 09, 2006

‘Hardball’, ‘Softball’ Or Simply ‘Flatball’

Valerie 'Flame' Wilson Files 'Double Exposure' Suit

A photoshop I did back in July for my ‘Valerie ‘Flame’ Double Exposure Suit’

My executive editor @ NewsBusters Matt Sheffield, whilst attending a press party on Thursday night held by MSNBC and National Journal in aid of launching their new joint venture, learns from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that he is no longer covering the Wilson/Plame story because….wait for it…. « It’s got too complicated ». Eh? Read Matt’s account of their little chat, revealing that Matthews is himself averse to ‘hardball’ questions, especially when they involve bursting the ‘bringing down the Bush White House’ bubble with a big bang.

A day later, on last night’s ‘Hardball’, and clearly prompted by Drudge pointing to Matt’s revelation, Matthews comes out of his long ‘boycotting’ silence on the Wilson/Plame leak, with a deranged conspiracy theory blowing straight back into his face before the dust has even had time to settle:

MATTHEWS: You guys broke the story that the real leaker in the CIA leak case was Richard Armitage. Michael?

ISIKOFF: Correct, and it’s, you know, it was one of the ironies of the Plame investigation that the guy who was the primary source for Novak, who was the primary source, and it was the sole source for Bob Woodward, was a member of the administration’s moderate cell who actually had misgivings about march to war–

MATTHEWS: Do you think he might have been used by the people like Scooter, they put it in front of him knowing he was a blabbermouth?


Er….was that a ‘perhaps’, a ‘maybe’, a ‘possibly’, a ‘probably’, an ‘I don’t know’…. Er…no, that was a plain straight down the line fat loud NO. Video courtesy of NRO.
In Chris Matthews’ mind a lot can seem awfully « complicated » if you can’t blame the golden goose, but then it’s comforting to know that the Bush Derangement Syndrome is alive and well

« Now that there isn’t a story, Matthews drops it — not because it’s a non-story, but because it’s too confusing. In reality, it couldn’t be any simpler. Richard Armitage told Robert Novak. Rove confirmed this to Novak. There was no conspiracy to ‘punish’ a Bush critic — only an effort to refute his lies. What’s so ‘complicated’ about that? »

The guru on the Wilson/Plame saga is my dear friend Tom Maguire, who has as usual the latest on the story, this time with an anti-semitic twist. (h/t Matt Sheffield @ NewsBusters for all the links)

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Why Does The American Left Demand The Prerogative To Indoctrinate?

Why Does The American Left  Demand The Prerogative To Indoctrinate?

Bear with me, whilst I dive right in. The militant Left is escalating a firestorm with the clear goal to either censor as ‘politically unacceptable’, or to completely suppress the upcoming ABC miniseries, « The Path to 9-11 ». Rhetoric suggests the imminent breakout of hostilities, rapidly turning initial protests into a frenzied witch-hunt, akin only to our Islamofascist foes’ response to the Islamic cartoons.

But, at least the Islamofascists didn’t fabricate the entire basis for their grievance, and as such, there is only little evidence of chicanery, which is not what we can say for our militant lefties, since they are being caught faking evidence all the time. This excerpt is just the latest example; it’s scary:

A Scholastic/ABC document titled « Student Resource Sheet 1″ [page-3 left column after heading Iraq] says of Iraq, « The dictatorial government of Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003, following an invasion led by the United States. The U.S. government believed that Hussein had been developing weapons of mass destruction that he planned to use against American and other targets.« 

The « Student Resource Sheet » omits any mention of two crucial facts: We now know Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and there is a voluminous and growing body of evidence that indicates that the Bush administration knew its claims about weapons of mass destruction were unsupported

Ideological blindness doesn’t cut it as the only rational explanation, how a ‘belief‘ is distorted to mean ‘confirmed certainty‘ in order to justify the in itself utterly misleading heading, « ABC-Sponsored teaching materials falsely suggest Iraq had WMD, link War in Iraq to 9/11 ».

Then there is the additional, rather subtle license to equate ABC’s wording ‘had been developing‘ with being ‘finished, completed and fully tested‘ as a basis for the stern rebuttal, alleging now certain knowledge, that Hussein never had WMD and implying equally certain knowledge, that Hussein’s army could never have managed to smuggle WMD out of Iraq into, for example, Syria; neither prior nor during the war.

But, even if we feel generous and ignore this perhaps too nuanced discrepancy, we are still left with no disagreement, factual or imaginary, between ABC’s account, namely that the « U.S. government believed… » and the allegation that such beliefs were unsupported. That’s the whole point of not knowing something, but rather having either faith in the religious sense or suspicion in the case of risk assessment and mistrust. And given Hussein’s trackrecord, neither President Bush nor Prime Minister Blair were prepared to take any further risks.

If anything, ‘The Path to 9-11’ seems to be all about the catastrophic consequence of failing to take preemptive action in order to reduce or eliminate future risks of terrorist attacks.

But in order to maintain the ‘Bush lied, people died’ slander, their pathetic attempts to rewrite the English dictionary will continue until finally ‘belief‘, which stands for opinion, judgment, impression, view, conviction, is finally replaced with ‘knowledge‘.

Continue reading « Why Does The American Left Demand The Prerogative To Indoctrinate? » »

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

The Elephant In The Room

The Elephant In The Room

Wearing my libertarian hat, I reach out to my fellow Republican, evangelical friends, for it seems necessary to re-unite:

This week, New York Post columnist Ryan Sager, one of the most thoughtful young conservatives writing today, publishes an important new book, « The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party. »

The gist of the book is that the coalition of religious conservatives and libertarian free-marketeers is breaking apart. The basic principle that held them together throughout the postwar era — the idea that morality and virtue need to be freely chosen to have meaning — is breaking down. The traditionalists have gotten the upper hand and increasingly reject the idea of freedom when it comes to things like same-sex « marriage, » pornography, drugs and abortion.

The traditionalists, infused by evangelical religious fervor, have taken that wing of the party far beyond its historical roots. In the past, traditionalists were religious and pro-religion, but highly tolerant of those nonreligious conservatives who derived their ideology from natural law or free-market economic principles. Thus traditionalists like William F. Buckley and Russell Kirk could coexist with atheists like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises. They respected each other’s views even if they disagreed with their foundation.

Before moving on, I would like you to find out how your particular political persuasion compares with your fellow Republicans and the opposition. Just tick a few questions and your typology group is identified and mapped out. But even more interesting are the comparison charts, once you follow the link « See what others like you think… » – fascinating.

Now that we are armed with a ‘better’ understanding of our political pigeonhole, let’s take a step back before attempting to build bridges.

In particular, I sense, that the following statement could hold the key for a better understanding, thus creating unifying common ground: « The basic principle that held them together throughout the postwar era — the idea that morality and virtue need to be freely chosen to have meaning — is breaking down. »

I respectfully suggest, the premise that ‘morality and virtue need to be freely chosen to have meaning’, if that is indeed Sager’s and not that of the reviewer, reveals a deep misconception, which, if rectified, could help alleviate libertarians’ despondency and prevent them to « disengage from politics and just sit out the next election« .

If morality and virtue were indeed perceived to be subject to ‘choice’, we’d have left the entire conservative base, traditionalists, evangelicals, libertarians and all other strands included, and joined the quintessentially Liberal set of beliefs and ideals. And that clearly didn’t happen.

Instead, it may help to demonstrate, that as a result of decades long, relentless attacks on all things Christian and Religious from the Left in ever increasing frequency and ferocity, traditionalists/evangelicals gradually hardened under the never ending siege. I again respectfully suggest, that a rift in this respect is much more imaginary than real, and that over time, the increasingly vocal resistance against the atheistic onslaught may well have contributed to a perception of alienation between traditionalists/evangelicals and libertarians.

None of this resolves the much more serious dissatisfaction over vastly expanded government spending coupled with the dreaded but inevitable tax increases. But this dissatisfaction is not reserved to libertarians nor do traditionalists/evangelicals somehow stay aloof from such basic conservative concerns.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Welcome to Saudi America

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.”


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:

Continue reading « Welcome to Saudi America » »

Show Me The Bodies

Show Me The Bodies

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.

Continue reading « Show Me The Bodies » »

Monday, September 04, 2006

World War III Has Already Started

'Not Without My Daughter'
« 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.

Continue reading « World War III Has Already Started » »

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Playing The Board

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.
 Watch Thomas P.M. Barnett on 'After Words' interviewed by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)


Continue reading « Playing The Board » »

Friday, September 01, 2006

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

Wal-Mart Can Stop A Nuclear Iran

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.

Continue reading « Wal-Mart Can Stop A Nuclear Iran (WEEKEND THREAD) » »

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Bashing Israel Sells

Bashing Israel Sells

Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora is first and foremost a businessman, so he is all too familiar with the concept of selling.

And what is the most important issue for the PM in Stockholm today? Yeah, it’s to convince Ministers from more than 60 countries to donate as much money to Lebanon as possible. So, all depends on Siniora’s impassioned sales pitch, doesn’t it; getting into the ‘customer’s shoes’, as it were.

Which leads us to the question of what Prime Minister Siniora believes to be the key ‘buying-trigger’ for his pitch; what he believes will most effectively promote his needy cause so as to wheedle the most donations out of today’s captive audience of over 60 nations plus the officials from the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the Red Cross.

Well, we have the answer: Relentless, unequivocal Israel bashing. I just listened to the live coverage of Siniora’s disgraceful speech and couldn’t believe my ears. This was worse than what Assistant-Thug-In-Chief Nasrallah could have come up with — as soon as I locate the transcript, I’ll add the link [updated with link below]

His diatribe against Israel put Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad’s anti-Semitic tirades to shame. No mention of Hezbollah, no unprovoked murder of Israeli soldiers, no mention of the kidnappings, no Katushya rockets, no Israeli civilian deaths and displaced; nothing. As if it never occurred.

Just Israel, who attacked on July 12 for the seventh time, killed over 1,000 innocent civilians, 1/3 of them children under the age of 12, destroyed homes, hospitals, mosques, churches, roads, bridges – all just civilian infrastructure to her promise to return Lebanon to the dark ages just when it had managed to show signs of recovery; repeatedly and deliberately violated international laws and human rights conventions; displaces over a million people, many of whom returned homeless; and on and on and on.

That, Siniora must have been certain, was what the international community wanted to hear; that is what the PM believes will yield the most sympathy and the most hard cash to be ferreted away.

Absolutely disgusting. However not disgusting enough for us not to pledge $230 mil…. despite Siniora categorically snubbing Israel, whilst the original disgracefully transparent blackmail design of a prisoner swap is back on the cards.
But then you know what, I think I must belong to a breed that is about to become extinct, because I think this is equally disgusting. Heh.

Continue reading « Bashing Israel Sells » »

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.

Continue reading « The Nest Of Impotent Islamic Vipers » »

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

CAIR’s Useful Idiots

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?

Continue reading « CAIR’s Useful Idiots » »

The Sordid Godless World Of Shari’a Law

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.


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)

Monday, August 28, 2006

Converting To Islam At Gunpoint Is Harmless

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.

Continue reading « Converting To Islam At Gunpoint Is Harmless » »

Saturday, August 26, 2006

‘Progressively’ More Crazy

'Progressively' More Crazy
‘Names’ by Gilbert & George 2005, Private Collection

Have the so called self styled ‘progressives’ completely lost it? The only ‘progress’ they have made is one of falling into further psychotic ‘Michael Moore clone’ abyss: Russel Shaw of The Huffington Post wishes for another terrorist attack on the US to enforce a change of Administration. Eh?

What if another terror attack just before this fall’s elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?

I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has “kept us safe,” and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.

If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this “Bush has kept us safe” thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.

If 5% of the “he’s kept us safe” revise their thinking enough to vote Democrat, well, then, the Dems could recapture the House and the Senate…

Hidden deep into the text is a false premise of « Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history… » unfortunately getting quickly unraveled by an all too obvious deep sense of wishful thinking on the part of the author.

(H/T my friend Michael van der Galien @ The Moderate Voice)

Jeff Medcalf deservedly tears Shaw from limb to limb. and delivers a powerful sock in the jaw to some previous attempts by the Democrats to play @ Administration:

Shaw also misses a larger point: it was the Clinton administration that turned Somalia into a war mission, instead of an aid mission, and the Clinton administration who launched wars in the Balkans when there was no US interest involved, and little possibility of stopping future violence. It was the Clinton administration that tried to get Israel to « lay back and take it » when under constant terrorist attacks, leading to the recent battles in Lebanon as well as far more terrorism than would have occurred if Israel had not relented on the occupation. It was Carter who let the Soviets invade Afghanistan without a meaningful response, and let the Iranians take American hostages with impunity. Frankly, I don’t like our chances in military affairs with the Democrats in charge as a general rule. The party of Scoop Jackson and JFK died a lonely death in the rice paddies of SE Asia, and what’s left of their spine is now in the Republican party.

Continue reading « ‘Progressively’ More Crazy » »

Friday, August 25, 2006

Muslim Glory Predicates Apocalypse

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:

Continue reading « Muslim Glory Predicates Apocalypse » »

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

In Danger Of Complicity

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…

Continue reading « In Danger Of Complicity » »

Monday, August 21, 2006

The UN Staged Chicanery

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.

Continue reading « The UN Staged Chicanery » »

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Topsy-Turvy Works

Topsy-Turvy Works
‘The Fall Of The Rebellious Angels’ by Frans Floris, 1554, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp

I am so tired of the same old tactic simply to copy, parrot and plagiarize all and any criticism word for word so as to hurl it back at the critics with total impudence. Even worse though, is to see it work, as we are forced to witness every day all around us.

The Iranian Press Service provides a great summary of Arab voices condemning Hezbollah and Hamas for representing Iran’s and Syria’s genocidal interest both in Lebanon, the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip. The language is clear, frank and substantiated.

Then follows the retort from Iran and Syria:

« This was a New Imperialist War […] it is the American administration that is making the decisions in this war against Lebanon, while Israel only carries out its instructions. »

« This imperialist war to which Lebanon and the [Muslim] nation are being subjected proves that these new imperialists do not respect the U.N. resolutions or the Convention on Human Rights… Their only goal is to divide our Arab region and carve it up into smaller and smaller [pieces] in order to implement their [plan for a] ‘New Middle East’. […] The disturbing question in this context is this: Will the [Muslim] nation wake up [in time] to defend its identity and honor before we all sink?… »

« [The actions of] targeting Lebanon, changing its face, and redrawing its map are merely another stage in the series of hasty, foolish and reckless actions taken by the neo-conservatives in the U.S. and by their ally Israel with the aim of suborning the region to their authority, defeating it, and breaking its will ».

« It is the Bush administration that is running… this destructive and murderous war, which moves [from one country to another in the Middle East], while Olmert’s government supplies the mechanism [for carrying it out]. [In light of] the failure of [the American] strategy in Iraq and its helplessness [there] after so many years… America [has decided] – in order to compensate itself and cover up [its failure]… – to expand the circle of fire and death by aiming all this criminal, blind hatred at Lebanon… »

« The war that is currently waging [in Lebanon], with its declared and undeclared goals, makes us more certain than ever that Israel and the U.S. are the forces behind the assassination of [former Lebanese prime minister] Rafiq Al-Hariri. The assassination was part of an unsuccessful attempt by the U.S. to enforce U.N. Resolution 1559. The aggression [we see] today began because Israel, as it turns out, is the only one who benefits from this resolution and from Al-Hariri’s assassination.. »

It’s really quite pathetic, but most effective in a climate, where those, who seek to form an honest opinion based on a reasonable degree of truth and a reasonable degree of informed judgment, are few and far between.

Take the first quote for example and replace ‘the American administration‘ with ‘Iran‘ and ‘Israel‘ with ‘Hezbollah‘ and you are staring at the truth:

« This was a New Imperialist War […] it is Iran that is making the decisions in this war against Lebanon, while Hezbollah only carries out its instructions. »

Continue reading « Topsy-Turvy Works » »

Friday, August 18, 2006

UN’s Fine Men Of Distinction

UN's Fine Men
« Figure with Meat » by Francis Bacon 1954, Institute of Art in Chicago, Illinois

UPDATE: The New York Times features ATB on the Lakhdar Brahimi article page.

This won’t take long. I will come right out and say it. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is definitely an anti-Zionist – my views on the UN’s shameful record of deeply ingrained and widely spread, rabid anti-Semitism are of course well known.

He has to be if he choses special advisers like Lakhdar Brahimi, famous for his anti-Zionist views:

To state their beefs broadly, Brahimi’s critics argue that he’s an anti-Israel Arab nationalist and Saddam apologist. […]

Brahimi told a French radio station last month, « There is no doubt that the great poison in the region is this Israeli policy of domination … as well as the perception of all of the population in the region, and beyond, of the injustice of this policy and the equally unjust support … of the United States for this policy. » When asked by ABC News about his comments, Brahimi didn’t back down, saying, « I think there is unanimity in the Arab world, and indeed in much of the rest of the world, that the Israeli policy is wrong, that the Israeli policy is brutal, repressive, and that they are not interested in peace no matter what you seem to believe in America. »

He has to be when he praises Brahimi as « one of the finest mediators and negotiators the United Nations has been privileged to call one of its own« , and when he proudly claims that Brahimi « is one of our leading global citizens, whose wise counsel I rely on« .

Now why this sudden re-emerging interest in Lakhdar Brahimi? Read today’s New York Times Op-Ed penned by Brahimi and you know.

Israel’s need for security is real and legitimate, but it will not be secured in any sustainable way at the expense of the equally real and legitimate needs and aspirations of its neighbors.

And we know what those aspirations are: The Annihilation of the State of Israel, no less.

I was shaking with fury after reading Brahimi’s Op-Ed. All the talk of Lebanese and Palestinian suffering and hardship, half of which were Hezbollah fighters in civilian clothing anyway, but not one mention of a single Katushya rocket, filled with ball-bearings and other goodies so as to inflict maximum human carnage, all aimed exclusively at Israeli civilians.

Instead of spreading his thinly varnished anti-Zionist mantra, which, given the true intentions and aspirations of the Arab world, is really inseparable from anti-Semitism, Brahimi ought to take a leaf out of his own book and listen to his past pearls of wisdom:

« But you’ve got to understand what the other guy is about, even if at the end of the process you decide that there is no ground with this man or woman except to fight them. »

Continue reading « UN’s Fine Men Of Distinction » »

Thursday, August 17, 2006

Who Is Émile Lahoud

Who Is Émile Lahoud

A buffoon of the highest order, totally corrupt and a puppet figure for Assad’s Syria, that’s who he is.

This biographical quote is priceless:

According to The New York Times, Lahoud has a reputation for « lounging through most afternoons in his Speedos by the pool at the Yarze country club, reading Paris-Match magazine and holding a tanning mirror. » The newspaper reported that Lahoud denied allegations that he went swimming on the day of Hariri’s funeral. He told a group of journalists: « I swim every day — it’s my workout — but on that specific day, I did not swim. »

Well, not surprising, considering that he was the reason Rafik Hariri, the Prime Minister of Lebanon from 1992 to 1998 and again from 2000 until his resignation on 20 October 2004, was assassinated:

Hariri and others in the anti-Syrian opposition had questioned the plan to extend the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, emboldened by popular anger and civic action now being called Lebanon’s « Cedar Revolution ».

Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, a recent recruit of the anti-Syrian opposition, alleged in the wake of the assassination that in August 2004 Syrian President Bashar al-Assad threatened Hariri, saying « Lahoud is me. … If you and Chirac want me out of Lebanon, I will break Lebanon. » He was quoted as saying « When I heard him telling us those words, I knew that it was his condemnation of death. » […]

Mr. Hariri reminded Mr. Assad of his pledge not to seek an extension for Mr. Lahoud’s term, and Mr. Assad replied that there was a policy shift and that the decision was already taken. He added that Mr. Lahoud should be viewed as his personal representative in Lebanon and that “opposing him is tantamount to opposing Assad himself”. He then added that he (Mr. Assad) “would rather break Lebanon over the heads of [Mr.] Hariri and [Druze leader] Walid Jumblatt than see his word in Lebanon broken”.

Irish journalist Lara Marlowe with whom Hariri talked reported similar allegations. According to the testimonies, Mr. Assad then threatened both Mr. Hariri and Mr. Jumblatt with physical harm if they opposed the extension for Mr. Lahoud. The meeting reportedly lasted for ten minutes, and was the last time Mr. Hariri met with Mr. Assad. After that meeting, Mr. Hariri told his supporters that they had no other option but to support the extension for Mr. Lahoud. The Mission has also received accounts of further threats made to Mr. Hariri by security officials in case he abstained from voting in favor of the extension or “even thought of leaving the country”.

Continue reading « Who Is Émile Lahoud » »

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The Curse Of Success

The Curse Of Success
« Moses and the Golden Calf » by Domenico Beccafumi 1536-37, Duomo, Pisa

My reader Mac Brachman points me to an interesting essay from Daniel Pipes, « How war is perceived has as much importance as how it actually is fought« .

If Hezbollah manage to get away with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah reportedly reaching a deal allowing Hezbollah to keep its weapons but refrain from exhibiting them in public, it may still be their biggest PR coup yet. Kofi Annan for his part is simply laying down playing his usual lame anti-Israel self, with the now additional self imposed amnesia taking hold, claiming that « dismantling Hizbullah is not the direct mandate of the UN. » Israel may beg to differ.
Pipes says that Western Governments « need to see public relations as part of their strategy« ; that Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Muslim Brotherhood clearly do.

This is undoubtedly true. But the part that struck me is that it shouldn’t be so.

Pipes tackles this issue indirectly by suggesting that « when West fights non-West, the outcome on the battlefield is a given. That settled in advance, the fighting is seen more like a police raid than traditional warfare. As in a police raid, modern wars are judged by their legality, the duration of hostilities, the proportionality of force, the severity of casualties, and the extent of economic and environmental damage. » He cites Paul Kennedy’s timeless essay « The Greates Superpower Ever« , which portrays the US military as the « only one player on the field that counts. »

We comprise slightly less than 5 percent of the world’s population; but we imbibe 27 percent of the world’s annual oil production, create and consume nearly 30 percent of its Gross World Product and spend a full 40 percent of ALL the world’s defense expenditures. As I have noted, the Pentagon’s budget is nowadays roughly equal to the defense expenditures of the next nine or 10 highest defense-spending nations-which has never before happened in history.

Again, undoubtedly true. But in order to understand why our leaders and those, who still know right from wrong, should not have to sell basic moral principals to large segments of the population, we need to dig deeper, past the symptoms to the cause.

Continue reading « The Curse Of Success » »

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

A Pivotal Moment In The History Of The Middle East

A Pivotal Moment In The History Of The Middle East
« The Raft of the Medusa » by Théodore Géricault 1818-19, Musée du Louvre, Paris

I want to share with you today important words of pristine clarity and reason. Furthermore, I shan’t link to the source as yet, for I would like you to allow these words to live and breathe free from any association. For those of you who recognize it, please weigh in and discuss the content without mentioning the source.

Civilians in Lebanon and Israel have suffered from the current violence, and we recognize that responsibility for this suffering lies with Hezbollah. It was an unprovoked attack by Hezbollah on Israel that started this conflict. Hezbollah terrorists targeted Israeli civilians with daily rocket attacks. Hezbollah terrorists used Lebanese civilians as human shields, sacrificing the innocent in an effort to protect themselves from Israeli response.

Responsibility for the suffering of the Lebanese people also lies with Hezbollah’s state sponsors, Iran and Syria. The regime in Iran provides Hezbollah with financial support, weapons, and training. Iran has made clear that it seeks the destruction of Israel. We can only imagine how much more dangerous this conflict would be if Iran had the nuclear weapon it seeks.

Syria is another state sponsor of Hezbollah. Syria allows Iranian weapons to pass through its territory into Lebanon. Syria permits Hezbollah’s leaders to operate out of Damascus and gives political support to Hezbollah’s cause. Syria supports Hezbollah because it wants to undermine Lebanon’s democratic government and regain its position of dominance in the country. That would be a great tragedy for the Lebanese people and for the cause of peace in the Middle East.

Hezbollah and its foreign sponsors also seek to undermine the prospects for peace in the Middle East. Hezbollah terrorists kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, Hamas kidnapped another Israeli soldier for a reason. Hezbollah and Hamas reject the vision of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. […]

The conflict in Lebanon is part of a broader struggle between freedom and terror that is unfolding across the region. […]

Continue reading « A Pivotal Moment In The History Of The Middle East » »

Monday, August 14, 2006

The Olmert Metamorphosis From Churchill To Chamberlain

The Olmert Metamorphosis From Churchill To Chamberlain

Israel refuses to leave southern Lebanon until Lebanese forces and international forces can secure the border area. Hezbollah’s Hassan Nasrallah promised to fight as long as Israel remained in southern Lebanon. UN’s Kofi Annan has confirmed the Lebanese PM Siniora to be the gofer running between Nasrallah for instructions and back to the French and Arab League patrons for approval. It’s going to be a long hot summer…

Only history will tell, a decade from now, but the writing may already be on the wall.

At this moment in time it is evident that Israel’s signature on the UNSC Resolution 1701 is celebrated as a clear victory by the UN appeasers and anti-Semite member states, diligently paving the way for Thug-In-Chief to fulfill his promise to wipe Israel off the face of the world.

We have also been told that « the US decision to seek a cease-fire was the result of Israel’s amateurish bungling of the first three weeks of the war. The Bush administration, they argued, was being blamed for the Olmert government’s incompetence and so preferred to cut its losses and sue for a cease-fire. There is no doubt much truth to this assertion.

The Israeli government’s prosecution of this war has been unforgivably inept. At the same time it should be noted that the short-term political gain accrued by the US by forging the cease-fire agreement will come back to haunt the US, Israel and all forces fighting the forces of global jihad in the coming weeks and months.

By handing a victory to Hezbollah, the resolution strengthens the belief of millions of supporters of jihad throughout the world that their side is winning and that they should redouble efforts to achieve their objectives of destroying Israel and running the US out of the Middle East. »

What is not entirely clear is why Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert chose to fashion himself after Chamberlain instead of Churchill only days into the conflict?

What the hell happened to the unconditional release of the kidnapped soldiers. We have in effect legalized Hezbollah’s 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.

This is not what Israel had in mind; instead the nation was hoping for a strong leader and for this kind of speech (read the whole thing, it’s powerful):

In a loud clear voice, looking you straight in the eye, I stand before you openly and I will not apologize. I will not capitulate. I will not whine. This is a battle for our freedom. For our humanity. For the right to lead normal lives within our recognized, legitimate borders. It is also your battle. I pray and I believe that now you will understand that. Because if you don’t, you may regret it later, when it’s too late.

Today, Binyamin Netanyahu is certainly getting ready to capitalize on the current mood of frustration and dispair over Israel’s failed military mission only moments after Olmert took full responsibility for having tied both hands behind IDF’s back during the past 4 weeks.

Continue reading « The Olmert Metamorphosis From Churchill To Chamberlain » »

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Remember, We Won The War (UPDATED)

Remember, We Won The War


It just took us a lot longer and left millions more dead.

It started the Cold War, which, some 40 years later, we won too.

It paved the way for the Marshall Plan, which critically led to the transformation of an entirely new Europe in the form of the European Union (EU), made up of currently 25 independent states based on the European Economic Communities (EEC), practically without borders, complete with common currency, Central Bank and an European Parliament, which supervises the European Commission (EC). Simply unimaginable at the end of WWII.

It caused the Japanese to realize that US-pioneered capitalism was the way to go following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, giving us today the second largest, entirely peace-loving and democratic economy after our own.

Fast forward….

Only by looking at the bigger picture in this wider historical context am I able to fight the heavy heart with which I must accept that the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 has handed Hezbollah and its state sponsor Iran and Syria a « near-total victory« . [you must read the entire piece by Caroline Glick, it’s brilliant]

…and an unprecedented defeat for Israel and its ally the United States. […] in practice it makes it all but impossible for Israel to defend itself against Hizbullah aggression without being exposed to international condemnation on an unprecedented scale.[…] By empowering Annan to evaluate compliance, the resolution all but ensures that Hizbullah will not be forced to disarm and that Israel will be forced to give up the right to defend itself. […] the resolution rewards Hizbullah’s aggression by giving international legitimacy to its demand for territorial aggrandizement via acts of aggression, in contravention of the laws of nations.[…] Moreover, by allowing Lebanon to make territorial claims on Israel despite the fact that in 2000 the UN determined that Israel had withdrawn to the international border, the resolution sets a catastrophic precedent for the future.[…] the Palestinians, Syrians and indeed the Jordanians and Egyptians will feel empowered to employ aggression to gain territorial concessions from the Jewish state even if they previously signed treaties of peace with Israel. The message of the resolution’s stand on Shaba Farms is that Israel can never expect for the world to recognize any of its borders as final.[…] the resolution treats as equivalent Hizbullah’s illegal aggression against Israel and Israel’s legitimate military actions taken in defense of its sovereign territory.[…]

Continue reading « Remember, We Won The War (UPDATED) » »

Friday, August 11, 2006

« To Be, Or To Cease Fire » That Is The Question (UPDATED)

Click Image

Or go to the YouTube link here to watch the movie, it’s excellent, an absolute must see.[it was taken off the original site but Beth has posted it again for us! Brilliant]

UPDATE I:  Richard Rimbaugh directs me to the latest from Haaretz informing us that the expanded incursion into Lebanon would continue « for the time being, » despite agreeing to a cease-fire resolution drafted by the UNSC (FULL TEXT OF RESOLUTION). Israel will press ahead with its military offensive in south Lebanon until Israel’s Cabinet sits on Sunday, with Olmert advising it to accept the proposal. Sigh…

Strong words and critical disagreement from two retired IDF military men, giving us pause to think.

First Effie Eitam, a previous commander of IDF forces in Lebanon, condemning Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz for having delayed a ground offensive far too long and for blocking Wednesday’s decision to send thousands of ground troops to reach the Litani River. He advocates, that Israel has no choice but to fight man to man; it is the only way for Israel to emerge politically and militarily strengthened from the war. The choice he presents is: « To be, or to cease fire« .

We must understand that Hizbullah and its rockets have successfully captured a large section of Israel. What’s at stake now is no different than crossing the Suez Canal during the Yom Kippur War, or pushing the Syrians off the Golan Heights, or moving the war to enemy territory during the Six Day War.

South Lebanon is the object of Israel’s counter-offensive, in order to loosen the stranglehold Hizbullah enjoys over northern Israel.

Israel ‘s civilian home front is bearing the burden of this war with a stubbornness and a unity unseen since the War of Independence. This is the moment and this is the purpose for which the state and the army were created. The army must act now to carry out any action necessary, wherever necessary, to restore our civilians’ basic right to life, even if soldiers must die to restore it.

If the prime minister and defense minister still fail to understand the fatefulness of the current situation. If they retreat into hesitation and delusion, and if they choose to hide behind empty, twisted words, or even worse – behind a phony shield that the IDF is not, it will become clear that this government does not, and never did, deserve the faith of hundreds of thousands of Israelis who have born the brunt of this war so far

On the other hand, argues Avshalom Vilan, a 25-year IDF Special Forces veteran, …

…The Cabinet decision to expand operations in Lebanon came too late, and appears like someone is trying to cover up a month of snowballing warfare, and less like someone able to strike a decisive blow in this war.

The stated goals of the war – bringing kidnapped IDF soldiers home, quiet along the northern border, getting Hizbullah out of south Lebanon and installing an multi-national force to bolster the Lebanese army – will eventually be realized by diplomatic negotiations. There is no knockout punch to be delivered that will tip the scales in our favor, certainly not deploying all the way to the Litani. […]

This fight need not be a politicians’ fight for ratings, or for our national pride, or our deterrent ability. It is about taking calculated risks, measuring cost versus benefit, military success against casualties, and mainly: The ability to translate military gains into diplomatic processes.

The process of moving from the battle field to the negotiating table must begin immediately. We must stop harboring false hopes and look at reality with open eyes. We must build a process that will lead to Syria’s exit from the cycle of violence, even if we must give up the Golan Heights. […]
The more we internalize the limits of modern military power, strong as it may be, and we understand that against a guerilla organization that doesn’t count casualties and is prepared to go all the way, we will understand that the solution to the current conflict is to be found in negotiation.

It’s an important debate, but one held in the dark. We don’t know what Olmert and Peretz learned from massive intelligence obtained during the past 4 weeks. However, until we do, it is hard to resist judging that both may have shown themselves to be poor strategists.

Continue reading «  »To Be, Or To Cease Fire » That Is The Question (UPDATED) » »

Thursday, August 10, 2006

UK ‘Home Grown’ Terrorist Plot Thwarted (UPDATED)

UK 'Home Grown' Terrorist Plot Thwarted


IMPORTANT UPDATE AUG 11TH: Dry run planned for today on United, American and Continental Airlines, which fly to New York, Washington and California, with a series of deadly mid air explosions on flights from London to the US, planned for August 16th

Breaking news from the BBC in the early hours of this morning

A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.

Police have arrested about 18 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months.

Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are expected. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical – the highest possible.

According to MI5’s website, critical threat level means « an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK ».[…]

Home Secretary John Reid confirmed that there had been a plot « to bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions causing a considerable loss of life ».

I shall be eagerly waiting for the theories of the learned left who will immediately begin with their conspiracy theory mongering, ranging from the timing of the breaking news being in question, to dismissing any possibility that airplanes as ‘flying bombs’ pose a security threat at all. We will look closely as the day progresses and the theories get hammered out to protect the ‘NSA wiretapping golden calf’ and the Patriot ‘non-issue’ Act over at the leftie blogs.Yawn. (check UPDATES below for plenty of amusement)

Michael Ledeen quoted Chertoff earlier today to the effect that « we share a common philosophy with the Brits, which is not to wait until they act, but to go after them before something terrible happens ». Fine, but since Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad has spelled out his on more than one occasion, Ledeen quite rightly wonders why does our lame response continue?

Continue reading « UK ‘Home Grown’ Terrorist Plot Thwarted (UPDATED) » »

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

The NYT’s ‘Dead Man Walking’ (UPDATED)

The NYT's 'Dead Man Walking'

UPDATE: Always good to know that we do make a difference after all. The NYT changes its caption and issues a correction.

Cross posted @ NewsBusters

What is it about the inimitable paper of disrepute, the mighty New York Times, that makes it constitutionally unable to tell the truth?

In these troubled times of rabid Pallywood, the NYT publishes what appears to be a staged photograph of a Dead Man Walking’ in Tyre, Lebanon. The entire photo essay with audio, here. (note the caption has now been changed, see update above)
Have the left become so out of touch with reality in this war on terror that their unwarranted superciliousness and condescension overrides the most basic principals of journalism? Intentionally or not, they have become the driving force behind the propaganda machine of the mullahcracy of Iran in the West.

At this crucial time in history, when the world is at the brink of war with Islamofascism, nothing so illustrates the left’s nihilism as does its stand against Israel and its willingness to lap up the incessant anti-Semitic propaganda spewed out by the international MSM. Die Welt’s Blog wraps it up with a must read

Continue reading « The NYT’s ‘Dead Man Walking’ (UPDATED)  » »

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

We Are All Jews Now Part II

We Are All Jews Now Part II
« White Crucifixion » by Marc Chagall 1938, Art Institute of Chicago
« Chagall’s juxtaposition of crucifixion and the immediacy of Jewish suffering creates an intense interplay of religious expectation and historical reality that challenges our facile assumptions. He does not intend to Christianize the painting, certainly not in the sense of affirming any atoning resolution of the Jewish plight. Rather, in the chaotic world of White Crucifixion all are unredeemed, caught in a vortex of destruction binding crucified victim and modern martyr. As the prayer shawl wraps the loins of the crucified figure, Chagall makes clear that the Christ and the Jewish sufferer are one. » (Read more)

Personally, I believe Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad instructed his goons to set the Middle East on fire on July 12th after talks a day earlier with an exasperated EU Common Foreign and Security Policy Chief Javier Solana failed – we’ll soon find out why our Thug-In-Chief wishes to stall his response to the incentive package, which was of course offered to sweeten the International call to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program, until August 22nd …

Critics voiced their doubt and reasoned that Hassan Nasrallah wouldn’t have simply obeyed Iran without the consequences of such an unprovoked attack to be also serving his domestic political interests. Current Affairs makes an interesting case: Apparently, most Lebanese believe that Hezbollah set off the current round of fighting because of a pending attempt, by the Lebanese government, to disarm Hezbollah.

This is called a « diversionary attack, » the intention being to divert the Lebanese from their plans to disarm Hizbollah. Being disarmed would be catastrophic for the Hizbollah leadership, because many of these guys were deep into criminal scams, and collaboration with the hated Syrian army of occupation. Most Lebanese would like to see a little justice here, and the Hizbollah brass, quite naturally, would rather skip that sort of thing altogether.

That leaves of course the question, how credible is, if at all true, that the Lebanese government had indeed imminent plans to disarm Hezbollah.

It seems to me, that Hezbollah, acting in concert with Syrian orders, had already made their point with the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri; after all, that was revenge not least for events in 1994, when Hariri’s government ordered the military to fire on Hezbollah protesters, killing many. But more importantly, Syria held Harri responsible for UNSC Resolution 1559 and feared he’d execute it once elected. So, after that and a spree of further assassinations, I doubt that acting Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was rushing to order, what would surely have been another violent confrontation between the army and Hezbollah, thus exposing him to share Hariri’s fate; especially not as long as President Emile Lahoud remains Syria’s proxy Commander-In-Chief of the Lebanese army.

I mean, give me a break, this is the guy who issues a tearful plea yesterday to his Arab neighbors to rescue his country from Israel, whilst his former boss – yes, that’s right, Siniora ran Hariri’s bank and conglomerate – was killed by Hezbollah’s murdering thugs. I don’t think so.

Finally, how could Siniora have sought to enforce UNSC Resolution 1559, when his government decided only in January to call Hezbollah a « resistance » movement, not a ‘militia’, with the express intention to bypass the evidently suicidal mission to disarm Hezbollah. 1559 only calls for « for the disbanding and disarmament of all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias« , not for ‘resistant’ movements.

No, I don’t think disarming Hezbollah was on anybody’s mind prior to July 12th. This is why President Bush and Secretary Rice are pushing so hard for a Resolution with teeth, so that finally Hezbollah’s stranglehold on Lebanon, and Iran’s, with Syria in tow, on the wider region, can be broken. It is high-time:

Make no mistake: Israel is fighting for its life. It faces a historically new kind of fanatical foe, political Islam, which combines three characteristics: a political-religious ideology calling for its enemies’ annihilation; indifference to, even the celebration of, its own people’s death (because martyrs are rewarded with a place in heaven); and virtually unstoppable technology (missiles) and techniques (suicide bombing) of terror.

Continue reading « We Are All Jews Now Part II » »

Monday, August 07, 2006

Iran’s Promise: ‘Evolution From Life To Death’

Iran's Promise: 'Evolution From Life To Death'
« Blind Power » by Rudolf Schlichter 1937, Berlinische Galerie, Berlin

Iran commands Hezbollah, and the rest of what has now become its vast ‘foreign legion’, and the sooner the world realizes it the better.

All who oppose the absolute determination of the Iranian mullahcracy to spread its murderous and utterly inhumane doctrine, are fighting for the same freedom; the quicker we realize that, the better.

Iran has outsourced its war against the infidels to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to Muqtada al-Sadar in Iraq, to name but a few.

Muqtada al-Sadr was dismissed as an irrelevant aberration with little purchase on the nation’s future. The coalition and its Iraqi partners considered his behavior inconsistent, his judgment erratic, his discourse radical and his movement chaotic. Underestimating him proved costly, but dealing with that we shall leave for another day. It is just important to understand that in the grand scheme of things he enjoys a significant popular backing and a power base in the Shiite slums of Baghdad, the city of Kufa, and the governorate of Maysan; his followers, for the most part impoverished Shiites, are remarkably determined and loyal, and have caused us plenty of trouble in these last few weeks.

Iran is supplying them all with money, weapons and most damaging of all, the very doctrine, which fuels their fire. They are all very closely and dangerously interlinked.

Hezbollah for their part have managed to infiltrate every pore of the Lebanese Government, and according to the statistics ‘rule’ 80% of the population. By entering the Government they have managed to divide and conquer the anti-Syrian sentiment, and undermine the opposition. President Emile Lahoud is a puppet of Syria, and Syria is a puppet of Iran.

U.S interests in the Middle East region suggest, that we need to support the democratically elected Government in Lebanon. But that does not mean that the Administration can afford to ignore, that this same Government was somehow unable to block the entrance of a terrorist organization into Parliament and that Syria’s puppet President Lahoud is still the Commander-In-Chief. From President Lahoud himself:

I myself built up this army following the civil war and integrated all the religious groups: Muslims, Christians and Druze. This army is there to secure internal peace, but it is not an army to fight a war. […] Naturally the strongholds of the resistance are not known. […] The exchange of prisoners has always worked perfectly in the past. […] Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect. […] We have today around half a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, their birth rate is three times higher than the Lebanese. That is a time bomb. […]

Rhetoric, which clearly suggests, that Lahoud would gladly serve under a future Prime Minister Hassan Nasrallah, thereby effectively handing over control of the army to Hezbollah, or Iran, for that matter.

Continue reading « Iran’s Promise: ‘Evolution From Life To Death' » »

Friday, August 04, 2006

Welcome To The Middle East, Israel

Welcome To The Middle East, Israel
« Maquette de décor pour ‘Labyrinth’  » by Salvador Dali 1941, Private Collection, Spain

‘Welcome to the Middle East, Israel’ as a heading introduces us to the notion that Israel has finally understood the rules of the game

Instead of abductions working against Israel, to the extent of extorting an entire country, abductions now work against abductors and their countries.

In a world where Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his lackey Assad dream of a « Middle East in which leading pro-US Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are weakened and Iran becomes the new regional superpower. The destruction of Israel is part of the dream, which is shared by Syria.

Iran is working hard to realize Ahmadinejad’s dream, destabilizing the « Shi’ite Crescent » stretching from Iran to Iraq to Syria; and from Syria to Lebanon, where the Shi’ites are the largest minority. »

President Bush understands this reality and his Administration fortunately realizes that our security is inextricably linked with that of Iraq and Israel. Never have the words ‘We must win this war against the axis of evil’ rang more true and have been confirmed, as during these days of bloodshed in Iraq as well as in Lebanon and northern Israel.

So how does the war against Hezbollah differ from others?

Well, this is the first time Israel has began speaking the « Middle East » language. After 60 years the Israel Defense Force has finally began to understand the rules of the region.

This is occurring to the astonishment of our enemies, who are used to seeing Israel stutter in a foreign language, detached from the region. And this is enough to change the Middle East, as the prime minister rightly said.

In the Middle East the stronger party is not attacked but rather the weaker one is, particularly when it is unprepared. Israel attacked the Hizbullah unprepared for the campaign. […]
Civilians have never played a role in the Middle East. In the Iran-Iraq war thousands were killed, without it bothering one side or another.

Continue reading « Welcome To The Middle East, Israel » »

Thursday, August 03, 2006

What If…


‘The Death of Elizabeth I, Queen of England’ by Paul Delaroche 1828, Musée du Louvre, Paris

The famous ‘What If…’ question, that we all ask ourselves, when so much is at stake.

As you all know, I wholeheartedly support Israel’s struggle against the murdering thugs and genocidal Islamofascists surrounding her. I also haven’t minced my words in favor of uncompromising military action against Hezbollah following their nefarious attack on July 12th. The concern shared by many was that Prime Minister Olmert did not have the political will and strength to engage Hezbollah head on.

Today we know differently of course. We also have the benefit of hindsight, introducing a question, which ought to be debated at this stage:

What if Israel had decided to do nothing after initially preventing Hezbollah to transfer the hostages to Iran – you remember, the purpose of the initial bombardments was to disable air, sea and most road traffic, frustrating any attempt to move the two kidnapped soldiers as well as preventing further arms shipment from Syria and Iran. Would Hezbollah have stopped firing rockets after their so called ‘reprisals’. Could Olmert have survived military inactivity in the face of Hezbollah’s brazen evil?

There is no question, that Israel knew what she was up against; that Hezbollah would do everything to maximize civilian casualties when firing their rockets from densely populated residential areas, that ‘civilian’ casualties in Hezbollah strongholds would outnumber those in northern Israel – notwithstanding the fact that Hezbollah terrorist and so called civilians are in fact in most cases indistinguishable. Israel is also painfully aware of UN bias against the Jewish state, reflecting of course widespread anti-Semitic sentiment among a majority of UN member states.

Combined, Israel knew, that these two ingredients clearly represented a recipe for a global PR disaster, as we have witnessed both in the past and again with the Qana incident on Sunday.
What would have happened, if Israel had instead declared that it would rule out military attacks and any further bombing, and that it would issue no threats; that it would solely rely on diplomatic efforts to ensure the safe and, most importantly, unconditional return of both IDF soldiers. What if Israel had instead started a global PR campaign focusing on Hezbollah’s declared genocidal goals, focusing on their military tactics of indiscriminately targeting innocent civilians.

Umh, tough call, huh? Evident however, is what the future holds for us, or rather what history has in store for the future.

Continue reading « What If… » »

The Hamsher Blog Spat

The Hamsher Blog Spat

I admit I was going to ignore this story altogether…but what the heck, perhaps what started off as a blog spat is now becoming a major source of MSM and Blogosphere discussion. It does not however mean that I am entertaining any debate as to whether Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite, that is where I draw the line. Of course he is, end of discussion…LOL.

Now onto the infamous Jane Hamsher the founder of the Firedoglake blog, and a friend of Ned Lamont’s, whose campaign she is following, and who has become the center of a controversy due to a photoshopped photograph of Joe Lieberman depicted as a blackened face minstrel, including suit and tie, posted by Hamsher on Arianna Huffington’s blog.
Hamsher has apologized, and withdrawn the image without an official mention of the incident on the Huffington Post, upon the request made by the campaign office of Ned Lamont. Now whilst Hamsher admits that she does not work for Lamont, taking heed of his advice is something she has clearly done and with admirable speed. Lamont in turn is distancing himself, professing that he knows nothing about blogs, despite his recent video interview with Hamsher, where he specifically goes into great detail about how the blogs are a great help in campaigns, and how he likes hers in particular (watch the video).

Lamont’s campaign manager Tom Swan condemned [the image] calling it very offensive and said he requested that it be removed. He also said that while blogger Jane Hamsher is a supporter,  she is not on the campaign pay-roll.

Now my friend Tom Maguire has this gem from the comment section over at Arianna’s place, from the artist who calls himself, I kid you not ‘Dark Black’

Continue reading « The Hamsher Blog Spat » »

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

My Favorite Punching Ball

My Favorite Punching Ball

Could not resist this one, after all he is my favorite punching ball, and gives me a perfect excuse to re-post my by now famous John Murtha image, which has become somewhat of a classic. Michelle Malkin has the latest

Marine Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich has filed a defamation lawsuit against blabbermouth Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.). Background here. Fox News interview with Wuterich family here. No comment from Murtha yet.

If you choose to lead a lynch mob and in the process callously ruin a marine’s sterling reputation, you deserve to to be held liable for it. Now get out of that one without moving Rep. Murtha….

More jubilation over at my friends: @  Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, Blue Crab Boulevard, Flopping Aces, Media Lies, Sister Toldjah, Macsmind, A Blog For All, Confederate Yankee, Woman Honor Thyself, Iowa Voice, and Old War Dogs. The Heretik, has some conspiracy theories, and the ever argumentative Glenn Greenwald who will be talking about it on the Alan Colmes show tonight, is obviously in a less than jubilant mood. My friend the great blogger and writer Michael Weiss, has some comments at Slate.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

The Metastasizing Hezbollah

The Metastasizing Hezbollah

For the last few days, we have been dealing with the hold Hezbollah has in every pore of Lebanon, the metastasizing cancer, which seems to be spreading with their every PR move, and all understand that this is entirely due to the Lebanese Government, who allowed the monster to spread its tentacles from within, totally unchallenged.

Along our journey, I have made a mental link to the apparent coup d’etat skillfully carried out by Hezbollah, but feel that I have not dealt with the subject thoroughly enough. I mentioned the other day Michael Totten warning us that the recent incident cemented the Lebanese public and Hezbollah together, with 82 percent of Lebanese now supporting them. « This is a disaster for Lebanon, a disaster for Israel, and a disaster for the United States. It is a tremendous boon to Syria and Iran ».

Barry Meislin a reader of mine, pointed me to an important post by Anton Efendi entitled ‘L’Etat Cest Moi’, and prompted me to write today’s post.

« Residents who have recently escaped from Mari tell of a dramatic, desperate situation in the village. The Druse residents, who have no affinity at all for Hizbullah, resisted Hizbullah’s attempts to enter the village. The IAF apparently and unwittingly assisted in their resistance by bombing the roads leading into the village, cutting off the militia’s ability to enter the town, at least temporarily. Hizbullah responded by cutting off the town’s electricity and water supply, essentially laying siege to a town on its own side of the border, hoping that its residents would pack up and leave. Many of them have done so. My sources say that Hizbullah has been desperate to enter the village but has as of yet been unable to do so in large numbers. Residents also describe a growing humanitarian crisis in the village due to the lack of fresh water.

Hizbullah attempted to enter Mari not to defend it from attackers, but so they could fire rockets from the village toward Israel. Hizbullah’s intention was to bring Israeli reprisals on the town, ostensibly to destroy or damage it significantly, and to cause greater civilian suffering. Hizbullah’s MO and tactics are well-known in the south. However, Druse typically defend their own villages, and in the case of Mari (a place I have been to several times, many of whose residents I know personally), the residents have desperately tried to keep Hizbullah fighters out of their area. »

The help these Lebanese seek will not come from their Government, who have offered them no assistance whatsoever in evacuating the villages, despite repeated warnings from Israel. It seems that the metastasizing cancer has embedded itself so far into the Lebanese Government and the streets of Lebanon, that it has become a crying shame and an intolerable outrage for the MSM’s continual refusal to unmask Hezbollah’s methodical exploitation of civilian suffering; the despicable reality that every civilian casualty furthers their murderous course; that it is not in Hezbollah’s interest to save lives, but instead to hype up each and every casualty to fuel hatred against Israel.

Continue reading « The Metastasizing Hezbollah » »

Why Does The Left Support The Palestinians Against Israel?

Why Does The Left Support The Palestinians Against Israel?
Click on image to enlarge

Dennis Prager

« Why does the left support the Palestinians against Israel?

The question is rarely asked. It is simply taken for granted that the left — Europe, the Western news media, the universities, the liberal churches, the arts world — supports the Palestinians and the larger Arab/Muslim worlds in their war against Israel.

But the question does need to be asked. For it is completely inconsistent with the left’s professed values to side with Israel’s enemies. Just about every value the left claims to uphold Israel upholds and its enemies do not.

The left speaks about its passion for democracy (« power to the people »). Yet it is Israel that is a fully functioning democracy, as opposed to all of its Arab and Muslim enemies. Yasser Arafat [was] precisely the self-aggrandizing, corrupt dictator-type that the left claims to hold in contempt.

The left claims to have particular concern for women’s rights. Yet it is Israel that has as highly developed a feminist movement as that of any Western country. It is Israel that conscripted women into its armed forces before almost any Western country. At the same time, the state of women’s rights among Israel’s Muslim enemies is perhaps the lowest in the world.

The left’s greatest current preoccupation is with gay rights. Yet it is Israel that has annual gay pride days, while Egypt and other Arab and Muslim countries arrest homosexuals.

It is Israel that has an independent and highly liberal judiciary. It is Israel that has a leftist press. It is Israel that has been governed more by leftist, even socialist, parties than by rightist ones. Israel’s enemies have none of this.

So, why isn’t the left out there leading pro-Israel demonstrations?

The answer is as important as it is contemptible.

Continue reading « Why Does The Left Support The Palestinians Against Israel? » »

Monday, July 31, 2006

The ‘Moral Equivalence Brigade’ Reign Supreme

The 'Moral Equivalence Brigade' Reign Supreme
« The Brazen Serpent » by Michelangelo 1511, Fresco, Cappella Sistina, Vatican

There is no question that the MSM machine is working very hard at producing over and over again the same images of the bodies of women and children taken out of the block of flats in Qana, rigor-mortis and all. It is an absolute public relations win hands down for Hezbollah, a coup d’état, and a set back in public opinion, which is now being milked for all its worth.

If only we had been shown the video of Hezbollah launching rockets either from or immediately next to blocks of flats

Israeli officials noted that the Lebanese rescue teams did not start evacuating the building until hours after the collapse and only when the camera crews came. The rescue team then took out the bodies of children slowly for the camera crews.

Too late, it seems, because the images of the dead bodies being carried away from Qana are now repeated over and over again; the ratio would be 100-1 in favor of Hezbollah. No surprises there….Meanwhile, Liquid, points me to this (includes video)

Eshel and the head of the IDF’s Operational Branch, Major General Gadi Eisnkot said the structure was not being attacked when it collapsed, at around 8:00 in the morning. The IDF believes that Hizbullah explosives in the building were behind the explosion that caused the collapse.

You have to give it to Hezbollah they know how to work the PR machine like a dream

As Ed Morrissey reminds us, « let’s hear a little less moral outrage over Qana, and let’s start hearing a lot more moral outrage over Hezbollah’s tactics. »

I watched intently the live broadcast of the UN Security Council’s emergency meeting held in New York, and gritted my teeth throughout the scripted speech given by Kofi Annan and throughout the lies and distortions delivered by Nouhad Mahmoud of Lebanon; yet another shameful exhibition of utter bias and relentless refusal to condemn Hezbollah’s actions. The Lebanese Prime Minister Fuoad Siniora fully backed him by expressing his ‘gratitude’ to Hezbollah and its leader Hassan Nasrallah for « sacrificing their lives for the country. »

As a breath of fresh air and sparkling sanity at the UN meeting, came the unscripted speech given by Israel’s Dan Gillerman, [from my own notes] who in no uncertain terms named Hezbollah as the monster the Lebanese Government had allowed to spread its tentacles everywhere totally unchallenged; who would not have taken such a massive stronghold had they enforced resolution 1559 as they were obliged to do; that the atrocities carried out by the Hezbollah thugs would not have happened.

Continue reading « The ‘Moral Equivalence Brigade’ Reign Supreme » »

Sunday, July 30, 2006

‘Grapes Of Wrath’ Revisited

'Grapes Of Wrath' Revisited

UPDATE: Flopping Aces has the Fox news video

Finally, the damning images that prove that Hezbollah terrorist militiamen dressed in civilian clothes, who seem to have gathered an inordinate amount of support in Lebanon, have indeed been using civilian, mostly Christian neighborhoods as shields against Israeli attacks, and hiding and using weapons in a densely populated area.

The exclusive photographs smuggled out of Lebanon, were obtained by the Australian News Ltd. and published by their Sunday Mail here, and Sunday Herald Sun here. Why am I not surprised…

The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.

« Hezbollah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets, » he said.

« Until the Hezbollah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was totally devastated.

« After the attacks they didn’t even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence.

I am sorry for the horrific human suffering created in the bombing of Qana, southern Lebanon today, but if these people do not care for human life they endanger, why should Israel sacrifice their own which they do care about? Hezbollah has been using Qana as a base for launching hundreds of rockets at Israel, happily waiting for the bitter memory of the Operation Grapes of Wrath propaganda to do their dirty work for them. The people there should be horrified and disgusted at what Hezbollah are doing, and at the inability and unwillingness of their own cowardly Government to disarm Hezbollah, instead of allowing the MSM to portray Hezbollah as some kind of liberating heroes. Israel cannot be held accountable for loss of life in these circumstances.

Why is Israel to blame now? After all, Hezbollah has been planning this for six years…Enough already.

Continue reading « ‘Grapes Of Wrath’ Revisited » »

Saturday, July 29, 2006

Orwellian Moral Universe On Shabbat Hazon

Orwellian Moral Universe On 'Shabbat Hazon'
« The Prophet Isaiah » by Raphael 1511-12, Sant’Agostino, Rome

My thoughts today are with hundreds of thousands of Jews who have been forced to honor Shabbat Hazon in their cellars and bunkers, having left their homes behind, in the knowledge that on Shabbat Hazon the prophet Isaiah envisages the awful suffering that God will inflict upon the Jewish people for their transgressions against God, each other, and the Temple. What are these people meant to think is next in store for them? Did we so quickly forget the ‘never again’? Shame on us…

Double Standard is a rule or principle that is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.
There, right there is the problem. It sounds too dry, too civilized, too abstract. It’s doesn’t reflect the outrage and emotional charge inherent in the rabid anti-Semitism of ‘one standard for everyone else, and then an impossible one for the Jews’, displayed these past weeks.
However, this dry term describes the dilemma perfectly. Hezbollah, or rather Iranian rockets are maiming and killing ONLY innocent Israeli civilians, indiscriminately. Their rockets are ONLY fired to cause maximum terror amongst Israel’s civilian population; that’s their ONLY military and ideological goal. Whenever talk is of any of these murdering thugs, their goal to utterly destroy Israel must be repeated, over and over again. Yet, one is hard pressed to come across a report in the MSM or UN commentary which states these facts outright and without equivocation.

On the other hand, Israel warns the civilian population to evacuate the areas known to be Hezbollah strongholds before commencing surgical attacks. If it hadn’t done so, the death toll would be hundred fold. Despite international consensus on Hezbollah’s tactics to launch its murderous attacks from within densely populated civilian areas; despite international awareness, that Hezbollah terrorists don’t wear uniforms, but instead do everything in their power to disguise themselves as aide workers, innocent civilians, medical personnel, you name it, even fake UNIFIL uniforms and vehicles; despite all of these and many more terrorist tactics, all of which do in fact constitute war crimes, a vast majority of the international community still insists on condemning Israel’s only option to stop Hezbollah’s terror as disproportionate and as ‘war crimes’.

Charles Krauthammer sums it up in an article that is nothing short of brilliant:

Continue reading « Orwellian Moral Universe On Shabbat Hazon » »

Friday, July 28, 2006

‘A Voice From The Grave’

A Voice From The Grave
« Tête Raphaëlesque éclatée (Exploding Raphaelesque Head) » by Salvador Dali 1951

An apparent discrepancy in the portrayal of events surrounding the deaths of four unarmed U.N. observers in Lebanon threatens to unravel Secretary-General Annan’s initial accusation that Israel « deliberately » targeted the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.

A Canadian U.N. observer, one of four killed at a UNIFIL position near the southern Lebanese town of Khiyam on Tuesday, sent an e-mail to his former commander, a Canadian retired major-general, Lewis MacKenzie, in which he wrote that Hezbollah fighters were « all over » the U.N. position, Mr. MacKenzie said. Hezbollah troops, not the United Nations, were Israel’s target, the deceased observer wrote.

This is clear evidence Hezbollah was using the post as a « shield » to fire rockets into Israel, which despite being an allusion to their tactics, is nothing unusual for an army of terrorist thugs. What is unacceptable is that a UN post repeatedly allows such clear violations to take place, endangering the lives of their men, despite obvious and repeated warnings from their forces.

The outrageous claim made by Kofi Annan that the Israeli bombing of a UN post, which resulted in four UN officials being killed, was « apparently deliberate », is simply preposterous. As I have said before, it defies all reason, how a UN official of Annan’s standing dares to make such an open accusation. It seems to me that even more outrageous is the fact that despite clear evidence to the contrary as shown above, and Annan’s attempt to backtrack, his spokesperson Marie Okabe claims he is defiantly standing by his accusation, and will not be retracting his assertion that Israel deliberately targeted the post.

What is not very helpful, but in this instance actually irrelevant, is the apparent tainted reputation of General Lewis MacKenzie, who was accused of raping four Bosnian women (scroll down for the full story) held by Serbian forces in a prison camp in a Sarajevo suburb, during his command as Canadian head of the UN peacekeeping force in Bosnia-Hercegovina.

Can we lose any more respect for this organization whose mission is to revive, spread and fuel rabid anti-Semitism? I guess we can.

WMD Discovered In Southern Iraq

WMD Discovered In Southern Iraq
‘The Tooth Puller’ by Caravaggio ca.1609

UPDATE: I just had an e-mail from Dave Gaubatz, and he is meeting with Congressman Michael Burgess on 15 Aug. Will keep us updated.

As you all know I have written recently about David Gaubatz, an ex-intelligence officer, and former special investigator for The Pentagon, who has been trying for three years to get the American weapons inspectors and the media to listen to his claims that no less than four sealed underground bunkers in southern Iraq are believed to contain stocks of chemical and biological weapons.

Finally now, and after three long years of fighting to get the truth out, my friend Antimedia, informs me that the U.S. have positively identified WMD at the sites, and have

…begun excavating the four sites in southern Iraq which Gaubatz identified while in Iraq. Gaubatz told me this evening that he received a phone call from Congressman Burgess today informing him that WMD had been positively identified at the sites. Congressman Burgess just returned from Iraq, along with Congressman Hoekstra, after inspecting the work being done on the sites.

Apparently Hannity interviewed Senator Santorum today and Santorum revealed the discovery. Gaubatz told me

I am sure you have heard what Sen. Santorum told Sean Hannity today. There are WMD sites never inspected in Iraq and it has been confirmed WMD is there. Hannity asked him several times why the U.S. waited so long and if they are there why hasn’t the U.S. retrieved them. Santorum stumbled and could not answer.

I’m not surprised Santorum would stumble. How can anyone explain ignoring the solid reporting of a top-notch intelligence agent for three years! before someone finally listened?

This breakthrough is the result of Dave’s efforts, especially a meeting he had with DIA and the FBI in June. Apparently someone finally followed up! I will continue with my series on Gaubatz and the efforts he went through trying to get these sites exploited, but his persistence has finally paid off.

Continue reading « WMD Discovered In Southern Iraq » »

Thursday, July 27, 2006

« I Agree With Howard Dean » There, I Said It…

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean called Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki an « anti-Semite » for failing to denounce Hezbollah for its attacks against Israel

« The Iraqi prime minister is an anti-Semite, » the Democratic leader told a gathering of business leaders in Florida. « We don’t need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn’t have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah. »

Well Dean is right, sorry but he is. It may be for the wrong reasons, and his agenda is less than honest, but he is nevertheless right. So why I am not happy, I start questioning my motives…until this

….leading Senate Democrats said in a sharply worded letter that Al-Maliki’s « failure to condemn Hezbollah’s aggression and recognize Israel’s right to defend itself raises serious questions about whether Iraq under your leadership can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East. »

Then I think all is all right with the world again, therein lies the motive…But still…

The Republican National Committee rejected Dean’s criticism of Al-Maliki, saying, « It is incredibly troubling that Howard Dean would seek to score cheap political points by attacking the democratically elected prime minister of Iraq. »

Well he might be democratically elected, but then so was Hamas. I don’t care, I still don’t like al-Maliki and I don’t trust him. In this instance, I agree with Dean’s sentiment. There, I said it. Maliki did not denounce Hezbollah, a terrorist organization who advocate the destruction of the State of Israel, or repudiate amnesty for Iraqis who killed Americans soldiers. This is not a man who should be honored right now, and I don’t care what the Administration needs to prove to the American public regarding our successes in Iraq.
As for Dean’s agenda I have left that for others to ravish.

Continue reading «  »I Agree With Howard Dean » There, I Said It… » »

Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Commander-In-Chief From Hell


« We are redefining our relations with the world, » [Iranian] Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a television program last week. « We are managing our relations with other countries based on our national interests and the way we are treated (over the nuclear dispute). »

No surprise in this statement from the Iranian Mullahs last month when Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad was shoring up support from Russia and China during the Asian security summit in China.

But we better revisit such statements pre Hezbollah attack on July 12th, knowing that they knew what was coming. We’d better sharpen our awareness to the fact, that everything the terrorist thugs in Iran were saying and doing during the past 9-12 months was said and done with the full knowledge of the plan to lighten the fuse in the Middle East via their proxy Hezbollah army. This new perspective matters not only in relation to Israel but also to Iran’s expansionist strategies for Iraq and the region as a whole.

In short, U.S. Secretary of Sate Condoleezza Rice’s mission during her visit to the Middle East must be to diminish « the power of Hezbollah’s supporters; i.e. Syria and Iran« , as Aljazeera noted – it’s refreshing to come across accurate reporting and analysis, with the only difference that Aljazeera is of course condemning the attempt to dismantle Hezbollah and to implement Security Council resolution 1559. Yeah right…..

If Iran failed to continue to be Hezbollah’s protector and supporter, it is unlikely to preserve its current position and influence in the region, which, in the eyes of the U.S.  government, is a goal worth pursuing.

And if ever you needed proof that Israel has no other choice but to flatten Hezbollah’s strongholds, which aren’t army barracks or military compounds, but exclusively civilian residential areas, read this interview of what must be the most pathetic commander-in-chief in living memory, and a man who will NEVER touch Hezbollah’s stronghold, Lebanese President Emile Lahoud:

I myself built up this army following the civil war and integrated all the religious groups: Muslims, Christians and Druze. This army is there to secure internal peace, but it is not an army to fight a war. […]

Naturally the strongholds of the resistance are not known. […]

The exchange of prisoners has always worked perfectly in the past. […]

Hezbollah enjoys utmost prestige in Lebanon, because it freed our country. All over the Arab world you hear: Hezbollah maintains Arab honor, and even though it (Hezbollah) is very small, it stands up to Israel. And of course Nasrallah has my respect. […]

We have today around half a million Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, their birth rate is three times higher than the Lebanese. That is a time bomb. […]

Continue reading « Commander-In-Chief From Hell » »

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

‘Can We Get Over It Already?’ We Are All Jews Now

'Can We Get Over It Already?' We Are All Jews Now
‘The Taking of Christ’ by Caravaggio ca.1598 

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 present 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.

It’s time to point the spot-light not only back at Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and his purpose for Hezbollah, but also at Russia’s tacit support for the murdering Jihadists. As much as I know of Russians, they are all fiercely anti-Semitic, and arrogantly feel that they have never quite forgiven the Jews for giving up our Lord Jesus Christ.

Just so that we all understand each other, I am a devout Christian, and I am vehemently against the tyranny of Islamofascism. I am once again clarifying my stand in case my question below is misunderstood to mean that I am neither interested in the Christian faith nor what it stands for. Caravaggio’s painting depicted above ‘The Taking of Christ’ tells the story, and my question is this: « Can We Get Over It Already? »

I give you 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. »

Continue reading « ‘Can We Get Over It Already?’ We Are All Jews Now » »

Sunday, July 23, 2006

‘Hezbollah Runs Lebanon’ And ‘Hamas Ready To Cut A Deal’

'Hezbollah Runs Lebanon' And 'Hamas Ready To Cut A Deal'

According to an interview not publicized in the MSM, the Hezbollah leader Sheikh Nasrallah, is under the impression that he runs the Lebanese Government.

Having listened to the Lebanese PM Fuad Saniora several times, including his interview on Larry King the other day, I suspect he may be right. He speaks of the Hezbollah terrorists as respected members of the Government; he refers to them as freedom fighters: « The government considers the resistance a natural and honest expression of the Lebanese people’s national rights to liberate their land and defend their honor against Israeli aggression and threats”; giving the excuse that for years now the Israelis have been refusing to release three Lebanese prisoners, not thousands as the propaganda machine would have you believe.

As Larry King did not see fit to tell the PM, I should like to stress, that Israel will most certainly never release Samir Qantar, the murdering thug, who butchered in cold blood three Israelis in Nahariya, including a policeman and a four-year-old girl. That’s the sort of criminal who has been elevated to hero status by the Hezbollah, and now also evidently by the Lebanese PM as cries foul on International television, expressing his outrage that such Lebanese prisoners should still be imprisoned; that they should be released, meaning of course, that Hezbollah’s demand for prisioner exchange should be met as a result of the initial killing and kidnapping of IDF soldiers. Yeah right….!

Not in a single interview did I hear PM Saniora condemn Hezbollah, only repeating that they are a necessity created solely as a result of Israeli ‘aggression’. No mention of their genocidal goal, the destruction of Israel, which they share of course with their masters in Iran and fellow terrorist thugs, Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Perhaps even ignorant of the fact that as of today, Hamas is keen to distance itself from the liability of Hezbollah, and with the help of Egypt broker a deal involving the release of Cpl. Shalit and a mutual ceasefire, providing of course they get the doubtful approval of their  Damascus leader, Khaled Meshal.

Fatah sources said that Hamas’ Gaza leadership does not want its name mixed up with the fighting in Lebanon, especially in view of the sharp international criticism of Hezbollah.

Sorry, but the goal of the Lebanese Prime Minister and the goal of Hezbollah do not seem to differ all that much. Don’t give me the lame excuse that he needs to appease ‘extreme Hezbollah’ elements in his country. The man hasn’t uttered a single word condemning Hezbollah. He patently agrees with what they are doing, irrespective of the gentle words directed at him by Secretary Rice. He squarely blames Israel for all Lebanese civilian lives lost, not Iran, not Syria and clearly not their proxy thugs, Hezbollah.

Continue reading « ‘Hezbollah Runs Lebanon’ And ‘Hamas Ready To Cut A Deal' » »

Saturday, July 22, 2006

« One Foot In Terror One Foot In Politics »

President Bush as Napoleon Bonaparte, flanked by Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel as The Angel, the original painting is ‘Allegory on The Peace of Pressburg’ by Andrea Appiani ca.1808 (its first debut being in my ‘Rules of Engagement’ post)


Sorry about not being able to post yesterday…one of those days straight from hell…and back.

I did however manage to follow the news, as world leaders, politicians and all of us were treated to a rare display of how immensely powerful and influential true leadership can be.

I am talking about the immediate dynamic created, producing a shift in tone and attitude almost all news channels underwent immediately after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s press conference (transcript). Moments later, everywhere I looked, Rice’s message had been picked up to confront Arab leaders in hitherto unprecedented clarity and directness.

Pointing to the problem that « 1559 anticipated of having groups within the political process that have one foot in terror and one foot in politics. It’s not sustainable over the long run. But I think the immediate problem is to get back into a political framework that can allow Lebanon to start to reassert its sovereignty. »

Despite Secretary Rice being repeatedly barraged with questions as to whether she was concerned that the delay in halting the fighting and the loss of many civilian lives in Lebanon will hamper the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world, she relentlessly stood by her message that despite being concerned about civilian casualties, a ceasefire on its own was simply not good enough « …The unfortunate fact is that if we don’t do this right, if we don’t create political conditions that allow an end to the violence to also deal with the root cause, deal with the circumstances that produced this violence, then we’re going to be back here in several months more. »
Shortly after the press conference, CNN’s Becky Anderson put it straight to a Syrian Foreign Minister spokesperson: « When will you stop using Hezbollah as your proxy army? »

It is now 10 days since Hezbollah abducted the two IDF soldiers and  killed eight others. Much has been said about the conflict, mostly centering around Israel’s military actions and the impact for Lebanese civilians. But not until Secretary Rice spelled out, what everyone had known for 10 days, in her customary clear and unvarnished language, did the MSM pick up the beacon of truth and let it shine into the faces of those who constantly seek to obfuscate it. Will it last? Of course not, but it momentarily changed the overall tone considerably towards a more balanced approach.

It was a pleasure to watch and listen to. Diplomatic daylight may not be too far away, despite The-Thug-In-Chief having written to Germany’s Chancellor Merkel, revealing his all too obvious, agenda

Continue reading «  »One Foot In Terror One Foot In Politics » » »

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Just Cause

Just Cause

From The Editor-In-Chief of the Arab Times, Ahmed Al-Jarallah, who seems to have an inordinate amount of understanding of the realities facing the present conflict in the Middle East, and the necessity for Israel to do the job of significantly weakening if not eliminating the terrorists, which in effect benefits the entire region. (h/t Dave)

People of Arab countries, especially the Lebanese and Palestinians, have been held hostage for a long time in the name of “resisting Israel.” Arab governments have been caught between political obligations and public opinion leading to more corruption in politics and economics. Forgetting the interests of their own countries the Hamas Movement and Hezbollah have gone to the extent of representing the interests of Iran and Syrian in their countries. These organizations have become the representatives of Syria and Iran without worrying about the consequences of their action.

Recently Hamas kidnapped an Israeli soldier and bombed Israeli settlements with locally manufactured missiles. Soon Hezbollah followed suit, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers. Both these organizations claimed they had kidnapped Israeli soldiers to exchange them for Arab prisoners who are being held in Israeli jails. The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah gave the same reason for kidnapping Israeli soldiers gives us a glimpse [of] their agenda, which is similar to the one followed by Syria and Iran in their conflict with the United States.

While the people of Palestine and Lebanon are paying the price of this bloody conflict, the main players, who caused this conflict, are living in peace and asking for more oil from Arab countries to support the facade of resisting Israel. With the Palestinian Authority close to collapse and the Lebanese government beginning to give up responsibility for what is happening in its territory, Saudi Arabia has been forced to come out of its diplomatic routine and indirectly hold Hezbollah responsible for what is happening Lebanon.

Continue reading « Just Cause » »

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

UN’s Global Mission: Reviving, Spreading And Fueling Rabid Anti-Semitism

UN's Global Mission: Reviving, Spreading And Fueling Rabid Anti-Semitism

As we hold our breath, watching Israel’s struggle for security and peace, we also witness, yet again, how she is held to a much more onerous standard than the rest of the world; the classic definition of anti-Semitism: one standard for everyone else, and then an impossible one for the Jews.

And the UN is leading the charge as the usual suspects apply the same old double standards when it comes to judging what statements or attitudes constitute ‘anti-Semitism’ in comparison to, say, ‘racism’ against African-Americans. Imagine the outcry, if during an official UN « anti-racism » summit the ‘Lawyer’s Union of the Southern States’ would distribute flyers with a picture of the Confederate Battle flag and the inscription, « What if we had won? The good thing—there would be no Civil Rights Act of 1871 and no Monroe v. Pape. » Now, what do you think Al Sharpton would do….

You ask, who is the ‘Lawyer’s Union of the Southern States’? Pure invention of mine and solely to put the terribly biased conduct of the UN into context: The ‘Arab Lawyer’s Union’, freely distributed at the UN’s « anti-racism » summit in Durban, South Africa, just before 9/11 flyers with a picture of Hitler and the words, « What if I had won? The good thing—there would be no Israel »; they freely distributed books containing cartoons of swastika-festooned Israelis and fanged, hooked-nosed Jews, blood dripping from their hands.

How could that have been allowed to take place and why did the conference’s secretary-general, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson ignore demands to remove this anti-Semitic literature.

How come that we are now being force-fed the same one-sided reporting and UN rhetoric, much like UN’s response to Israeli military incursion into the West Bank town of Jenin in April 2002?

The conclusion, « the UN has fashioned itself into perhaps the foremost global platform for anti-Semitism« , to use Anne Bayefsky’s words from her damning essay, ‘The UN and the Jews‘.

This indifference to anti-Semitism has been mirrored by the UN’s growing refusal over the decades to support the principle of self-determination for the Jewish people—that is, Zionism. The irony, of course, is that the UN General Assembly was very much present at the creation of the state of Israel, having endorsed the postwar partition plan for British-ruled Palestine. But much has changed since 1948.

In general, and in the abstract, the UN has remained committed to the ideal of self-governing nation-states. As one characteristic declaration of the General Assembly puts it, « All peoples have a right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. » Indeed, over the years, the UN has developed and extended the principles of self-determination, which are now taken to entail not just the basic right of political independence but guarantees of non-interference by other nations, a realm of domestic jurisdiction and national sovereignty, and the preservation of historical, cultural, and religious particularities.

Continue reading « UN’s Global Mission: Reviving, Spreading And Fueling Rabid Anti-Semitism » »

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

The Juan Cole ‘Bush-Israel’ Derangement Syndrome

The Juan Cole 'Bush-Israel' Derangement Syndrome

The arrogant and notoriously anti-Israeli Professor and Blogger Juan Cole, somewhat of a hero in the Liberal Blogosphere, has « come away from [listening to the President’s unguarded comments yesterday @ G8 summit] shaken and trembling », the President’s comments being « a little window into the superficial, one-sided mind of the man, who has for six years been way out of his depth. »

« Shaken and trembling? » Umh, especially when in another breath, or should I say post, he accuses Israel of ethnic cleansing, which TPM’s John McCutchen extends to « a 60 year ethnic cleansing campaign. » I have left the talented Tiger Hawk to tear Dr. Cole apart for that moment of sheer lunacy. It is not the first time The Professor is « caught in the act of being himself », but each time it seems his constitution is less able to deal with his unwarranted superciliousness and condescension, not to mention rampant anti-Semitism. Scott Johnson @ Powerline quite rightly concludes on the matter « The adage that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt may apply here. » Addressing a man who passed « disgusting comments about « Jewish American Likudniks, »his implications regarding the dual loyalties of Jewish American neo-conservatives, or comments displaying his public vulgarity » Scott is being too kind.

Presumably the Liberal ‘standard issue’ hysterical anti-Israeli propaganda, coupled with the usual Bush Derangement Syndrome, and the odd conspiracy theory is enough for The Professor to pull out the anti-hyperventilation paper bags in his never ending quest to be on the decidedly wrong side of every issue .

Continue reading « The Juan Cole ‘Bush-Israel’ Derangement Syndrome » »

Monday, July 17, 2006

The Devil’s Arithmetic Part II

The Devil's Arithmetic Part II

BREAKING: Israel sends ground forces into Lebanon.

Having written probably the longest post in the history of ATB with The Devil’s Arithmetic over the weekend, I felt I owed my readers a certain respite…like a shorter Part II…lol

It’s good to be reminded again ‘Why They Fight‘: « Why? Because occupation was a mere excuse to persuade gullible and historically ignorant Westerners to support the Arab cause against Israel. The issue is, and has always been, Israel’s existence. That is what is at stake. »

It was Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization that convinced the world that the issue was occupation. Yet, through all those years of pretense, Arafat’s own group celebrated its annual Fatah Day on the anniversary of its first attack on Israel, the bombing of Israel’s National Water Carrier — on Jan. 1, 1965.

Note: 1965. Two years before the 1967 war. Two years before Gaza and the West Bank fell into Israeli hands. Two years before there were any « occupied territories. » […]

In 1967 Israel acquired the « occupied territories. » In 1948 Israel acquired life. The fighting raging now in 2006 — between Israel and the « genocidal Islamism » (to quote the writer Yossi Klein Halevi) of Hamas and Hezbollah and Iran behind them — is about whether that life should and will continue to exist.

You’d think that there isn’t a sane person around who disputes these basic facts.

Ah, you’d be wrong (h/t Michael van der Galien)…. and be tempted to join the glorious ranks of Hezbollah after reading this.

What relief then, when for a change the fingers are pointed at the real culprits:

Western Europeans lament the fact that the Bush administration, its energies sapped by the Iraq war, has not shown much appetite for the shuttle diplomacy that brokered the last Israel-Hezbollah cease-fire in 1996. But if France and others had not undermined sanctions on Iraq in the late 1990s, the case for the military alternative would have been weaker — and the war might not have happened.

Even today, many of these freeloaders see mayhem in Iraq as America’s problem. You’d think that chaos in a major oil exporter, with the potential to seed extremism all over the Middle East, would alarm all responsible governments. But the freeloaders think it’s a joke. Pressed over the weekend about democracy in Russia, Vladimir Putin quipped that he didn’t want a democracy like Iraq’s.

How encouragingly unusual to hear the WaPo cut through the chase:

In all the diplomacy, the false lure of « evenhandedness » must not be allowed to obscure the fact that Hezbollah and its backers have instigated the current fighting and should be held responsible for the consequences.

But nothing beats our President’s unguarded no-nonsense remarks – with the mike accidentally left on whilst in St.Petersburg @ the G8 summit. You tell’em, ahem, and the rest of the world (h/t Michael van der Galien) Video here (sorry but C&L have the better video)

« What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and it’s over… » [speaking to Blair]

« Well, I don’t like the sequence of it, » Bush said. Referring to Annan, the president added, « His attitude is basically ceasefire and everything else happens. » […]

[Returning] to the subject of Annan. « I felt like telling Kofi to get on the phone with Assad, make something happen, » the president said, referring to Syrian President Bashir Assad. « We’re not blaming Israel and we’re not blaming the Lebanese government. »

Bush also told Blair of his plans to dispatch Rice to the Middle East to address the crisis. « She’s going, » Bush said. « I think Condi’s going to go pretty soon. »

Continue reading « The Devil’s Arithmetic Part II » »

Saturday, July 15, 2006

The Devil’s Arithmetic Part I

The Devil's Arithmetic
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli (1469–1527)

BREAKING: Israel has given Syria an ultimatum: Stop the Hezbollah activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and release the kidnapped soldiers within 72 hours, or face a massive attack. An IDF officer denies the report (h/t: Michael van der Galien @ TMV) More updates on entire conflict Allah @ Hot Air, with Rick Moran keeping an eye on the ultimatum.

Let me start off with a bang. « I stand with Israel ».

The right response is renewed strength–in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions–and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement.

Why is the world shocked that the US is not getting involved in any negotiations with the Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists? Our law, in no uncertain terms, prohibits any and all contact with terrorist entities, which means, that US officials are not allowed to hold discussions with representatives of such groups. « American military liaison General Keith Dayton, for example, is only permitted to talk with PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s people – not with any Palestinian belonging to Hamas ».

Having said that, we don’t want to, even if we could. Our involvement at present is a lot more subtle than that. We should hopefully have bigger plans and seize the moment

Is this not the time to go after the terrorist training camps in Syria and Iran? What in the world are we waiting for?
And finally, if we dither through this one, the next one will be worse. Maybe much worse. It’s not going away. Stability is a mirage. Chamberlain had a choice between dishonor and war. He chose dishonor and got war anyway. You too, Mr. President.  It’s the way it works.

We agree with Israel’s actions, and so does the Lebanese Government off the record. Neither are prepared to have Iran’s puppet, Hezbollah, usurp Lebanon, destroy the peace the new Government has worked so hard to build, but freedom does not come cheap.

Iran of course sees a unique opportunity to seize power in Lebanon, destroy its budding economy largely based on tourism, and turn it into an Islamic haven, filling their hotels and beaches with burkha clad women. Dream on I say…

The day Hezbollah walked into Israel is the day the Security Council together with Germany expected an answer from Iran, after submitting the proposal to suspend uranium enrichment and enter negotiations to bring it into compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency in return for a package of attractive incentives. Why were we told Iran could not give their answer until mid August? Simple. Because Iran planned to escalate the situation in this pregnant period. Mobilizing Hezbollah was an ingenious move. Hezbollah the unhinged, live for moments like this; its a dream come true, to be emboldened by their lord and master to save the Islamic world from the onslaught of the infidel. The rhetoric coming from the Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah is music to the terrorist thugs and his call to arms, what they have waited and prayed for. And now it has come, and they have never been more ready. Allahu Akbar indeed.

Continue reading « The Devil’s Arithmetic Part I » »

Friday, July 14, 2006

Valerie ‘Flame’ Wilson Files ‘Double Exposure’ Suit

Valerie 'Flame' Wilson Files 'Double Exposure' Suit

Whenever I hear the name Valerie ‘Flame’ Wilson, otherwise known as Mrs. Joe Wilson, I head on over to my friend Tom Maguire’s pad, who is the undisputed expert in the Blogosphere’s on the subject, as recognized by us all.

The news as you may have heard already is that the former U.S. Ambassador and Mrs. Joseph Wilson IV have filed a lawsuit against Cheney, Rove and I. Lewis « Scooter » Libby accusing them of revealing Plame’s CIA identity in seeking revenge against Wilson for criticizing the Bush administration’s motives in Iraq.

My very first thought was simply « pathetically weak », when I read the first paragraph of the Complaint [pdf file]. Greg Tinti points to a quote from Wilson’s lawyer: “this lawsuit concerns the intentional and malicious exposure by senior officials of the federal government of [Plame].” And, despite the lower burden of proof in a civil case, there still hasn’t been one shred of evidence that indicates an “intentional and malicious” effort by anyone to specifically “out” Plame.

Despite hearing rumors about this some time ago, I really never thought the Wilsons would be crazy enough to go through with it, and amid other more obvious obstacles, subject themselves to the rigors of discovery as well as doing a ‘Nicole Smith’ on the stand. Classified documents will be another problem. Upon quick reflection however, it struck me as not a bad move if they are simply aiming for some sort of a shot at a pre-trial out of court settlement. Looking at their filed papers however, they are less than adequate to achieve this objective with any ease, or any chance of success for that matter, and the Administration is going to have considerable fun dismantling the Plaintiffs. Fun which most probably they would not wish to miss having on the day. Hence my debunked thought was quashed as quickly as it appeared.

I stand by my position that the plaintiffs will have huge problems gathering (presumably classified) evidence and recreating secret grand jury testimony, not to mention establishing damages and demonstrating that the defendants were not simply acting in their capacity as public officials.  And a number of commenters focused on the problems the Wilson’s might face as they dealt with defense discovery requests (Mark Levin can’t wait).

Promoting her upcoming book would be the more likely scenario, and of course making sure that the three year statute of limitations on some of their causes of action does not expire. (h/t Tom Maguire)

Back to you Tom (a must read!) and the ‘Flaming’ Wilson Press conference which is on @ 10am. Oh and by the way, can you spare a dime for the Wilsons’ legal costs? (h/t Lorie Byrd). Don’t miss Fausta’s song!

UPDATE: Press conference video (courtesy Ian Schwartz)

Continue reading « Valerie ‘Flame’ Wilson Files ‘Double Exposure’ Suit  » »

Thursday, July 13, 2006

The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb

The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb

BREAKING: Israeli warplanes have attacked a major Lebanese army air base near the Syrian border. It’s the first strike on the Lebanese army in Israel’s fight with Hezbollah guerrillas.

BREAKING II: Haifa has been hit by two rockets, Hezbollah deny responsibility. Allah @ Hot Air « attack staged by Iran », Saudis are blaming Hezbollah and not Israel for the crisis, plus video.

BREAKING III: Hezbollah denies wanting the soldiers moved to Iran.

Nearly 40 years of pin-point targeted response to Arab rabid hostilities has lead to this perverse situation where the West pays the Palestinian officials, synonymous with the term ‘terrorists’, billions of Dollars so that they can keep spitting into Israel’s face.

Today, we face the ugly reality, that the world at large has been successfully duped to believe that Israel is the aggressor and all the Islamic terrorist organizations are her victims. Now that Hamas has joined the ranks of other terrorist organizations in Government, namely the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (scroll down and read a useful historical overview – a « key to understanding today’s Islamic war against the West« ) and Hezbollah in Lebanon, it is of even greater importance to spread the truth and point the fingers at these murdering thugs as the sole aggressors in this conflict. It is important to remember at all times, that the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Hamas are all united behind their common call for the destruction of Israel.

Plus, we must always remember, that Iran and Saudi Arabia, and to a lesser extent Syria, are controlling the purse strings of all of them; and naturally have huge influence.

Egypt and Israel maintain that the orders regarding the kidnapping of Cpl Shalit have been coming from the Damascus based Hamas leader Khaled Mashal, that he is masterminding the terms of Shalit’s release – after all Mashal declared only Tuesday that he – not Abbas or Haniyeh – is the sole spokesman for the Palestinians, that he is ‘the man’. He certainly told the world on 9 December 2005, when addressing a crowd in Damascus, that the informal truce with Israel would end at the end of the year, stating that, « We will not enter a new truce and our people are preparing for a new round of conflict. »

Now, Mashal in turn takes his orders directly from his lord and protector, Bashir Assad of Syria. So, it really is one great big happy family out to destroy Israel and to make Arab lands ‘Judenrein’.
Somewhere along the way we had an epiphany, whether a lasting one, I cannot tell, nevertheless let us not look a gift-horse in the mouth as they say

The US blamed Syria and Iran for the kidnapping and the ensuing violence. « We condemn in the strongest terms Hizbullah’s unprovoked attack on Israel and the kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers, » National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

Well, about time….

If Israel does indeed declare war, she may be forced to include the treacherous Syria, who has been pulling the strings of far too many terrorist attacks.

Continue reading « The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb » »

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The Washington Post Inaugurates ‘The New Moderate’

The Washington Post Inaugurates 'The New Moderate'
« Thorn Head » by Graham Sutherland 1947, The Roland Collection, London


Cross posted @ NewsBusters

Well, that admission hardly comes as a surprise.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has threatened to resign, dismantle the Authority and leave the Territories […].

Abbas made the statements during a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who requested that he use his authority to help free Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Abbas responded that he no longer had any authority.

In contrast, Palestinian PM and Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is kicking Hamas’ global spin campaign into overdrive @ Washington Post.
You are surprised that WaPo has endorsed these shameless lies penned by this terrorist thug? Don’t be. As soon as the MSM saw the writing on the wall for Abbas, a new ‘moderate‘ had to be inaugurated, and fast: As Palestinian PM and Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh clearly had to be the man.

Consider the WaPo article as a formal gesture; recognizing Haniyeh’s ascendancy to ‘moderate‘ status, which Yasser Arrafat so famously gained in 1994 when he won the Nobel Peace Prize and shared it with Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres – may the Nobel committee, who so permanently and disgracefully dishonored the Peace Prize for all future generations with their nomination of this murdering thug, and to top it, alongside these two great statesmen, forever relive the stigma of their calculated reasoning –  and who so spectacularly squandered this coveted status at the end of his life.

In fact, by deceitfully crafting the camouflaging status of a ‘moderate‘ in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Yasser Arafat has perhaps left, what could arguably be in a tragic sense his principal legacy to this world: Russian, European pogrom and Nazi Holocaust came and went, but the world continues to deny the Jews a peaceful home.

So, now that the MSM have collectively decided to dress the wolf in sheep’s clothing it follows logically to tirelessly force-feed the otherwise inconceivable notion of the transmogrification of the murdering terrorist organization Hamas into a ‘moderate’ political party. Haniyeh is clearly up to the task as he raises the bar from 1967 to 1948:

Continue reading « The Washington Post Inaugurates ‘The New Moderate' » »

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Kos The Democratic Keyboard Kingpin

Kos The Democratic Keyboard Kingpin_1

Welcome to the newly inaugurated All Things Beautiful!

To those of you who have waited patiently for the last couple of days, thank you, I hope it was worth the wait, and thank you for all the wonderful e-mails of encouragement and offers of technical support, it was much appreciated. To those who have kept everyone occupied in the comment section, thank you, I owe you big time. To those who have written posts for me to publish, thank you so much for the thought, I decided to keep my powder dry. To those of you who have turned down the babes last night, rushing home in eager anticipation to see the result, I guess Markos Moulitsas the Democratic Keyboard Kingpin will be a poor substitute (sorry Roach). To those who have been forced to begin reading ‘War and Peace’ to keep occupied, the colors will blend in beautifully with the period you find yourself in.

Deep rich velvet 17th Century ‘Fortuny fabric’ reds and deep burnished golds, was my original idea, and it has been quite a task to achieve it in the modern world of html. The film I had in mind was ‘La Reine Margot’, and her spectacular wedding dress….

Onto matters at hand so to speak, and the unhappy trio of John Hellemann @ The New York Times Magazine, Joe Lieberman and Markos Moulitsas Zuniger of the Daily Kos, and the controversial editorial published in their latest issue.

As you all know Moulitsas has been receiving some body blows from the disgruntled Blogosphere and MSM lately, most notably the New York Times’ David Brooks recently with another side blow this weekend (video courtesy of C&L via Noel Sheppard @ NewsBusters, who spares no punches for the young Moulitsas)

In turn, the Democratic Keyboard Kingpin PR machine has brushed off his critics as unimportant, although he clearly does not like to be at the receiving end of bad press, especially in the middle of his John Kerry non-starter presidential campaign.

So clearly Joe Lieberman’s ‘Lone Ranger’ moment of madness stunt in Connecticut, does not fall in line with the Kos Plan. Hence we have the start of the so called Kos Campaign Domino effect

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder and chief firebrand of the liberal blog Daily Kos, sounded weary in a post after the conclusion of his convention in Las Vegas last month. “I have a few pre-existing media obligations to finish off,” Kos wrote, “then I’m going dark for a while. At least that is the hope. The media glare is not something I crave.”

Continue reading « Kos The Democratic Keyboard Kingpin » »

Kos The Democratic Keyboard Kingpin

Kos The Democratic Keyboard Kingpin_1

Welcome to the newly inaugurated All Things Beautiful!

To those of you who have waited patiently for the last couple of days, thank you, I hope it was worth the wait, and thank you for all the wonderful e-mails of encouragement and offers of technical support, it was much appreciated. To those who have kept everyone occupied in the comment section, thank you, I owe you big time. To those who have written posts for me to publish, thank you so much for the thought, I decided to keep my powder dry. To those of you who have turned down the babes last night, rushing home in eager anticipation to see the result, I guess Markos Moulitsas the Democratic Keyboard Kingpin will be a poor substitute (sorry Roach). To those who have been forced to begin reading ‘War and Peace’ to keep occupied, the colors will blend in beautifully with the period you find yourself in.

Deep rich velvet 17th Century ‘Fortuny fabric’ reds and deep burnished golds, was my original idea, and it has been quite a task to achieve it in the modern world of html. The film I had in mind was ‘La Reine Margot’, and her spectacular wedding dress….

Onto matters at hand so to speak, and the unhappy trio of John Hellemann @ The New York Times Magazine, Joe Lieberman and Markos Moulitsas Zuniger of the Daily Kos, and the controversial editorial published in their latest issue.

As you all know Moulitsas has been receiving some body blows from the disgruntled Blogosphere and MSM lately, most notably the New York Times’ David Brooks recently with another side blow this weekend (video courtesy of C&L via Noel Sheppard @ NewsBusters, who spares no punches for the young Moulitsas)

In turn, the Democratic Keyboard Kingpin PR machine has brushed off his critics as unimportant, although he clearly does not like to be at the receiving end of bad press, especially in the middle of his John Kerry non-starter presidential campaign.

So clearly Joe Lieberman’s ‘Lone Ranger’ moment of madness stunt in Connecticut, does not fall in line with the Kos Plan. Hence we have the start of the so called Kos Campaign Domino effect

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, founder and chief firebrand of the liberal blog Daily Kos, sounded weary in a post after the conclusion of his convention in Las Vegas last month. “I have a few pre-existing media obligations to finish off,” Kos wrote, “then I’m going dark for a while. At least that is the hope. The media glare is not something I crave.”

Continue reading « Kos The Democratic Keyboard Kingpin » »

Friday, July 07, 2006

The Poisonous New York Times On President’s Interview With Larry King

The Poisonous New York Times On President's Interview With Larry King

One of the most blatantly disgusting front page editorials from Alessandra Stanley at the Washington bureau of the treacherous New York Times this morning, is shamelessly and openly placing the President in the same category as the convicted and now deceased Kenneth Lay of Enron:

Two kinds of celebrities go on « Larry King Live » on CNN: those with something to sell and those with something to hide [emphasis added]

Al Gore and Brandon Routh, the young star of the newly released « Superman Returns, » recently appeared on the show to promote their new movies. The second category includes guests like Star Jones Reynolds, Mary Kay Letourneau, and, right after his indictment in 2004, Kenneth L. Lay of Enron. « Larry King Live » is the first stop in any damage control operation — a chance to explain oneself to the least contentious journalist in the land.

And that is why President Bush invited the CNN talk show host to the White House on his 60th birthday. [emphasis added]

Transcript of the Larry King Live interview with the President and Laura Bush here.

Amongst other carefully chosen untruths she claims that the President agreed to a ‘softball interview’ with King in order to boost his falling poll numbers

The standoff with North Korea over its missile tests, the war in Iraq and ever-sliding ratings in the polls have given the president little reason to celebrate. Mr. King gave the president a chance to defend his policies without risk of interruption or follow-up.[…]

[…] Even when he ventured into areas like the war in Iraq, public opinion polls or the president’s past friendship with Mr. Lay,

Larry King hardly escapes unscathed by the bitchy Ms. Stanley, having called him « the least contentious journalist in the land », she goes for the kill

Mr. King looked less like an interrogator than a hotel concierge gently removing lint from a customer’s coat. Mr. King’s questions rarely rile his guests; instead, his cozy, incurious style encourages them to expose themselves.

Continue reading « The Poisonous New York Times On President’s Interview With Larry King » »

Thursday, July 06, 2006

The New York Times Blowback

The New York Times Blowback

Both New York Times editor Bill Keller and Los Angeles Times editor Dean Baquet are just beginning to realize what a devastating effect their story had on their respective reputations with the public at large.

Hugh Hewitt asked Larry Kudlow a couple of days ago, about the impact of « their decisions to publish classified information that helps terrorists elude capture on the companies’ brand and economic health. He replied »:

Killed ’em. Killed ’em. You cannot believe the intensity of anti-New York Times feeling. Killed ’em. You know, we sent a guy, Cody Willard, who’s a contributor to our program, and we do this little cam thing. He goes out and interviews people on the street, and I had him ask the question about the Times. People are furious. We did a poll, investor class poll on it, and people were just…80/20 against the New York Times.

It is a typical story of wanting to have your cake and eat it. It was either a great story about an abuse of power by the Administration or it was old news. Well, which was it? Eric Lichtblau repeatedly states on every show (watch him get slammed here by Hugh Hewitt on CNN’s ‘Reliable Sources’, courtesy of Ian Schwartz), and in print, that this is old news and that everyone knew about it. Has he forgotten, or does he simply ignore that in his own original story he claimed that not even the CIA knew about this program pre-9/11, and that it was hidden and secret as well as classified.

Well it is certainly now one anti-terrorist program which will never catch an important terrorists ever again, and it’s all because a newspaper said they think it’s in the public interest. Yeah right. So as if to say the only secrets we won’t publish are the boring ones. The interesting ones, we feel free, even obliged to bring to public attention.

The President, the Vice President, Democratic members of Congress, the heads of the 9/11 Commission, all who have more information on intelligence than any journalists at the NYT, say otherwise, but they just keep repeating the mantra how this was old news. So fine, if it was, where is the story? A legal program, no abuses, ongoing intelligence operations which were proved to be successful in the past in progress, no reason whatsoever to run and trumpet the story.

Continue reading « The New York Times Blowback » »

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

North Korean Nuclear Poker

North Korean Nuclear Poker

AP provides timeline on the missile development in North Korea:

_Aug. 31, 1998: North Korea fires a multistage Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean.

_Sept. 13, 1999: North Korea pledges to freeze long-range missile tests.

_Sept. 2002: North Korea pledges in summit talks with Japan to extend its moratorium on missile tests beyond 2003.

_May 2004: North Korea reaffirms its missile moratorium in summit talks with Japan.

_May 2005: North Korea fires a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan.

_March 2006: North Korea fires two short-range missiles.

_May 18: Japan says North Korea moved a missile to a launch site. Media reports identify it as a Taepodong-2.

_June 7: South Korea expresses deep concern over signs North Korea may be preparing to test fire a ballistic missile.

_June 14: The U.S. ambassador to South Korea warns of American countermeasures if North Korea conducts a missile test.

_June 16: The U.S. says a test of a Taepodong-2 long-range missile may be imminent.

_June 18: North Korea vows to increase its « military deterrent » to cope with what it called U.S. attempts to provoke war.

_June 20: A North Korean official is quoted as saying the country is not bound by 2002 Pyongyang Declaration moratorium on missile tests.

_June 21: U.S. President George W. Bush warns North Korea faces further isolation if it test fires a long-range missile.

_June 21: A North Korean diplomat in New York demands direct talks with the U.S. Washington rejects the demand.

_June 28: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao says North Korea should refrain from aggravating regional tensions with missile launch.

_June 29: Bush warns a North Korean missile launch is unacceptable. Visiting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi says a launch would be followed by « various pressures. »

_July 3: North Korea says it would respond to a pre-emptive U.S. military attack with an « annihilating strike and a nuclear war. »

_July 5: North Korea launches a series of missiles.

This timeline speaks volumes about North Korean intent, despite the pathetic claim of Han Song Ryol, the deputy chief of North Korea’s mission to the UN: « We diplomats do not know what the military is doing. » Sounds familiar, have they been picking up diplomatic tips from Hamas?

Continue reading « North Korean Nuclear Poker » »

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Happy Birthday America!

Happy Birthday America!

I wish you and your loved ones a wonderful 4th of July, the day to get the high explosives out of the cupboard….the liberals will get their chemical bombs out, ‘cos after all they are not dangerous are they….check the all important expiry date stamps….

Scott Johnson has a great post about the eternal meaning of Independence Day, whilst Thomas Sowell wonders if patriotism is obsolete. Cindy Sheehan has gone on that all important diet for the cameras, it does make you put on a few pounds, I can vouch for that.

Visit Michelle Malkin for America’s 230th Birthday celebration in remembrance of our men in uniform, and a little July 4th Schoolhouse Rock video, Lorie Byrd for a great Wizbang Blogosphere round up, and The Anchoress takes us on a July 4th tour from Jonah to Hitchens and back with some wonderful graphics. ‘One Nation Under God’ from Jim with a soldier’s memorial, and an incredible not to be missed tour of The Pentagon from Ed Morrissey. What does The ACLU have to say today we wonder?

For me, today is the day to remember the age-old and perpetual struggle against oppression, wherever we find it:

« He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. »
— Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

And, most important of all, today is the day to balance the demands of two polar opposites, two antithetical extremes; on the one hand are those who wish to banish Christian tradition and values from public life and on the other hand are those whose fundamental demands seem to wish a return to the Christianity of early America.

Continue reading « Happy Birthday America! » »

Monday, July 03, 2006

Unmasking The Hamas Code Of Honor

Unmasking The Hamas Code Of Honor
‘Judith with the Head of Holofernes’ by Cristofano Allori 1613, Royal Collection, Windsor

Hamas’ scramble to issue a deadline is yet another leaf out of the horrendously effective PR campaign Palestinian Terrorists have been waging in the West for decades.

News channels are toppling over to report the ‘Breaking News’ of the Hamas deadline, and Israel’s response, ignoring the pathetic ploy repeated for the umpteenth time: Diverting the focus away from Palestinian terror to so called Israeli aggression, in the ever persistent push to legitimize genocidal Jihad as a supposedly just response to Israeli territorial occupation beyond the 1948 UN partition plan.

Palestinians have learned long ago how to harness anti-Zionist sentiment in the West, ever present and sadly widespread among political and media elites and influencers, both Gentiles and Jews, to spin their unequivocal call for Israel’s destruction in its entirety as a resistant movement with reasonable and limited territorial demands.

When did a MSM report last call attention to the fact that the emblems of all major Palestinian organizations include a map of present-day Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and that every one of these organizations, PLO, Fatha, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad pursue the reversal of Israel’s creation. Just as none of the Arab states embrace Israel as a permanent member of their Middle Eastern league of nations, not one Palestinian organization includes the state of Israel as a permanent fixture in their long-term plans for the region. All that differs are the means to achieve the elimination of Israel; some prefer the demographic destruction of Israel, others, like Hamas and Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad, favor a more expedient genocidal solution.

It really doesn’t matter, as long as we understand that even the most ‘moderate’ strategies merely divide the same end-goal into a two-step approach: First, establish a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries and then, as a second step, « use that state to liberate the rest of the Palestinian lands« .

When has the MSM last explained the ‘peaceful’ strategy to destruct Israel demographically; the demand that the descendants of refugees from the 1948 war must be entitled to an unconditional ‘right of return’ to Israel for all eternity? The intention is so blatant that failing to report it without ambiguity is either incompetence or deliberate bias.

What is this deadline really about? I say primarily to steal the show in view of an increasingly agitated and impatient Olmert. Israel will soon act to locate and hopefully free an alive Cpl.Gilad Shalit and most certainly not even consider any exchanges or deals. But what if Shalit is dead? What if he gets killed in the process? Watch how in the coming days Hamas will do and say everything in the desperate attempt to gloss over what is rapidly deteriorating into a massively costly blunder for the murdering thugs, continuing the war without end.

Continue reading « Unmasking The Hamas Code Of Honor » »

Saturday, July 01, 2006

Total War (UPDATED)

Total War
« The Survivor » by George Grosz 1944, Private Collection

SUNDAY JULY 2ND UPDATE: Israel strike hits Palestinian PM office. Ahem.

Israel warns: free soldier or PM dies‘, blasts the headline this morning. It seems that President Putin is not the only one who takes terrorists killing his soldiers seriously, rejecting the ever popular ‘stop or I’ll say stop again’ tactic of the E.U.
The target, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, responds with the shrill accusation that Israel is waging a « Total War« . Total war? Yeah right.

‘Total War’ describes a war unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded. It perfectly describes what Hamas and Fatah deceivingly call ‘resistance’ against Israel.

If despite General Elazar’s dictum [the Chief of Staff, Beirut 1973 said: « Israel won’t play by the rules of partial war; wars are not won with a strong defense.”], contemporary Israelis keep playing by the rules of partial war, and refuse to fight their enemies by the rules of the region in which they live, both the conflict and the innocent civilian casualties will continue until the end of time.

Hamas does not care if its irredentist terrorism kills or causes Israel to kill innocent civilians, but Israel waging ‘total war’ against the murdering thugs; I only wish they would. Of course the demand of the release of 1000 Arabs in return for the life of one Israeli soldier, puts their total disconnect with reality into vital perspective.
In truth, the opposite is happening. Israel is acting prudently, intelligently and with utmost restraint by picking up those who are responsible for Sunday’s raid. In doing so, Israel is sending a clear message to the masterminds, which in a nutshell has this to say: If you think that you can hide behind your own people acting as human shields to evade responsibility for every savage crime against our people, you are mistaken. Know this, every time you commit another heinous act of violence, we will find and apprehend the masterminds and put a bullet between their eyes.

Why is this the right response? Consider the alternatives.

(1)  Israel doesn’t act militarily, but looks to the international community to reign Hamas in, all the while vehemently protesting and appealing to the UN Security Council to issue a strong worded condemnation. Definitely what Hamas had hoped for, which is a reflection of their perception of Ehud Olmert’s dovish qualities as a leader.

The result would be empty speeches and more Arab grandstanding before fellow Muslim lobby members during Security Council meetings. Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad certainly wasn’t too perturbed when the SC condemned his call to wipe Israel off the map.

Furthermore, it would green-light a new wave of kidnappings of both Israeli civilians and IDF personnel wherever Hamas could lay their dirty mitts on them.

(2)  Israel brings total war to the Palestinians, literally. The likely result would be a short-lived international outcry, long-term security for Israelis on permanently expanded territories and business a usual in the way Jews all over the world would continue to face rabid anti-Semitic outburst of hatred and xenophobia. Definitely my recommendation, but in direct contravention to everything what both Israel as a sovereign state and Judaism as a Religion stand for; at the very least, Israel is restrained by their own Holocaust legacy.

But, Olmert knows, that Israel doesn’t have a choice in the matter, lest you forget, that it is dealing with an adversary whose sole purpose of existence is to bring about its total destruction.

Continue reading « Total War (UPDATED) » »

The MSM Plays Devil’s Advocate

The MSM Plays Devil's Advocate
« Battleship Potemkin » by Peter Howson 1992, Collection Mr & Mrs G. Mundy

Cross posted @ NewsBusters

The BBC is now teaching us the wonders of its biased vocabulary when reporting on the news in the Middle East. From the BBC World News Editor Jon Williams, already under extreme fire in his comment section for this incoherent babble, is advocating the word ‘captured’ rather than ‘kidnapped’ in the case of Israeli Corporal Shalit, and any other soldier who falls into the hands of terrorists :

But deployments – who goes where – are only part of what we’ve been wrestling with. As ever in reporting the Middle East, language – and the choice of words – is incredibly important. Was the soldier kidnapped or captured, were the Hamas politicians arrested or detained?

Our credibility is undermined by the careless use of words which carry value judgements. Our job is to remain objective. By doing so, I hope we allow our audiences on radio and television to make their own assessment of the story. So we try to stick to the facts – civilians are « kidnapped », Cpl Shalit was « captured »; since troops don’t usually make « arrests », the politicians were « detained ». Doubtless some will disagree. But that’s, in essence, the heart of the story – two competing narratives.

Just for the record, Hamas denies recognising Israel: « We do not recognize Israel« . Oh really?

Hamas – whose Charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state – rejected any suggestion the deal to end its damaging power struggle with rival Fatah could imply it now accepts Israel’s existence.

WaPo doesn’t tell you anything about the denial but spins it the usual way: « The violence overshadowed an agreement earlier in the day by leaders of Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that controls the Palestinian government, on a unified political agenda advocated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to ease the economic sanctions against the government. » AP doesn’t mention Hamas’ renewed pledge to stick to its genocidal goals, but takes aim at, oh well, who knew… ‘Israelis bomb camp, cut power and water‘.

BBC surprises; well not quite. ‘Hamas resists Israel recognition’ is their title; resist says it all, doesn’t it. It’s subtle. Let’s see, resist implies: Hamas ‘withstands’ the pressure to abandon its genocidal goals; it implies, ‘struggle against’ Israel’s draconian demands; Hamas ‘stands up against’ the schoolyard bully… NYT calls « such an accord […] a significant change » and goes to some lengths to diffuse the denial… but makes sure you are left with the impression that Israel rejects this hailed accord unjustly and, consistent with doctrine, arrogantly…

I wonder what they will do with this little bombshell today? More on this in my next post today ‘Total War’

Friday, June 30, 2006

The Postmortem On The Geneva ‘Jihadist’ Convention

The Postmortem On The Geneva 'Jihadist' Convention
Clockwise from left, Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer and Souter, with Justice Stevens in the center. [the originals by Francis Bacon, ca 60’s, private collections in London]

The lame decision of the Supreme Court yesterday makes no sense to me whatsoever. I note that the Supreme Court rules 5-3 that the Geneva Convention applies. Did we sign a treaty with al-Qaeda that I am not aware of? I doubt it.

The Geneva Convention applies to signatories only, namely the countries that have bound themselves to its inherent reciprocity, and this shameful decision flies in the face of President’s clear stand not to allow the same protections to illegal, non-uniformed combatants. So now the Geneva Convention applies to the cowardly terrorists who target innocent civilians, use women and children as human shields, and dress in civilian clothes.

Charles Johnson is absolutely right when he says « the Supreme Court has violated not only the spirit, but the letter of the Conventions. The clauses about non-protection of illegal combatants are specifically designed to protect civilians, from terrorists and brigands who would otherwise hide among civilian populations to escape justice. The harshest penalties are allowed for those who abuse this convention, up to and including summary execution on the field of battle. »

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Congress did not take away the Court’s authority to rule on the military commissions’ validity, and then went ahead to rule that President Bush did not have authority to set up the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and found the commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention. In addition, the Court concluded that the commissions were not authorized when Congress enacted the post-9/1l resolution authorizing a response to the terrorist attacks, and were not authorized by last year’s Detainee Treatment Act. The vote against the commissions and on the Court’s jurisdiction was 5-3, with the Chief Justice not taking part.

The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government’s power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan « for the duration of active hostilities » to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, « in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction. »

Continue reading « The Postmortem On The Geneva ‘Jihadist’ Convention » »

Thursday, June 29, 2006

‘The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century’ The World’s Most Audacious Marketing Coup

'The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century' The World's Most Audacious Marketing Coup
« The Punishment of Korah and the Stoning of Moses and Aaron » by Sandro Botticelli 1481-82, Cappella Sistina, Vatican

This is the third part in my Trilogy. The first part was ‘Israel Cannot Succeed By Empowering Terrorists’ and the second ‘Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel’.

All the excitement surrounding Israel, all the media coverage, more appropriately characterized as a ‘feeding frenzy’, made me wonder, how is it possible, that the world’s best marketeers have fallen victim to what must surely be history’s most audacious marketing coup ever to be pulled off.

How is it possible that the world at large has been successfully sold that Israel is the aggressor and the PA, erstwhile terrorist organization PLO lead by Arafat, together with all the Palestinians, are the victims, when the complete opposite is in fact the simple truth.

How could that happen, especially in the West?
Disturbing as it was to find out how Muslims worldwide think according to the Pew findings, it is nonetheless consistent with systematic and state sponsored anti-Semitic indoctrination.

But surely not in the West amongst European and U.S. political and general elites; surely not amongst those, who make learning, reason and rational thought their life’s passion; not amongst American Jews.

Well, I wouldn’t have thought I’d ever refer to the pseudo academic codswallop of Walt-Mearsheimer’s study. But here it serves my purpose in a paradoxical way: If the main assertion of the colorful duo was true, namely, that the ‘Israel Lobby’ engineered an uncritical support for Israel for decades, then surely one of the first results would have been a total and complete marginalization of the Palestinian issue in the public opinion.

The fact that the opposite is true, surely should convince even the most ardent critics of the complete ineptness of this so called ‘Israel Lobby’.  Also, if Walt-Mearsheimer were onto something, I ask, whatever happened to ‘whoever controls the media wins the war’?
Better yet, because Jews are at the center of every creative, scientific, cultural, political, ideological movement and endeavor, surely they would have succeeded by now to mute the Palestinian thuggery.

Continue reading « ‘The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century’ The World’s Most Audacious Marketing Coup » »

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel (UPDATED)

Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel


This is the second part in my Trilogy. The first part was ‘Israel Cannot Succeed By Empowering Terrorists’ and the third is ‘The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century’ The World’s Most Audacious Marketing Coup’

Just for the record, Hamas denies recognising Israel: « We do not recognize Israel« . Oh really?

Hamas – whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state – rejected any suggestion the deal to end its damaging power struggle with rival Fatah could imply it now accepts Israel’s existence.

WaPo doesn’t tell you anything about the denial but spins it the usual way: « The violence overshadowed an agreement earlier in the day by leaders of Hamas, the radical Islamic movement that controls the Palestinian government, on a unified political agenda advocated by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to ease the economic sanctions against the government. » AP doesn’t mention Hamas’ renewed pledge to stick to its genocidal goals, but takes aim at, oh well, who knew… ‘Israelis bomb camp, cut power and water‘. BBC surprises; well not quite. ‘Hamas resists Israel recognition’ is their title; resist says it all, doesn’t it. It’s subtle. Let’s see, resist implies: Hamas ‘withstands’ the pressure to abandon its genocidal goals; it implies, ‘struggle against’ Israel’s draconian demands; Hamas ‘stands up against’ the schoolyard bully… NYT calls « such an accord […] a significant change » and goes to some lengths to diffuse the denial… but makes sure you are left with the impression that Israel rejects this hailed accord unjustly and, consistent with doctrine, arrogantly….

There are so many aspects to this which ought to drive even the most dispassionate observer stark raving mad with fury and frustration.

First off, what’s the point of any ‘deal’ if it doesn’t end the ‘financial siege’, as they like to call it – and hopefully, we won’t cave in any time soon to the demands that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence and accept peace accords. Surely we recognize, that the chief reason for the recent unrests are ultimately financial; if salaries had been paid and enough money were on hand to continue the bribes as well as weapons and ammunition procurement program for all, there wouldn’t have been the kind of violent clashes.

Secondly, any reminder of the Hamas Charter coupled with all those bold-faced assurances to ‘faithfully’ uphold it, serves as an unfailing litmus test to separate the sane from the insane: The sane refuse to engage in any further debate about anything until this quintessential manifestation of « crime against humanity« , if ever there was in print, has been unequivovally renounced and replaced with a Charter compatible with humanity. The insane talk about everything else whilst steadfastly refusing to address the Charter altogether.

Thirdly, how much further can our pitiful decent to this entirely self-induced mass folly go?

Continue reading « Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel (UPDATED) » »

| |

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:


Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :