Friday, August 31, 2007

Three children killed in IDF strike on Kassam launchers

Kassam rocket launchers. Photo: IDF [file]Here's the story:

Jerusalem Post,
29 Aug 2007,
Three children killed in IDF strike on Kassam launchers

Three Palestinian children were killed on Wednesday in an IDF strike on a number of Kassam rocket launchers in the northern Gaza Strip.
A relative of the children, Wasfi Ghazal, said he heard an explosion and then children screaming. He held both Israel and the rocket squads responsible.

"We are victims of the occupation and victims of the misbehavior of some of the fighters, who are randomly choosing our area to target Israel," Ghazal said.

Well, at least Wasfi also blames the terrorists for putting the children at risk. But the kids were 10 and 12 years old, why haven't their parents taught them not to play near rocket launchers? And why blame Israel when they merely defend themselves?

At first Carl in Jerusalem thought it was no accident: I'm sorry but there is NO excuse for sending ten and twelve-year olds to retrieve rocket launchers or on any other kind of 'military' mission.

I also thought this was the most likely explanation. Later, an IDF investigation indicated that the three children were playing tag. Still, the IDF did the right thing...

Read more here.

Labels: , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Women Should Know Their Place! - Along the Road to Eurabia

From The Brussels Journal:

“Women are simply not accepted by the Muslim community,” says Mohammed. “So women had also better not do this work.” Mohammed is my colleague social worker [integration civil servant] in Antwerp’s immigrant quarters. He looks at me gravely. “That is just the way it is, and that is why I prefer not to work with a woman, that simply doesn’t work.” He is complaining about another colleague, a Flemish woman who is his superior.

Mohammed does not think that this mentality about women and work is wrong. In fact, whoever questions this attitude is wrong because it is his culture and belief, which is why he accepts it, he “understands” it and we, Flemings, do not. Consequently we must accept it, until we “understand” as well.

He sighs. Yesterday it came to a clash with his female Flemish superior. Together with a team of mostly immigrant co-workers, she organizes meaningful recreational activities for the mostly Moroccan youths in the neighborhood. The Flemish superior is also close to despair. Working together with Mohammed is not plain sailing.

She has no support from her Moroccan colleagues. On the contrary, slowly but surely she is being frozen out. Whenever she appears in the square several older man gather round her and start speaking the Berber language with her male colleagues. “They want to marry you,” her male colleagues of Moroccan origin laugh, “because we said that you’re not married.” In the evening the men wait for her and bother her, why won’t she? Several girls of Moroccan origin grab her phone. Her Moroccan colleagues look the other way, also when older kids who always start arguments with her kick her shins until they are blue and threaten her.

She did not want to discuss the complete lack of fellowship, the negative attitude of the Moroccan colleagues. Her problem was Mohammed. He didn’t want to work together with her. He walked away during a conversation with her and went to pray in the meeting room, calling on Allah to stand by him in the discussion with a woman! Perplexity on the part of his female colleague.

Naturally she submitted her conflict with Mohammed, and his praying in the meeting room, to the management. Yes, it’s annoying, but now what? The problem was bought before the staff manager. Who, strangely enough, made a completely absurd accusation. Not Mohammed, but rather the female co-worker, had overstepped her bounds. She had threatened Mohammed and provoked aggression.

How? By questioning his actions. Yes, that’s what Mohammed had said. To the staff manager of course. The female colleague stands as if hit by lighting. She doesn’t weigh half as much as Mohammed, she would be mad to wake up aggression by somebody who could wipe her off the map, Mohammed is also a kickboxer, she is not that crazy! She is left with her feeling of powerlessness. Not Mohammed. In this conflict she is getting picked on.

Her complaint about Mohammed’s behavior was not taken seriously anywhere. It should be, since Mohammed discriminates against women in the workplace, he is being accused by female colleagues of sexual intimidation, and above all he doesn’t offer help to a colleague who is being assaulted by the target group. All for the simple reason that women shouldn’t be doing this work, because they are unacceptable for Mohammed and the target group, we must understand that, end of story.

Aaah, yes, the length the West will go for the sake of multiculturalism! There is no interest in culture nor in its multi facets on the side of the minority the West wants to accommodate. Their attitude is unswerving, unbending, uncompromising, it’s their way or no way!

Nobody confronts Mohammed about this utterly wrong attitude towards women. Worse still: the Antwerp authorities assume that by employing Mohammed they have “easier access” to the target group. In fact, the effect is usually the opposite. Mohammed supports the target group, shares a wrong attitude and doesn’t think of doing anything differently.

Because nobody has the courage to approach Mohammed about behavior that would be unacceptable in any other civil servant, we make no progress. Polarization and segregation increase and within a welfare system that employs thousands of social workers we are unable to achieve a change of attitude, which respects everybody regardless of origin, sex or belief.

If the politicians procrastinate any longer, there will soon be huge protest marches in Brussels by everybody who has had enough. Because these disparities disrupt society: not skin color, but the behavior of target groups is why people are being excluded at work, from discos and swimming pools. It is time for everyone who has had enough to get together, in everybody’s interest.

Women have made tremendous strides in the West, though they still have a bit to go. Will we in the West in order to appease a bully that has no interest in our ways, our culture, our lifestyle, send women back into the Dark Ages? Multiculturalism could only work, at best, if all sides are ready to show understanding for each other. Mohammed on his side has no interest in understanding or respecting the other side and yet the western cowards, the suicidal dhimmis who run the Belgian Social Work department defend him, instead of his superior. When crime against women goes up even more than it already has in Belgium, no doubt they will not blame their own complacency, their own lack of forethought, their own fear of confrontation, their own cowardice. Surely they will blame the women, won’t they? That would be the incorrect, disgusting Politically Correct attitude!!!

If Western society intends to be a melting pot as America has been for a very long time, it must demand that the minorities integrate (that does not mean they should abandon their customs, their mores, their ideals!). How? By showing respect and understanding for the majority whose country they immigrated to in search of a better life with more opportunities for happiness and prosperity. Instead what a lot of these immigrants are exhibiting, is an attitude whereby it is OK to take advantage of what the West has to offer, until it can give no more… like a school of leaches feeding on human blood!

Nobody confronts Mohammed about his utterly wrong attitude towards women. Worse still: the Antwerp authorities assume that by employing Mohammed they have “easier access” to the target group. In fact, the effect is usually the opposite. Mohammed supports the target group, shares a wrong attitude and doesn’t think of doing anything differently. Because nobody has the courage to approach Mohammed about behavior that would be unacceptable in any other civil servant, we make no progress. Polarization and segregation increase and within a welfare system that employs thousands of social workers we are unable to achieve a change of attitude, which respects everybody regardless of origin, sex or belief.

What hypocrisy! Does no one have the guts to tell Mohammed that he should know his place?!?!? Where are the women’s organization? Why is their silence so deafening?!?!? Women of the West, stand up for your hard fought rights, before they disappear!


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

CAIR Thugs on Islamophobia Patrol

From Brigitte Gabriel and ACT:

CAIR Thugs on Islamophobia Patrol
Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood?
By Patrick Poole

FSM Contributing Editor Patrick Poole characterizes CAIR's harassment of a private citizen in his home, which CAIR describes as an "invitation to dialogue," as nothing more than a masquerade for their alarming scare tactics. Jackboot thuggery or inter-faith engagement? You decide.

Three officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Ohio admit to going unannounced to a man's home to confront him over a bumper sticker on his car — a testament, they claim, of their tolerance and moderation. The incident occurred last year, but the CAIR trio involved – Ahmad Al-Akhras, CAIR national vice chairman, Asma Mobin-Uddin, CAIR-Ohio president, and Abukar Arman, CAIR-OH board member – have recently recounted this incident to the local establishment media as an example of how they "invite dialogue."

Others, however, believe the incident is additional proof that CAIR regularly resorts to threats, intimidation and demonization to silence its critics. Earlier this month, attorneys for CAIR sent a letter threatening legal action against the Young Americans Foundation if they allowed NY Times bestselling author and JihadWatch director, Robert Spencer, to speak at their conference on "The Truth of the Council on American-Islamic Relations." This thuggery is reminiscent of CAIR's 2004 lawsuit against independent journalist Andrew Whitehead of Anti-CAIR, a suit which was dropped by CAIR in order to avoid responding to required interrogatories about its historic ties to HAMAS and role in terror financing.

The CAIR-OH incident is without known precedent, harassing a private citizen at his home because CAIR officials did not like one of his bumper stickers. One of the trio, Abukar Arman, has described how they set upon their unwitting victim:

Several months ago, a non-Muslim fellow in the inter-faith community brought to the attention of CAIR-Ohio a picture of his neighbor's truck with a bumper sticker that read "Jesus loves you, and Allah wants you dead."

Some of us thought that the appropriate thing to do was to get media involved and use this truck owner as a poster-child of the prevalent assertive ignorance that is widening the post 9/11 political divide between Muslims and non-Muslims. Others, on the other hand, saw this as an opportunity for human contact, discourse, and to build bridges of understanding.

The latter opinion prevailed.

Therefore, I had the privilege of being one of three Muslims (2 male and a female with Islamic veil) who paid a neighborly visit to the truck owner.

What ensued was an interesting discourse that I found to be very educational (its final outcome notwithstanding).

The truck owner was a former Marine officer who served in Somalia and Iraq. Initially, as he opened the door, he was visibly apprehensive (and rightfully so).

We greeted him and introduced ourselves. We reassured him that we were only interested to get to know him, address any questions or perhaps grievance that he may have, and to give him a chance to meet and dialogue with ordinary Muslims.

Long story short: in a conversation that took place right outside his door and lasted for over an hour, the former Marine talked about how he was very suspicious of Muslims and how, both in Somalia and in Iraq, he and other Americans who "came to help these two countries had their hands bitten..." He talked about how he did not believe there were any moderate Muslims and how organizations such as CAIR were deliberately silent about condemning terrorism. He also talked about being alarmed by the growing Muslim population in Central Ohio and how they may be hiding a terrorist who has in his possession a "briefcase nuke." He said, "I don't want to see a giant mushroom in Columbus" [I will come back to this point].

Lastly, he talked about his career in the private he worked as a "corporate anti-terrorism expert" and a "consultant to a numerous multinational corporations..."

Arman admits that the original intention was to make this two-war veteran a "poster-child" of Islamophobia and publicly to vilify the man by enlisting the help of the local media — all because they didn't agree with the sentiments the man expressed via a bumper sticker. He also admits that the man was visibly leery of his late-night visitors showing up on his doorstep, what they probably would argue is proof of his Islamophobia.

What makes this situation and Abukar Arman's comments even more appalling is that the former Marine had served in the UN-backed peacekeeping mission in Somalia, Arman's native country, to protect the people there from the warlords that had taken over the country and who were starving the people by the tens of thousands. Additionally, the former Marine had been reported to CAIR by one of his neighbors who was a friend to the CAIR officials in the "inter-faith community."

But imagine if the roles in this case were reversed: imagine if Robert Spencer, Andrew Whitehead and myself showed up on the doorstep of any of these CAIR officials – unwelcome and unannounced – to confront them about their repeated statements of support for extremism, bigotry and terrorism: Ahmad Al-Akhras for his public defense of convicted terrorists, including his "long-time friend," convicted and deported Palestinian Islamic Jihad operative Fawaz Damra; Asma Mobin-Uddin for promoting several hate sites with rabidly anti-Jewish content on her own personal website; or Abukar Arman, for his vocal public support of HAMAS, Hezbollah and the al-Qaeda-backed Islamic Courts Union. Would they see such action as "inviting dialogue," or would they instead denounce such an "invitation to dialogue" in a flurry of CAIR press releases as a "hate crime" that would merit restraining orders and warrant federal criminal charges?

With their opponents on the working end of this tactic of cultural terrorism, however, they enthusiastically recount this act of intimidation, attempting to paint their "neighborly visit" as a peaceful effort to "engage" non-Muslims. The establishment media has been quick to pick up this twisted narrative. Earlier this month, in a front page Columbus Dispatch article on Mr. Arman, Mobin-Uddin cites this incident of confronting a man at his home as evidence of Mr. Arman's "kindness":

"Mr. Arman is a man of the greatest integrity, kindness and responsibility," Mobin-Uddin said.

She recalled a visit with Arman a few years ago to the home of an ex-Marine who displayed an anti-Muslim bumper sticker.

"We stood and talked with the man on his doorstep for an hour and a half. Mr. Arman never raised his voice. He told the man, 'You know, sir, I have four children. I've lived in this country for decades. If I knew someone who was going to put a bomb somewhere, I would be the first one to jump on them.' "

This isn't the first time, however, that the Columbus Dispatch has pulled out this story as an example of the tolerance and moderation of the CAIR trio and their cohorts.

In an Orwellian-titled article this past April, "Changing Hearts, Minds," Ahmad Al-Akhras gave his analysis of his and his comrades' late-night "invitation to dialogue" to an attentive Dispatch reporter:

Changing minds isn't always as pleasant as sharing some snacks and laughs.

Last year, Ahmad Al-Akhras and two other community leaders knocked on the door of a man whose car bore a bumper sticker that read: "Jesus loves you. Allah wants you dead."

Al-Akhras is president of the Islamic Foundation of Central Ohio and is the vice chairman of the national Council on American-Islamic Relations.

They spoke to the ex-Marine for more than an hour at his doorstep, telling him they had 11 children between them and cared strongly about America's safety, Al-Akhras said.

"More than 95 percent of the time, we agree on things," Al-Akhras said of Muslims and non-Muslims.

He isn't sure that visit did any good.

It should be evident that going to a man's home, particularly someone entirely unknown to you, to confront them about the content of their bumper stickers is not an invitation to dialogue, but jackboot thuggery reminiscent of the Nazi SA Storm troopers. One of them admits that rather than painting a symbol on the man's house or business to show their disapproval for his religious statements (much as the SA would mark Jewish homes or businesses with a Star of David and the word "Juden"), they considered calling in the media to condemn this two-war Marine veteran and expose him to public scorn all because they didn't like his bumper sticker.

CAIR has repeatedly demonstrated that their methodology and discourse must rely on increasingly shrill rhetoric to get public attention and publicly attacking anyone who questions their troubling ideology. Nor has CAIR ever hesitated to inflame a situation to further its own agenda to the detriment of the rest of the community, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. As their own supposed constituency continues to abandon CAIR, such now that their membership is less than two thousand nationwide, CAIR will need to resort to more confrontational and escalating tactics to keep the establishment media's attention in order to disseminate their message of hate, alienation and conflict.

CAIR's Islamophobia patrols: coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Bring it on! Barge into my house. I've got two friends here who might send you straight to Allah... their names, Smith and Wesson.

Labels: , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Religious Dhimmitude

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Dutch bishop suggests calling God Allah

A Dutch Catholic bishop who once said the hungry were entitled to steal bread and advocated condom use to prevent AIDS has made headlines again, this time by saying God should be called Allah.

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?” Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. “God doesn’t care what we call him.”

In an interview broadcast on Monday’s edition of current affairs show “Netwerk,” Muskens said he had worked in Indonesia where God is referred to as Allah in Christian services.

But a spokesman for one of the capital’s leading mosques said he was not happy with the statement.

As Islam in Europe says:

Netherlands: Why not call God Allah?

The simple reason - because one speaks Dutch in the Netherlands. God is Dutch (and English), Allah is Arabic. Arabic is a beautiful language, so why not just switch over completely?

Considering who this “bishop” is, considering his past ridiculous stances, we can can label his words as real affronts to the sensibilities of the West. It’s amazing how incorrect these appeasers and Political Correctness activist are, how far they are willing to go to avoid hurting the sensibilities of a minority while they trample with impunity on the rights and sensibilities of the majority. I can not see myself, even for the sake of appeasement, referring to God by any word other than God, except when praying in Hebrew as a proud Orthodox Jew. I also very much doubt that ANY of my CHRISTIAN friends would be willing to refer to Him as “Allah!”

Islam in Europe ends the short post on Bishop Muskens, as follows:

The Bishop of Breda, Tiny Muskens, thinks “Allah” is a beautiful word for God and suggests it from now on. He is aware that using the name “Allah” would be very emotional and therefore he says it must be thought about, prepared and weighed in advance.

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will call God Allah?” Bishop Tiny Muskens said in an interview broadcast this week. “God doesn’t care what we call him.”

Catholic World, reports:

Bishop Muskens has a history of creating occasional controversy within the Church. He has broken with Vatican leadership to endorse the use of condoms as a means of preventing the spread of AIDS, and in 2006 he traveled to Uganda to endorse the work of a group called Stop AIDS Now, which emphasized condom distribution.

The Bishop of Breda, became Bishop in 1994 under Pope John Paul II. It would seem to me that his superiors should rebuke and defrock someone who so disregards the Bible whose teachings he is supposed to uphold and help spread. Perhaps then, he’ll convert to Islam in his rush to appease… but… do you think he would live long, if he dared (as a Muslim) advocate condom use to prevent AIDS? What idiocy passes for religion these days!!!

While it is absolutely wrong for the majority to harass or denigrate or otherwise tamper with the customs of a minority as long as these customs do not go against the laws of the majority, it is much worse when a minority’s rules begin to supersede those of the majority. Why? Because, gentle reader, that leads to a dictatorship, to a regime where the majority is ruled by a tyrannical iron-fisted despotic minority!

Tiny Muskens, Bishop of Breda - Netherlands


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Former Guard Accused Of Hiding Muslim Ties

From Brigitte Gabriel and ACT:

By Dan Morse
Washington Post Staff Writer

On April 19, 2005, Darrick Jackson completed an application to work as a private security guard at an entrance gate to Andrews Air Force Base.

"Have you ever used or been known by another name?" he was asked in the second of 20 queries.

"No," Jackson answered.

He got the job.

Federal prosecutors now allege that Jackson intentionally withheld his Muslim name, Abdul-Jalil Mohammad, to conceal a connection to a controversial imam in Southeast Washington. Jackson, 37, who is no longer in the civilian job, has been charged with making a false statement, a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

In a pretrial hearing scheduled for today, prosecutors are expected to argue that they should be permitted to present evidence at trial that they say links Jackson to extremist views. The evidence includes speeches in which the imam wishes for the U.S. government's collapse, essays posted on Jackson's MuslimSpace Web page and a mosque directory listing Jackson as the head of security.

Jackson's attorneys argue that he believed the question applied to maiden names for female applicants and that the omission was at worst an innocent mistake. They say that Jackson has never advocated violence toward the United States, that his religious and political views are irrelevant to the case and that airing them before a jury would deprive him of his right to a fair trial.

Imams in MuslimSpace! Note to Jacksons attorney : Well when a pedophile posts his intentions on MySpace or FaceBook and then commits a crime it has been used as revelant to establishing the character of the accused. How can this be irrelevant? Oh! it's coming back to me now...innocent mistake...Andrews Air Force Base...Derrick Jackson...Abdul-Jalil law but Allah's...taqiyya. Well then I guess it is irrellevant after all.

Fool me once, 9-11. Fool me twice? NEVER!

Labels: ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Hospital staff told to eat away from desks for Ramadan

From the Scotsman:

HOSPITAL staff in the Lothians have been told not to eat at their desks to avoid offending Muslim colleagues during Ramadan.

NHS Lothian has advised doctors and other health workers not to have working lunches during the 30-day fast, which begins next month.

The health service's Equality and Diversity Officer sent an e-mail to all senior managers, giving guidance on religious tolerance.

This includes ensuring Muslim staff are given breaks to pray, and time off to celebrate Eid at the end of Ramadan.

It is understood they also advised hospital managers to move food trolleys away from areas where Muslims work.

An NHS spokesman said he could not confirm what was in the e-mail.

Jim McCaffery, director of acute services and workforce at NHS Lothian, said: "This e-mail was circulated to a number of senior managers as we continue to promote cultural awareness in our organisation."

But the move has angered many doctors and politicians, who say it is taking religious tolerance too far.

Bill Aitken, Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, was reported as saying: "Frankly, this advice, well meaning as it may be, is total nonsense.

"This is the sort of thing that can stir up resentments rather than result in good relations."

I like the kind of cultural awareness that Neil Boortz spoke of concerning this story: How about the awareness that the Muslim next to may support suicide bombings...or that some Muslim doctors were planning to bomb London...or that your unwillingness to recognize Ramadan may be reason to loose your head.

I'll eat at my desk during Ramadan as long as I have to keep saying Happy Holidays at Christmas. Fair is fair.

Labels: , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Monday, August 13, 2007

Typhoon Lagoon and the Reconquista

Flowers in the foreground with Mt. Mayday in the background at Walt Disney World's Typhoon Lagoon water park.
Typhoon Lagoon
Originally uploaded by Burnsland.
First, some background: three months ago in my post The Portuguese Reconquista and New Jersey Bookies, I wrote that once Europe got rid of its Muslims the great age of European exploration began. I noted that Pedro Álvares Cabral was the first European discoverer of the sea route to Brazil.

Now the story: We went to Typhoon Lagoon early yesterday at Walt Disney World in Orlando Florida. The first thing I did was get a locker to store my valuables and was handed locker key number 1468. I noted that the Disney cashier had a name tag with "Mohammed" engraved on it, so I said to one of the other cashiers, "Oh, key number 1468 - that was the year the Portuguese explorer Pedro Álvares Cabral, who discovered Brazil, was born. Did you know that the Portuguese got a head start in the great European exploration of the world because they got rid of Muslims before anyone else?

The other cashier asked, "What are you, a history buff?" I answered, "No - just that I recently wrote a blog article about Cabral."

Now here's the interesting part: Cashier Mohammed, in a calm, not threatening, matter-of-fact tone, responded: "Well, you know the whole world will be all Muslim soon, anyway."

"Yes," I replied just as matter-of-factly, "I believe that is a very strong possibility."

Read more here.

Labels: , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Dr Walid Phares, is a leader of the March 14 movement and the Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, a visiting scholar at the European Foundation for Democracy and the author of the War of Ideas. Dr Phares was one of the architects of UNSCR 1559. He is also a Professor of Middle East Studies at Florida Atlantic University and a contributing expert to FOX News. He makes the following points about the current situation and dangers in the Middle East:

The US Government is considering a new gigantic arms sale to the Saudi Kingdom, up to 20 billion dollars’ worth of complex weaponry. The proposed package includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters, and new naval vessels, as part of a US strategy to contain the rising military expansion of Iran in the region. The titanic arms deal is a major Saudi investment to shield itself from the Khomeinist menace looming at the horizon: an Iranian nuclear bomb, future Pasdaran control in Iraq, and a Hezb’allah offensive in Lebanon.

The real Iranian threat against the Saudis materializes as follows:

1. Were the US led coalition to leave Iraq abruptly, Iranian forces — via the help of their militias in Iraq — will be at the borders with the Kingdom. Throughout the Gulf, Iran’s Mullahs will be eyeing the Hijaz on the one hand and the oil rich provinces on the other hand.

2. Hezb’allah threatens the Lebanese Government, which is friendly to the Saudis. Hezb’allah, already training for subversion in Iraq, will become the main trainer of Shia radicals in the Eastern province of the Kingdom.

3. Finally Syria and Iran can send all sorts of Jihadis, including Sunnis, across Iraq’s borders, almost in a pincer movement.

In the face of such a hydra-headed advance, the Wahhabi monarchy is hurrying to arm itself with all the military technology it can get from Uncle Sam. Riyadh believes that with improved F 16s, fast boats, electronics and smarter bombs, it can withstand the forthcoming onslaught.

I believe the Saudi regime won’t. For, as the Iraq-Iran war has proved, the ideologically-rooted brutality of the Iranian regime knows no boundaries. If the US withdraws from the region without a strong pro-Western Iraq in the neighborhood, and absent of a war of ideas making progress against fundamentalism as a whole, the Saudis won’t stand a chance for survival. For the Iranians will apply their pressure directly, and will unleash more radical forces among the neo-Wahhabis against the Kingdom. The Shiite Mullahs will adroitly manipulate radical Sunnis, as they have demonstrated their ability to do in Iraq and Lebanon.

Simply throwing money at a problem, without a vision as to how to properly spend it, has never been an effective solution. More often than not, money only exacerbates the problem it is meant to solve.

So what should the US advise the Saudis to do instead of spending hugely on arms?

First, if no serious political change is performed in Arabia, the 20 billion dollars’ worth of weapons would most likely end up in the hands of some kind of an al Qaeda, ruling over not only over Riyadh, but also Mecca and Medina. That package of wealth, religious prestige and modern arms, at this point of spasms in the region, is simply too risky strategically.

But there are better ways to spend these gigantic sums in the global confrontation with Iranian threat and in defense of stability. It needs a newer vision for the region. Here are alternative plans to use the 20 billion dollars wisely but efficiently; but let’s not count on the far reaching mainstream of Western analysis at this point:

Dedicate some significant funds to support the Iranian opposition, both inside the country and overseas. Establish powerful broadcasts in Farsi, Kurdish, Arabic, Azeri and in other ethnic languages directed at the Iranian population. That alone will open a Pandora’s box inside Iran. Realists may find it hard to believe, but supporting the Iranian opposition (which is still to be identified) will pay off much better than AWACS flying over deserts.

Slate substantial sums to be spent in southern Iraq to support the anti-Khomeinist Shiia, the real shield against the forthcoming Pasdaran offensive. Such monies distributed wisely on civil society activists and on open anti-Khomeinist groups, would build a much stronger defense against Ahmedinijad’s ambitions.

Lavish funding should be granted to the Syrian liberal opposition to pressure the Assad regime into backing off from supporting Terrorism. Without a Mukhabarat regime in Damascus, the bridge between Tehran and Hezb’allah would crumble. Hence, the Syrian opposition is much worth being backed in its own home than for Saudi Arabia to fight future networks in its own home.

Allocate ample funding to the units of the Iraqi army that show the most efficiency in cracking down on terrorists, and which prove to be lawful and loyal to a strong central Government, pledging to defend its borders, particularly with regard to Iran. That would include the moderate Sunnis in the center and the Kurdish and other minority forces in the North. A strong multiethnic Iraq, projecting a balance of power with Iran’s regime, is the best option for the Peninsula.

Grant abundant aid to the Lebanese Government, the Cedars Revolution NGOs and the Lebanese Army to enable them to contain Hezb’allah on Lebanese soil. Earmark some of these grants to the Shia opposition to Nasrallah inside his own areas. When Hezb’allah is isolated by Lebanon’s population, Arab moderates around the region can sleep much better at night.

Spend real money on de-radicalization programs inside the Kingdom and across the region. With dollars spent on moderate Imams and not on the radicals, Riyadh can shake off the radical Salafi clerics, and have an impact the Jihadists’ followers. By doing so, it will prevent Jihadism from becoming (as it has already) the only other option on the inside, if the Iranian axis will put pressure on the country.

Forward meaningful sums to support the current Somali Government against the Islamic Courts and help the moderates in Eritrea and Sudan. The best defense against radicalism coming from the horn of Africa is to support the moderates in East of the continent.

Invite the US military to abandon Qatar as a regional base and to relocate to the Eastern provinces of the Kingdom, with as many billions of dollars as required to help in reinstallation and deployment facing Iran’s threat. A military attack by the Iranian regime on Saudi Arabia would then become a direct attack on the United States.

With the remaining billions, the Saudi Government would renew, remodel, and retrain its forces so that along with its allies, the US, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Gulf states, they would deter an Iranian regime, which will be defeated by its own people.

That of course, presumes radical reforms take place, quickly, in the Peninsula. But isn’t such a hope just a desert mirage?

Indeed, the points I suggested in this article, although logical in terms of counter-radicalism strategy, have very little chance of being adopted or even considered in Riyadh. The Kingdom, sadly, wants to confront the Islamic Republic only with classical military deterrence, not with a war of ideas. Which perhaps is why the region’s “friendly” regimes have preferred not to endorse “spreading democracy” as a mean to contain Terrorism. The reason is simple: Democratic culture will also open spaces in their own countries, a matter they haven’t accepted yet.

Dr. Phares is quite rights when he notes that we cannot count on the far reaching mainstream of Western analysis at this point. Why? Because of the unrealistic and failed policies of the Realpolitik practitioners at the State Department. Not only are past Realpolitik policies directly responsible for America’s current imbroglio in Iraq, but their further pursuit will only add dangerous new fuel to the existing problem while creating many more.

It is high time for a drastic change, time to bring in people who are true experts on the Levant’s mentality. People who recognize that what works in the West does not work with IslamoFascism. Not only is there a different mentality at work, the political logic is entirely different, unless we in the West are willing to engage the IslamoFascists onIslamoFasciststhey simply perceive as weakness. Unless we nurture their own opposition within, we cannot hope to stop their growing advance.

While IslamoFascism poses as a religion, it is no such thing!!! It is merely a political idea of world conquest, which adapted some trappings of religion as a convenient disguise. It is absolutely incapable of coexisting with the West, since its underlying philosophy is in direct opposition to the West. The sooner we understand that, the sooner we get rid and bury Realpolitik and its practitioners, the better the chances of stemming the advance of totalitarianism in the form of a future One World Caliphate.

But as Dr. Phares says at the end of his article: Indeed, the points I suggested in this article, although logical in terms of counter-radicalism strategy, have very little chance of being adopted or even considered in Riyadh. The Kingdom, sadly, wants to confront the Islamic Republic only with classical military deterrence, not with a war of ideas. Which perhaps is why the region’s “friendly” regimes have preferred not to endorse “spreading democracy” as a mean to contain Terrorism. The reason is simple: Democratic culture will also open spaces in their own countries, a matter they haven’t accepted yet.Will the West wake up to the looming dangers in time? Riyadh will not likely accept Dr. Phares sensible suggestions. As long as Democrats like Nanci “The most powerful woman in the world” Pelosi continue to cuddle up to the likes of Baby Assad, we are heading the wrong way down the political pike. As long as the House of Saud’s main Consigliere, James Baker, continues to hold sway on America’s foreign policy, neither will the State Department take any action to move away, even one iota, from its bankrupt path and it certainly won’t listen to Dr. Phares’ advice. Will we in the West change our stance and deal with IslamoFascism in the only decisive language they unequivocally understand?



Twenty Billion, Thirty Billion

Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Friday, August 10, 2007

Self-Haters and Artistic Idiots

No, gentle reader, I am not talking about self hating Jews… though there are enough of those. No, I am talking about another breed of self-haters. I am referring to “artists” who in their zeal to be controversial will find moral equivalence where there is none. They will warn us of smaller dangers while ignoring the bigger ones, thus wittingly or unwittingly giving cover to the real terrorists. The Independent featured the following:

We have nothing to fear from al-Qa’ida. Christian fundamentalists are the real extremist threat. That’s the message from the writers of a new play being shown at the Edinburgh International Fringe Festival.

Cash in Christ, a sing-along play satirising the modern capitalist “mega- church”, is arguably one of the most controversial productions in a Fringe with the largest satirical content in living memory.Other offerings this year include Jihad: The Musical, Tony Blair – The Musical, and others centred on the porn film Debbie Does Dallas, orgasms, Asbos and thoughts of BNP members.Cash in Christ is so controversial it had to be passed by three lawyers before it could be performed at a festival in Australia.

The 50-minute show, written by Van Badham and Jonny Berliner, which premieres this weekend, comprises sermons from Christian literature, television programmes and church services. The authors conducted extensive research in America, Australia and online, and also spent three months attending services at London churches, including the Hillsong Church and Holy Trinity Brompton.

The show – pitched as “putting the fun into fundamentalism” – features fundraising evangelical preacher Fanny Comfort and her husband Bob singing songs such as “Christian Rock (Is Cool)” with lines about “guitars exploding like a bomb”.

The writers said that, while there is public discussion about the dangers of radical Islamic groups, the influence of the Christian far right is underestimated. “I’ve been very sensitive to extremists in other religions, particularly Islam, being demonised,” said Badham. “I find the Christian right groups that are enormously powerful in our own culture a larger numerical threat than extreme Islam. They are somehow removed from public criticism, and that is one of the reasons we did the show.

“Bush is from the religious right and he has the bomb; that terrifies me far more than the potential of other extremists to get their hands on nuclear weapons. In the religious right it is the self-appointed moral majority that sets its own rules, and anybody opposing them is labelled unpatriotic and shouted down.”

Badham said the Wisepart/Jews and Communists co-production is entirely fictitious, but reflects wider political concerns. “It terrifies me that a few religious groups were able to cause a furore around Jerry Springer – The Opera in Britain. What I find frightening about the war in Iraq is that Bush and the people around him speak about it as if it’s the crusades again.”

She said that although people they met at church services were kind, she felt their attitudes might foster religious intolerance. “The propaganda is intense. We have been going to these megachurches to be told: ‘Christianity is not a religion. It is the work of God to rescue all of humanity.’ So everybody else can basically get stuffed.”

Gary Clarke, pastor at Hillsong Church, London, said he wouldn’t apologise, but that he might well laugh. “If you can’t laugh at yourself then things have probably become far too serious, and keeping a good sense of humour about things is one of the most important components in having healthy conversations with people from all walks of life,” he said.

I am not a Christian, but the implied moral equivalence does deeply offend me. Extremism of any kind, whether in religion or in a political idea is a veritable danger to society, but there different levels of danger. To imply that “We have nothing to fear from al-Qa’ida. Christian fundamentalists are the real extremist threat” shows the moral bankruptcy and deep intellectual myopia affecting these “artists”. Christianity does indeed have a very bloody past, far less bloody however than does Islam past and present! Christian fundamentalists did not fly planes into the Twin Towers in New York. Christian fundamentalists were not responsible for the Madrid train bombing. Christian fundamentalists did nor riot against French police nightly for over a year. Christian fundamentalists were not guilty of the London subway bombing, nor were the medical personnel arrested in Britain and Australia about a month ago, Christian fundamentalists. Suicide bombers, Sunnis and Shiites killing each other and everything in the way in Iraq are not Christian fundamentalists either. Yet, all these do have something in common… every single one of them is an IslamoFascist. IslamoFascism is a political idea combining the trappings of a religion.

History has amply shown that religion and politics working together are far deadlier than either one on its own. It isn’t Bush and the people around him who are launching a Crusade, it is the IslamoFascists, however, who unleashed terror around the world in an effort to establish a World Caliphate. There are far too many examples for the scope of this article to serve as proof of the idiocy of the Fringe musical’s proposition. Yes, art should make people think, controversy in art is very desirable… but there has to be at least a semblance of truth, at least some intellectual honesty. Lacking both makes a work of art merely a work of propaganda. There is much to criticize about the West, to claim that it is worse than totalitarian IslamoFascism, however, shows self-hatred and self-delusion rather than reasoned thinking. Do the “artists” involved really believe that they could have performed such a play if it were critical of Islam, anywhere in the Muslim world? Even in Europe there would have been massive demonstrations by Muslim groups and personal threats to the “artists” themselves.

It is unbelievable to what length some low talent “artists” will go to get their 15 minutes of fame. Once again, thinking of one’s short term goals has superseded whatever brain power these “artists” may posses…


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Thursday, August 09, 2007

We should respect the eating habits of every religion or culture

In my previous article Muslim Dunkin Donuts - No Pork on my Fork, I warned everyone not to hire or deal with Muslims ever because Islam is inimical to the culture of Western Civilization.

Reader Tom Jones left a comment disagreeing with me [I corrected the spelling to make it easier to read]:
In my opinion it is not racial but religious discrimination. By only sponsoring shops that sell pork they are showing favoritism to religions that allow pork and discrimination against religions that forbid pork and the favoritism amounts to discrimination. As a person who is forbidden pork, I resent the corporate policy. It is not only touching pork but the inhalation of pork fumes from cooking and the pork grease on everything I touch, not to mention making me deal with religious hypocrites who still eat pork and claim they are people of G-d, which is forbidden by my religion, we are not to associate with hypocrites, including the hypocrisy of eating pork as a Jew, Muslim or Christian. It is very offensive that I have been subject to pork eaters in order to get a job. What is it about respect that they do not understand? Or is it that serving Lucifer by eating pork, means that they can not get by without doing it?

I mean really how hard is it not to eat pork for the few hours per day a person is at work or at school? And how hard is it not to sell pork in public places? If people must eat pork they should do it only at home out of respect for others. When I drive by a BBQ and the pork fumes coat me or my car and children it offends me and violates my religion, but some don't want to respect this and that should be a crime. Your hypocritical thinking has forced many a religious person to deny their own faith for fear of losing their livelihood and the USA in particular should make this illegal. This is overdue in my opinion!

Read more here.

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Dealing with Dissent

The featured the following story today:

Iran Muzzles and Executes Dissenters Under Sharia Law

Frenzied shouts of “Allah akbar” (“Allah is great”) accompanied seven Iranians on their death walk Wednesday. Moments later, executioners kicked the stools supporting their weight out from beneath their feet, and cords around their necks cut their fall sickeningly short. Accompanying the victims’ final few spasmodic kicks, the crowd of onlookers and a mullah howled, “Alhamd li-Allah” (“Praise be to Allah”).

The hangings, broadcast live on Iranian public television, were the latest in the state’s crackdown on “hooligans.” The Farsi equivalent of “hooligans” is Tehran’s term for dissenters, activists or troublesome union leaders.

According to Iranian-born journalist Amir Taheri, the public executions ordered by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are part of a terror campaign to clamp down on an increasingly restive population. At least 118 people have been executed since the middle of June, including four who were put to death by stoning.

Amnesty International lists Iran as having one of the highest execution rates in the world, a standing that may soon increase. Iran’s chief Islamic prosecutor reports that 150 more people are scheduled to be hanged and stoned to death over the coming days and weeks. The current wave of executions is Iran’s highest in 23 years.

As part of Iran’s recent crackdown and program of intimidation, over 1 million people have been arrested since April, most for violating Islamic dress codes, including having hairstyles deemed to be too Western. The arrests included 430,000 men and women on charges of drug use, 6,204 on charges on “sexual proximity,” and just within the city of Tehran, 4,209 on charges of hooliganism. Last week, Iranian police raided an underground rock concert and detained more than 200 people.

The wave of arrests has sparked a massive prison boom, as government buildings are being converted into makeshift jails. Still, Ali-Akbar Yassaqi, the head of the National Prisons Service, isn’t sure if the new buildings will prove sufficient.

Though many who are arrested may only spend hours or days incarcerated, Iranian prisons are overflowing. Government statistics show official prison capacity at 50,000, while inmate levels in excess of 150,000 have led Yassaqi to appeal for a moratorium on arrests.

The national crackdown comes as Iran’s leaders attempt to cut Iranians off from outside media and focus attention on international threats and conspiracies.

Over 4,000 Internet sites have been blocked, with more added each day. The national book blacklist is growing too. Over the past four months, 30 newspapers and magazines have been closed, and 17 journalists jailed, two of whom are scheduled to be hung.

Additionally, 40 people have arrested on charges of spying. Iranian propaganda reached a dubious level recently when state-sponsored news agency irna announced that 14 squirrels carrying foreign-agency espionage gear had been captured.

The futility of the West trying to make peace with the radical leaders responsible for this massive wave of arrests and executions should be readily apparent. Ahmadinejad does not want peace; he wants Iranian-enforced Sharia law to cover the world. As Tehran’s leaders consolidate their hold on the country by brute force, expect Iran to become even more forceful in its foreign policy.

The MSM does not even mention this story. It does not deem it important enough. In any case, it might expose the dangers of Ahmedinajad and the Ayatollahs to western readers. What is so terrible about that, you say? Why gentle readers, if people in the West begin to understand the mindset of IslamoFascists, if they perceive these murderous creatures for what they are, we might stop trying to find a diplomatic solution for the problems they’ve created. What would appeasers (read: elite pseudo-intellectual liberals) do if people know the truth? We live in an age that absolutely reflects the words of Al Gore, who said a week ago, that propaganda passes for information these days.

What is or is not considered “news that’s fit to print” is an important part of the propaganda agenda. It is no longer enough for a story to reflect a specific slant, successful propaganda also dictates what inconvenient truths must be ignored. Iran’s putrid little maggot, Ahmedinajad, has a unique and ruthless way of dealing with dissent. If that means trumping up charges that will lead to the dissenter’s death by hanging or stoning… so be it. Not only does it provide good entertainment for the putrid little maggot’s subjects but, more importantly, it instills fear in them thereby perpetuating the dictatorial rule of the IslamoFascists.

The West, however, prefers to talk, to cajole, to persuade with words and is too lazy too rattle a few sabers to knock these bullies down from their high perch. IslamoFascists see Western tactics as weakness, as a sign of spinelessness. The West should stand up while it still can and use the IslamoFascist tactics on the same IslamoFascist leaders espousing them. Not only will that liberate these despots’ subjects from horrible tyrannical rule, but will show the IslamoFascist that we can speak their language just as well… And… when we do, if we show no fear, if we are driven by the unwavering commitment to destroy them, our superior strength will speedily send them to enjoy their 72 virgins, or… was it 72 Virginians?

Iranian policeman tightens the noose on Hossein Kavousifar
in preparation for a public hanging in Tehran, August 2.

(Photo from: The


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Monday, August 06, 2007

Christian Woman Forced To Become A Muslim In Gaza

What religion with any sanity would want a convert by force? Would you truly believe that someone who was forced into a religion really would behold that very same religion? I believe not. There is no credibility to such acts of force, but there is a foundation for such practices in Islam. The Muslims Koran allows for such conversions by force - by the sword.

A Gaza Christian woman was forced to become a Muslim then marry a Muslim man that is a professor at the Palestinian International University.

Hamas-aligned officials at Gaza City’s Palestine International University have been accused of forcibly converting one of their female Christian colleagues to Islam.

Sana al-Sayegh, head of the university’s Science and Technology Department, disappeared in late June, reported WorldNetDaily. Days later she contacted her family and indicated that she was being held against her will and would have to marry a Muslim man who was also a professor at the university.

Another week passed and the family received a conversion certificate stating that their daughter was now a Muslim. One of the witnesses who signed the document was the university president, a known Islamist with strong ties to Hamas.

When the family complained to the Hamas authorities, they were promptly visited by a group of heavily-armed militants who insisted Sayegh’s conversion and marriage had been matters of free will.

Sayegh reportedly returned to work last week, but has not contacted her family. Attempts by the family to contact her new husband have gone unanswered.

Gaza is home to a tiny Christian community of only 2,000, among a Muslim majority of more than one million. When Hamas secured outright control of Gaza in June, the group declared that the area’s Christians would have to submit to strict Islamic law.

Religion of peace? Free will? Not on your life my friends.

Cross posted from The HILL Chronicles

Labels: , , , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Sunday, August 05, 2007

Twenty Billion, Thirty Billion

Dhimmi Watch had the following today:

The Bush Administration announces in the same breath that “over ten years” Israel will receive “$30 billion in weapons,” and that Saudi Arabia will get “$20 billion” in weapons to stave off Iran (over what time period? 10 years, like the Israelis? Or more like a year or two?). And it announces also that, furthermore, a country that is in every way hostile to us, Egypt, will receive “$13 billion” in weapons as a gift.

What shall we say about this? Israel is not only a temporary ally but a permanent ally. It is a permanent part of the West and central to the West’s history, at this point, and must be kept alive not only for our own moral sanity, but also because its disappearance, or reduction to dhimmitudinous despair and reliance on Arab Muslim willingness to allow it to survive would whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites. But this weapons transfer, billed as “$30 billion,” in fact is misleading. Over ten years that amounts to $3 billion a year in weapons aid, which is only one-quarter over the amount now given, and gratefully received. (And need one point out how many advances, in aerospace technology, and in everything from unmanned aircraft to explosives-resistant vehicles that ought to have been, but were not bought, by the Pentagon for use in Iraq, are developed by the Israelis for their, and of course our, use?)

With James “F*** the Jews” Baker and his aparatchicks running the show at Foggy Bottom and Defense did anyone really think the spin would go any different? But… I digress!

Saudi Arabia, per contra, is our enemy. A permanent enemy, because it is a country whose people are suffused with the most uncompromising, violent, and malevolent — for Infidels — version of Islam. For in Saudi Arabia they take their Islam very, very seriously. Saudi Arabia is not worried about an invasion by Iran. Such fears are phony. The whole hysteria, coordinated with Egypt and Jordan, about the “Shi’a crescent” is merely designed to get the Americans to focus only on Iran (and its current accomplice, Syria) and to ignore the much larger threat, outside the local business in Iraq, that Sunni Islam poses to Infidels. It is designed to get them to ignore also that above all other states, Saudi Arabia is the world’s Muslims’ chief financier, paying for mosques, madrasas, propaganda, campaigns of Da’wa, and the buying up of Western hirelings who in the capitals of the West — and certainly in Washington — work to do the Saudi bidding. They work to prevent intelligent understanding of the menace of Jihad and of Islam to our legal and political institutions and to our physical security.

It is absurd to think that the Saudis will master this equipment, but not absurd to think that such weaponry could fall into the hands of Arabs and other Muslims who can master some of it. In any case, the mere possession of such weapons would have to be taken into account by Israeli military planners, and will make their own task even more hellishly difficult, and they don’t deserve to have that outcome. When the United States protested about a sale of aerospace technology, developed by the Israelis, to China, Israel, at great cost to its own fledgling aerospace dreams, promptly cancelled the sale — thereby angering China and permanently damaging any hope of future sales to such a market. But Israel listened and heeded our desires. We, however, or at least this and other American administrations, have not ever heeded Israel’s pleas on the same score.

And what is also bad is the signal to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia should be read the riot act. Saudi Arabia should be told it is not “our ally,” and if it wishes to be defended, it will obviously have to rely, in the end, on us — not on weapons that could fall into hands even more malevolent than the Al-Saud (just as the weapons we sold the Shah, that “pillar of stability” in the Persian Gulf, fell into the clutches of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Thus if these weapons are delivered, we would have to be ready to intervene in order to make sure those weapons were not seized, or transferred, to others. Saudi Arabia was a loyal supporter of the Taliban (and one of only two countries to recognize the Taliban government, besides Pakistan). Saudi Arabia must be forced to stop funding mosques and madrasas, stop funding the hate literature against Infidels that have been found in those mosques and those madrasas, stop funding those campaigns of Da’wa that target prisoners, that target all the psychically and economically marginal.

The Saudis do not now do, and never have done, the United States any favors. We buy their oil at the market price. They have fooled successive American policymakers, who wanted to be fooled. They were helped along in being fooled by so many who, directly or indirectly, at the time or soon after, have been paid off by the Saudis, the government, or its institutions, or rich individuals.

And as long as America’s enemy Number 1, James “F*** the Jews” Baker, continues to both have powerful friends here and continues as the Royal House of Saud’s Consigliere, we will continue to be fooled over and over and over… until the Saudis have attained their goal!

The way to “protect” the Al-Saud and the oilfields is quite different. It is to sell Saudi Arabia an insurance policy. We will guarantee the safety of the rulers and of the oil. It will cost: let’s say $50-100 billion annually. Too much, you say? Well, since Saudi Arabia takes in about one billion dollars a day, and since the rich Saudis have invested a lot overseas, have perhaps a trillion or more socked away, they can certainly afford $50-$100 billion. Okay, how about a little souk-haggling, in that case? Let’s give them a deal — $75 billion a year. How’s that? As long as you agree with the concept, we can at a later date decide just how much we intend to recoup, for the Iraq calamity and squandering of $880 billion, from the fabulous rich Saudis.

As long as James “F*** the Jews” Baker, continues hobnobbing with the powerful here, while continuing as Consigliere for the Royal House of Saud without needing to register as a foreign agent, Saudi Arabia will continue to thumb its nose at us! And as long as that does continues to happen, the half hearted and selective pursuit of the “War on Terror” will merely be little more than a bumper-sticker, albeit a very bloody one.

And what about Egypt? Can it seriously be maintained that Egypt needs those weapons because the army of Shi’a Iran may march right across northern Iraq, and Jordan, and Israel, and march right into Egypt? Really? Or is it possible that Egypt needs those weapons because Iranian troops will be coming up from the Sudan? Or that somehow the Sunnis of Egypt, who are deeply distrustful and intensely dislike the Iranian Shi’a for being non-Arabs and for being Shi’a, would somehow be converted by Shi’a missionaries? And if that were the case, why would giving Egypt the most advanced weaponry help in stopping those missionary efforts?

Egypt has fought four major wars with Israel, and has been responsible for nearly 20,000 separate fedayin attacks in the period 1949-1956 on Israel. It has been, and remains, the most dangerous neighbor Israel has. Egypt does not go to war not because its people have reconciled themselves to Israel’s existence — if anything, they have become since the Sinai handover even more virulent in their officially-sanctioned and officially-promoted hatred of Israel and Zionists and “Jews.” Yet the Administration thinks that giving weapons to Egypt, a country whose poor will not benefit one whit from the airplanes and missiles Egypt will receive, will somehow be accepted by the American people and by Congress, that we will all be unable to see right through this.

The lumped announcement of the one legitimate arms delivery planned — that to our ally and friend Israel — at the same time, in the same breath, with the announcement of the gift of advanced weaponry to Israel’s constant threat Egypt, and the sale of advanced weaponry to the funder of the worldwide Jihad, Saudi Arabia, shows an Administration that is terminally exhausted. It cannot think straight about Islam. It cannot begin to start to think straight about the dangers it is creating for an ally, and for the larger Infidel world. It can’t begin to get a grip and think in terms of the Camp of Infidels and the Camp of Islam, and how to do whatever it takes to weaken the latter and strengthen the former.

Instead, it has swallowed the Sunni Arab line about the need for countering the Shi’a threat (as if there were not, for Infidels, a greater Sunni threat), which means the threat to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and to Bahrain, and among the Shi’a agitating in Lebanon, or those Shi’a minorities in Yemen and Kuwait. And of course they also mean the threat in Iraq, if the Shi’a are permitted to keep their new gains, and the Sunnis to be forced to accept the new order. That is why, just as the Shi’a exiles were the ones who helped inveigle the Bush Administration to go into Iraq, it is now the turn of the Sunnis, to inveigle us — against our own best interests — to stay.

The Administration keeps amazing us with its ignorance and inability to see the whole picture.

And in its list of recipients of the arms, the Bush Administration puts one in mind of the scene in a Woody Allen film, in which he is in at a kiosk in New York telling the newsdealer that “I’d like a copy of The Times Literary Supplement, and The New York Review Books, and The Hudson Review and also Partisan Review and, oh, could you just throw in a copy of Slut.”

Let’s face it, gentle reader, as much as we desperately need oil for our economy to function the Saudis need us at least as much! Who else will defend them from the Iranians? Who can replace us as their main oil customer? If instead of pursuing the failed diktats of James “F*** the Jews” Baker and his boys’ unrealistic Realpolitik, if we were truly serious about the war on terror, if it meant more than a mere slogan, or bumper-sticker, then perhaps we should stop paying the dhimmi’s jyzia tax and stand up to our rightful place! Saudi Arabia certainly has every reason to believe that James “F*** the Jews” Baker is well worth his weight in oil… at least thirty pieces of silver’s worth (plus an allowance for 2000 years of inflation)! But why must we, go along with this involuntary taxation. Perhaps the time has come to tell James “F*** the Jews” Baker and his lapdogs at Foggy Bottom and Defense that it’s time for them to move to Saudi Arabia, where they can happily don kefiyas or hijabs… far away from us!

Publish Post
(from: Cox & Forkum)


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Required Reading for Defeatocrats

Yesterday, Kuwaits’s Arab Times, featured the following opinion by Ahmed Al-Jarallah, the paper’s Editor-in-Chief. For those who advocate we should leave Iraq immediately, for those who claim that cutting and running, before finishing the job, is in the world’s best interest the following written by an Arab newspaper editor, should give them cause to ponder:

Arabs fear a job half done

By Ahmed Al-Jarallah
Editor-in-Chief, the Arab Times

WHEN the United States sent its troops to the region, it had the support of logic. However, America currently finds itself in a crisis for sending its military forces to the land of lost opportunities. At least these are the theories being taught at Brookings and Hoover Institutes, from where several of the neo-conservative strategy experts graduated. This is why the US administration was aware of all the historic events and the nature of the changes in the region since the occupation of Palestine, weakening of the ties of European countries with Arabs and the birth of new ties with the US, effect of the Cold War on some Arab regimes, the era of mutiny, and revolution. Even some Arab leaders don’t know anything about these issues. All the detailed studies on these issues lead us to one important conclusion: the head of the snake is no longer al-Qaeda. Currently it is Iran, which wants to turn the region into a commonwealth that belongs to it.

Under such circumstances naturally the United States wants more information to investigate the new developments. This is why the US Secretary of State, Defense Secretary and several members of the US Congress are visiting the region frequently. This makes us wonder whether the US has yet to complete its diagnosis of the problem and whether it is ready to make a move to achieve its objective.

The first step the United States has to take is make an effort to reassure Arabs, especially its allies who are afraid they will be left alone if the US decides to end its campaign and withdraw its troops from the region. Arabs are afraid because they will be in direct confrontation with people whose minds are rigid and dream about victory in the “Mother of all Battles.”

Arabs are afraid because Saddam continued to torture Iraqis even after the liberation of Kuwait as the Americans didn’t end his regime before ending their military campaign. Moreover Somali militias went out of control as their operations were not ended for good and the Lebanese lived their worst nightmare in the mid Eighties when American and multi national troops left them alone. It is no wonder Arabs are afraid of facing similar nightmares. No one can deny the fact that the US administration committed some mistakes in Iraq. But such mistakes are natural and can be considered small compared to the achievement of liberating Iraq, which is tasting freedom and democracy after 35 years of suppression.

The first Gulf War ended without taking down Saddam Hussein. Thanks for this this is due entirely to traitor par excellence, James Baker, who because of his saving Hussein’s head twice is directly responsible for the current Iraq War and the death and torture of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and American soldiers… Were it not for his powerful friends he should be tried as a war criminal!). The result of leaving Saddam in place was a massacre of Shiites (who were at the time, very sympathetic to the Americans whom they viewed as would be liberators) and Kurds.

And yes, folks there have been grievous mistakes made in Iraq, whether by ineffective military commanders, whether by the civilians representing American administration. On the other hand, there is now a military commander, General Patreus, who rightly sized up the situation on the ground and is slowly but steadily producing the desired results. The possibility of successful results seem to scare to death the “cut and run” party in Congress! As Charles Krauthammer wrote, on this past July 13th:

“The key to turning [Anbar] around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaeda groups on the run.”

– The New York Times, July 8

Finally, after four terribly long years, we know what works. Or what can work. A year ago, a confidential Marine intelligence report declared Anbar province (which comprises about a third of Iraq’s territory) lost to al-Qaeda. Now, in what the Times’s John Burns calls an ” astonishing success,” the tribal sheiks have joined our side and committed large numbers of fighters that, in concert with American and Iraqi forces, have largely driven out al-Qaeda and turned its former stronghold of Ramadi into one of most secure cities in Iraq.

It began with a U.S.-led offensive that killed or wounded more than 200 enemy fighters and captured 600. Most important was the follow-up. Not a retreat back to American bases but the setting up of small posts within the population that, together with the Iraqi national and tribal forces, have brought relative stability to Anbar.

The same has started happening in many of the Sunni areas around Baghdad, including Diyala province — just a year ago considered as lost as Anbar — where, for example, the Sunni insurgent 1920 Revolution Brigades has turned against al-Qaeda and joined the fight on the side of U.S. and Iraqi government forces.

We don’t yet know if this strategy will work in mixed Sunni-Shiite neighborhoods. Nor can we be certain that this cooperation between essentially Sunni tribal forces and an essentially Shiite central government can endure. But what cannot be said — although it is now heard daily in Washington — is that the surge, which is shorthand for Gen. David Petraeus’s new counterinsurgency strategy, has failed. The tragedy is that, just as a working strategy has been found, some Republicans in the Senate have lost heart and want to pull the plug.

Even some Republicans have been so cowered by their Democrat colleagues they are turning against what works. It isn’t just the Reid, Pelosi and Co. crowd, some Republicans are themselves Defeatocrats who refuse to consider the facts on the ground and are looking forward to defeat.

[…]A month ago, Petraeus was asked whether we could still win in Iraq. The general, who had recently attended two memorial services for soldiers lost under his command, replied that if he thought he could not succeed he would not be risking the life of a single soldier.

Just this week, Petraeus said that the one thing he needs more than anything else is time. To cut off Petraeus’s plan just as it is beginning — the last surge troops arrived only last month — on the assumption that we cannot succeed is to declare Petraeus either deluded or dishonorable. Deluded in that, as the best-positioned American in Baghdad, he still believes we can succeed. Or dishonorable in pretending to believe in victory and sending soldiers to die in what he really knows is an already failed strategy.

That’s the logic of the wobbly Republicans’ position. But rather than lay it on Petraeus, they prefer to lay it on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and point out his government’s inability to meet the required political “benchmarks.” As a longtime critic of the Maliki government, I agree that it has proved itself incapable of passing laws important for long-term national reconciliation.

But first comes the short term. And right now we have the chance to continue to isolate al-Qaeda and, province by province, deny it the Sunni sea in which it swims. A year ago, it appeared that the only way to win back the Sunnis and neutralize the extremists was with great national compacts about oil and power sharing. But Anbar has unexpectedly shown that even without these constitutional settlements, the insurgency can be neutralized and al-Qaeda defeated at the local and provincial levels with a new and robust counterinsurgency strategy.

The costs are heartbreakingly high — increased American casualties as the enemy is engaged and spectacular suicide bombings designed to terrify Iraqis and demoralize Americans. But the stakes are extremely high as well.

In the long run, agreements on oil, federalism and de-Baathification are crucial for stabilizing Iraq. But their absence at this moment is not a reason to give up in despair, now that we finally have a counterinsurgency strategy in place that is showing success against the one enemy — al-Qaeda — that both critics and supporters of the war maintain must be fought everywhere and at all cost

So why are Defeatocrats so deathly afraid of letting General Patreus show us if indeed he’s capable of finishing the job he started? The following will present us with the real reason for to their infatuation with defeat (H/T: Yid with Lid)

The Good News is Bad News It’s tough being a member of Congress. Even if you’re in the majority, as is Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, you never know when your ears may be assaulted by outrageous and offensive ideas.

Like what? At a recent hearing of the Armed Services Committee, retired Gen. Jack Keane said “progress is being made” by U.S. military forces in Iraq; “We are on the offensive and we have the momentum,” he added. The freshman congresswoman was so distressed by these remarks that she got up and she walked out.

There was “only so much” she could take, she explained, so she “had to leave the room…after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.” She said she was worried, too, that General Keane’s remarks “will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country.” Hey, that could happen!

What the good Representative from Kansas is so upset about, is not that it might “further divide this country,” what she’s really afraid of is that any evidence that this administration’s plans may have a chance of success might result in the Defeatocrats being dumped into the trashbin of American Congressional history by the very voters that brought them into power. Defeatocrats, like Representative Boyda, have shown themselves as caring little or nothing about the country as a whole. Instead they have focused on a very narrow but loud constituency whose understanding of events betrays their sheep like mentality, their total ignorance of current and historical events… and extreme mental laziness to boot. If General Patreus is allowed to succeed, Boyda and her cohorts are in for a heap of political trouble!

So, coming back to Ahmed Al-Jarallah’s opinion piece:

As a society, which suffered sectarian disputes, Iraq needed rehabilitation. If the United States were to withdraw its troops now, Iraq will suffer even more and create a fertile environment for the birth of thousands of clones of Saddam. We know some Iraqis want the Americans get out of their country. But we also know a huge segment of the Iraqi society wants the US troops to stay because they are scared of being left alone. The United States is aware that Iraq is the cornerstone of the Middle East which links three continents. What America needs at the moment is an experienced surgeon who can handle this historic operation in the Middle East by removing the tumor, which is the cause of all troubles.

Experienced surgeons usually don’t negotiate when it comes to dangerous tumors which are a risk to the stability, security and economic future of this vital region.

Arabs know Arabs best, they share the culture, the hopes and the ideals. It would behoove the Defeatocrats in both parties to heed the words of those Arabs who have consistently shown they share America’s ideas and values of freedom and lasting peace by destroying the enemy of both, through swift, unavoidably surgically precise actions. To cut and run may bring a few weeks of calm at best, but whether those few weeks come to fruition or not, the result of cutting and running will be the emboldening of terrorism, the betrayal of and the subsequent distrust by those we set out to help. More importantly and definitely worse, it will bring terrorism back to our very own shores!

(Cartoon by Chuck Asay as it appeared on August 1, 2007


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Friday, August 03, 2007

Veering Right, Veering Left

As European Leftists are starting to slide to the right, the American ones are moving further left. From the Wall Street Opinion Journal:

In Europe, reforms are in vogue. Though many special interests are fiercely resisting change, it is striking to see just how many European Social Democrats have come to recognize the need for structural reforms to welfare states.

Witness Gerhard Schröder, the center-left former chancellor of Germany: in 2003, he called for a “change of mentality” in his own party, the SPD, as well as in German society as a whole. “Much will have to be changed to keep our welfare and social security at least at its current level,” he added, as he argued in favor of reforms that would trim entitlements, and cut taxes. The chairman of the SPD, Franz Müntefering, supported Mr. Schroeder by saying that “we believe that things must be rearranged and restarted in Germany in this decade.” Not long thereafter, Mr., Schroeder took the lead in making German labor laws more flexible.

In France, Socialist former prime minister Lionel Jospin shocked the left several years ago: When asked on TV what he was going to do to help laid-off factory workers beyond the public assistance already on the books, he said that “the state cannot do everything.” It was not so much the truth of the statement that came as a shock; it was that a leader of the French left would say it so candidly. Throughout his tenure, Mr. Jospin privatized numerous state-owned companies, including Air France, even as he criticized capitalism.

Labour former British prime minister Tony Blair became famous for his “Third Way” philosophy, which he said moved “beyond an old left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests.”

And in Italy, on July 20, center-left prime minister Romano Prodi announced a deal raising the retirement age to 61 from 57. Though the deal was a somewhat watered-down version of the pension reform plan originally passed by his center-right predecessor, Silvio Berlusconi, it shows that the Italian left is aware that structural reforms are urgently needed.

In many countries the left has been willing to discard or, at the very least, publicly reconsider old big-government approaches in order to reinvigorate economic growth and general prosperity.

In the United States, by contrast, those most committed to the welfare state tend to talk about trimming entitlements the least. This is particularly true of politicians aspiring to the highest office of the land.

Yet the statistics–affirmed by center-left and center-right experts alike–are unequivocal. The United States is facing a tremendous fiscal shortfall in the decades ahead. In addition to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid will have to be dealt with. The total entitlement shortfall is expected to surpass $50 trillion, and there are no politically easy solutions.

Under reasonable calculations of higher spending, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product will rise to 35% in 2050 from about 20% today to pay for the additional entitlement spending. But that is excluding state and local spending, which takes up about 11% of GDP.

Thus, under a reasonable scenario, by 2050, the federal, state and local governments in the U.S. will spend 46% of GDP, not that far from what France spends today (54%).

To avoid getting there, benefits for entitlement recipients may have to be trimmed, contributions of wealthy retirees to certain programs may have to rise, private Social Security accounts could be permitted, and benefits may have to be dependent on one’s income or total assets. There are many possible pieces of a comprehensive solution, yet they are not being discussed in political circles.

Europeans are starting to realize that the upwards spiraling cost of entitlements is threatening to eventually make everyone dependent. Not only will this stifle the economy, it will hurt even those most in need of these government entitlements. But are leftard American politicians looking ahead and seeing the danger? No! In seeking popularity with easy sounding solutions they propose that which will bring them votes while destroying the very economy that is expected to pay for those entitlements.

Far from tackling the looming fiscal crisis, presidential candidates are busy marketing expensive new plans to voters. The health-care plan of John Edwards would “cost the federal government some $120 billion a year,” $1.2 trillion over a 10-year period, for the foreseeable future. And that’s not including $15 billion a year in proposed antipoverty measures. No word on how the existing entitlement shortfall will be dealt with.

Similarly, Sen. Barack Obama’s health-care proposals would cost “$65 billion a year,” roughly $650 billion over a 10-year period, “though other health experts think it would be higher.” No credible word yet on how the existing entitlement shortfall can be managed.

There is another problem: Estimates of new entitlement programs inevitably understate the actual cost, either for political reasons (to ease passage) or out of innocent miscalculations, as happened with Medicare. In 1966, its first year of existence, Medicare cost $3 billion a year: the House Ways and Means Committee predicted it would cost $12 billion in 1990, taking inflation into account. But instead of costing $12 billion in 1990, Medicare cost $107 billion. And it is set to cost $488 billion in fiscal 2008.

Or consider the new prescription drug benefit for seniors, estimated to cost about roughly $1 trillion from 2007 to 2016: the costs of that program are set to rise significantly thereafter as more baby-boomers retire. Originally, the White House estimated the plan to cost $400 billion over a 10-year period; it ended up costing substantially more.

While proposals for new entitlements may be politically easy, they are fiscally reckless. Candidates who promise expansive new entitlement spending are effectively writing checks the American economy cannot cash. They will take us to the place where Europe is today: a place where existing entitlements are unaffordable. Yet what matters is not so much the specific measures being considered, but the broader mindset from which they originate. It is in this context that comparing the European political mindset to the American political mindset is useful.

In 2005, the liberal Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby criticized the opposition of many Democrats to the possibility of investing in private Social Security accounts by saying that “a party that refuses to acknowledge the urgency of entitlement reform is a party of ostriches.” He’s right–and the label applies to many leaders in both parties.

Presidential candidates ought to learn from Europe’s lessons. Even if it is politically painful, we should not race to the place that Europe is trying to get away from.

Popular sounding plans may garner votes, but those very same voters will be the most affected when the economy is plunged into another depression like we had in the late 20s. Ideally the government would help everyone, in real life or anywhere outside the Twilight Zone there are limitations to what a government can or should do.

Government, among its many duties, has to perform a very hard juggling act. It must stimulate the economy while still managing to pay for certain things like defense, police, basic services and entitlements to the sick, poor and those temporarily unemployed. The balance is very delicate, almost any shift in either direction can cause the juggler to drop the items juggled. When one considers that excessive taxation stifles production, causes the loss of jobs and increases the dependency on those entitlements, then its time to rethink the process and realize as France’s former Socialist Prime Minister, Lionel Jospin, did. When asked on TV what he was going to do to help laid-off factory workers beyond the public assistance already on the books, he said that “the state cannot do everything.” Those words shocked Europe for their candidness, they came from the mouth of a politician who throughout his tenure… privatized numerous state-owned companies, including Air France, even as he criticized capitalism.

This trend where European Leftists are starting to lean towards the right manifests itself not only in the economic policies but also on the war on terror as Yid With Lid points out, he quotes an article from the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research

A senior government official, discussing the possibility of using targeted killings, combatant detentions and aggressive computer surveillance to fight terrorism, recently said: “The old categories no longer apply. The fight against international terrorism cannot be mastered by the classic methods of the police. . . . We have to clarify whether our constitutional state is sufficient for confronting the new threats.”Bold, controversial stuff–the sort of comments that human rights groups have come to expect from Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice-president, and Alberto Gonzales, attorney-general. Except that the speaker was neither man. He was not even American. He was the German interior minister, Wolfgang Schauble, speaking recently to Der Spiegel.

Mr. Schauble’s ideas have a long way to go before being adopted. But the very fact that a European leader can float them is remarkable. For six years, Europeans have criticised America’s “military” approach to the detention and trial of terrorists as inconsistent with western rule-of-law traditions and international law, and Americans have derided Europe’s stuck-in-the-past “law enforcement” approach as inadequate to thwart Islamist terrorism. Mr. Schauble’s comments are one of a growing string of implicit acknowledgments by both sides about the possible virtues in the other’s positions.

European governments, for example, have begun to recognise that the traditional criminal process of trial and punishment will not suffice for dealing with Islamist terrorists. Mr. Schauble raised the possibility of treating them “as combatants” and interning them. Last week Gordon Brown’s government proposed doubling the time from 28 to 56 days for detaining suspected terrorists without charge, a period that had been doubled from 14 days just last year. Spain and France already permit up to four years of pre-trial detention for terror suspects.

The shift reflects the recognition that terrorist plots take more time to investigate. The evidence is often thin or uncertain, not necessarily because there is no plot, but because the plot must be thwarted early before the evidence fully develops for fear of letting it come too close to fruition. Terror investigations also typically involve evidence trails in other countries that require the co-operation of other governments. Beyond this, sometimes the government simply lacks enough evidence to convict a terrorist even though clear evidence shows that the terrorist is a danger to society. The rationale for detention–prevention of possible future harm to society–is the same as traditional non-criminal detentions for the mentally incompetent and people with infectious diseases.

Detentions are not the only area where Europeans are acknowledging possible merits in U.S. counter-terrorism positions. They also believe more and more that the Geneva conventions system designed for interstate warfare between professional state militaries is inadequate for 21st century warfare against lethal non-state military forces that structure their operations to flout the laws of war. This year the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons urged the government to recognise that the Geneva conventions “lack clarity and are out of date,” and to “update the conventions in a way that deals more satisfactorily with asymmetric warfare, with international terrorism, with the status of irregular combatants, and with the treatment of detainees.” The special rapporteur on Guantanamo for the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe made a similar recommendation last year.

And yet…

The U.S. is moving in the other direction. For a while the Bush administration has acknowledged the inadequacy of its early post-September 11, 2001, position that terrorist detainees had few enforceable legal rights. While the U.S. still maintains the power to detain enemy combatants under a war powers rubric, it has ramped up the procedures for determining who is an enemy combatant and made these determinations subject to judicial review by civilian courts. And there is a growing consensus across party lines for even more elaborate procedures before an alleged terrorist can be detained without trial.

The U.S. has also established a separate process for determining when detainees are no longer dangerous and can thus be let go–a process that has resulted in the release or transfer of hundreds of detainees from Guantanamo. And after the Supreme Court invalidated the Bush administration’s initial effort at military commissions, the U.S. Congress created one that provides nearly all traditional civilian court protections, including judicial review in the Supreme Court. These detention and trial institutions provide alleged terrorists with rights far beyond anything contemplated by the Geneva conventions.

As Yid With Lid, himself, so aptly puts it:

Polls taken immediately after 9/11 showed that Americans were willing to sacrifice some personal liberties to make sure we win the war on terror. And we did just that–with programs such as the “warrentless wiretap program” and others. But little by little as there were no follow-up terror attack on our soil, we began to feel safe. Americans began to listen to the PC Police and the ACLU types in the Democratic party, “no profiling, no wiretapping, it has nothing to do with Islam” and my personal favorite “the war on terror is just a bumper sticker”

During the same period Europe has been the site of many terrorist attacks, they are moving into the position the US used to be and are making “cowboy-type” statements that they used to ridicule President Bush for making.

The question before Americans is, as Europe becomes a tougher target for the Islamofacists, do we want to continue to be an easier target?

Will America emulate that which Europe is struggling to get away from, or will it realizes the disastrous folly of its ways? As Europe, the bastion of enlightenment and socialism, is starting to wake to the stark realities of the world we live in and acknowledging that the American system does have its advantages, isn’t it ironic that the American left is trying so hard to destroy those advantages and expose this country to unnecessary danger and a downward sliding economy?


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!


Jihadi Du Jour is actively looking for contributors who are concerned about America's future and are willing to research and post about the fight against Islamic Jihad. If you are interested email us at






Guests: Stan Smith | Leonard Magruder | Random Thoughts @ TROP | Brigitte Gabriel | Annaqed The Critic | Miss Kelly | CENTCOM

Courtesy of Gabrielle--download and use freely

Blogroll Buzz! | Sponsored Buzz!

Featured video

And Blip.TV

Most wanted