Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Muslim Women Slaves in Denial

Iranian woman beaten for not wearing veilIranian woman beaten for not wearing veil (click on image for more photos).

Denial is a defense mechanism for those who, when faced with a fact that is too painful to accept, reject it outright and insist that it cannot be true despite overwhelming evidence. This is most plainly seen among those of the Muslim faith. I will for a moment ignore the vile Muslim practice of willful deceit or al Taqiyya such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statement yesterday, "If the US withdraws from Iraq, good things will happen. I believe that the Iraqi people can rule themselves." The Iranian President isn't in denial; he doesn't believe this any more than he believes in the Holocaust. Liberals, however, who believe his statement are, in fact, in denial.

A Muslim female reader left this response to my article The Subjugation of Jewish Women:

This is the most racist site i've ever seen! Muslim women wear hijab because they want to be seen as a person not a sex object! Another thing muslim women get a quarter of the inherittence because in islam the husband has to pay all the bills and barely has anything for himself. the wife can do whatever she wants with her money and doesn't have to get near the bills unless she wants too. your a racist bigot with a head full of shit, at least muslims don't massacer innocent children and infants! maybe you should actully ask a muslim if you have questions! Don't just swallow the garbage the media gives you! go to a masjid and you'll see that women get better treatment than men!

Read the rest here.

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Monday, September 24, 2007

Peace doesn't come through withdrawal

Arabs will not decrease violence to allow Israel for honorary withdrawal from the West Bank. Just like the Jewish fighters haunted the British in Palestine in 1947, Arabs will continue killing Jews even though Israel evacuates Gaza and the West Bank. Diplomats like Peres cannot understand why Arabs keep on killing Jews even in the face of diplomatic surrender. Simple: Arabs correctly view their victory as the product of fighting rather than diplomacy. Add their hatred of Jewish occupiers. Arabs will continue killing the Jews until the last Jew leaves their land – which is not limited to the West Bank. The peace process only prompts the Arabs to kill the retreating enemy. Arab mujahedeen similarly flocked to Afghanistan after the Soviets announced their withdrawal.

The Golan Heights show how simple the peace process really is. The hotly contested Golan are the safest part of Israel. No terrorists cross from Syria. Sneaking through the hapless peacekeepers is not a big deal. The desire to confront Israel is there: recall a constant stream of guerrillas from Egypt during cease-fire. Syria has the necessary prerequisites for guerrilla warfare with Israel: strong intelligence, zealots, small arms, and Hezbollah and Hamas expertise. Yet Syria refrains from launching guerrillas into Israel. Syria fears Israeli reprisals. Israel attacked Syrian aircraft on several occasions during cease-fire, and overall proved capable and willing to take the war into Syria. Thus, Syria distances itself from guerrilla activity.

IDF mapped hundreds of buildings used by Hamas, PIJ, Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, and other factions. Aggressively destroying them will go a long toward pacifying the terrorist nest.

Extraverted and passionate Arabs recall Azeris rather than Muslim mountaineers. Eager to establish their social stance but unable to do so by rational means, Arabs resort to heated arguments, bullying, and spontaneous violence. They are not quiet, thorough, and dispassionate killers like mountaineer Muslims. Arabs fight fiercely at first only, and only for short time. Countered with cruel force or ignored, they cease. Concessions – mini-victories – prop their pride and push to continue. Counter-intuitive as that may sound, concessions lead to no peace. Historically, too, peace negotiations between nations commenced near the war' end. Negotiations during the war embolden aggressor and suggest him to persist in violence.

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Thursday, September 20, 2007

The Mujahedin and Jimmy Carter

David Drake has the following on his blog today:

Carter and Brzezinski Funded Islamic Terrorists

The Left is so fond of trotting out the photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983The Left is so fond of blaming Ronald Reagan’s Administration of providing aid to the Mujahadeen. But years before to those two instances occurred, then-President Jimmy Carter and his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, secretly funded Islamic terrorists beginning in 1979.

This is not some conspiracy theory from the Right-Wingers. These are the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski himself:

Source: Global

    Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser
    Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
    Posted at 15 October 2001

    Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [”From the Shadows”], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

    B. Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

    Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

    B: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

    Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?

    B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire

    Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

    B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war? [Notice he really doesn’t answer the question - Drake]

    Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

    B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn’t a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

“We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.”

“…we knowingly increased the probability that they would.”

“There isn’t a global Islam.”

“Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.”

Well, Christians aren’t demanding that non-Christians convert or die, are they?

Whew - Brzezinski is certainly either detached from reality or spinning answers to downplay just how badly their covert operation ultimately affected the U.S. and the rest of the world two decades later. Nor did this scheme by Carter and Brzezinski do anything to help Carter win a second term; huh - interesting isn’t it? Not really.

I don’t know that you can tie a war between Russia and Afghanistan, clandestinely instigated by Carter, Brzezinski and the CIA, to the ultimate breakup of the Soviet empire. This alone is not the reason for the breakup of the Soviet Union. There were several other factors contributing to it, perhaps the largest factor being the state of the Russian economy.

Another factor contributing to the disillusionment of the Russian State is, without a doubt, the October 1986 Ronald Reagan - Mikhail Gorbachev summit held at Reykjavik, Iceland The Carter-Brzezinski plan may have, in some small way, set the stage for what was to happen. But its certainty can only be answered with a “maybe”, and it’s difficult to qualify and quantify a “maybe”.

Giving Russia “its own Vietnam”, coupled with Carter’s lack of support for the Shah of Iran, certainly didn’t help promote or foster any goodwill between Muslims and Western countries.

Had Carter and Brzezinski’s “secret plan” been concocted and implemented under a Republican Administration, somehow I think that Democrats and Liberals would make a big deal out of it - and rightly so - as a defining moment in U.S. policy failure that set the stage for the uprising of Islamic sponsored terrorism.

The cynicism is appalling, but such is politics. It does, however, show that those who blindly hate Bush for the death he brought on with Iraq War should really put the blame squarely on the shoulders where it belongs… Jimmy Carter. The fact they don’t merely makes it obvious what ignorant blind sheep, the left are. The follow the diktats of arrogant windbags , a la Chomsky, who made hatred of America fashionable.

Even if Carter had a noble intent in bringing Russian Communism to its knees (rather doubtful, given some of his own words and policies), neither he nor Brzezinski bothered to analyze the long term effects of their policies… Hence today’s Islamic threat to the West, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the rise of Salafism throughout Africa and Europe can be layed at the feet of these two idiots who wittingly or unwittingly greatly contributed to the conflagrations facing the world today. “There isn’t a global Islam.” Indeed, Zbigniew your brilliant and blatant disregard for the facts is either the product of political blindness or untruth! Ah, but there is global Zionism and global Christianity and they are the real threats to the West, right Jimmy?!?!?

And yet, Jimmy, America’s most globally derided president in his time, is a hero to the Left who blame Bush for the policies started by their peanut brained champion! It is a measure of an individual’s knowledge, a measure of the person’s character, a measure of one’s probity who he or she looks up to and follows. I tremble for America and the West…


Crossposted at: Freedom's Cost

Labels: , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Radical Islam, Europe and More

Extremist Islam is very vocal throughout Europe, Asia, Australia and other places, in spite of not being mainstream Islam. It also attracts a fair amount of converts, what is the attraction? Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty featured the following interview on the subject:

Islam: Radicalism In Europe Reflects ‘Spiritual Void’

Germany - Federal policemen lead off an alleged terror suspect (2-R) at the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in Karlsruhe, 05Sep2007
What makes converts to Islam, such as two of the suspects recently arrested in Germany, so susceptible to radicalism?

September 16, 2007 (RFE/RL) — The recent arrest in Vienna of three alleged Al-Qaeda sympathizers — all Austrian citizens — has again raised concerns across Europe about the threat posed by homegrown Islamic extremists.

Edwin Bakker, head of the Netherlands Institute of International Relations and an expert on the subject, spoke with RFE/RL correspondent Valentinas Mite about the threat of Islamist terrorism in Europe and about why some Europeans choose to convert to radical Islam.

RFE/RL: There are millions of Muslims in Europe who have either migrated to the continent or are the children of earlier migrants. In their overwhelming majority, they have no connection to extremism. But a few appear to be turning to radical brands of Islam. Who are they?

Edwin Bakker: [They are] youngsters who are attracted to a very strict interpretation of Islam, a very militant Islam, partly as a consequence of discrimination, their backward socioeconomic position, but most of all by their search for identity. They are in Europe. They are very much integrated — they speak Dutch, Danish, German or whatever [is] the language of their country, but they are not accepted as Dutch, Danish, German, etc. So many of them are seeking a new identity as being a Muslim, not a Moroccan, not a Turk or whatever. They go and look for material on the Internet and they find this very radical and very appealing Salafi stream of Islam, which is very strict, very extreme.

RFE/RL: The problem of religious radicalism does not seem to exist among other immigrant groups, like the Chinese or Vietnamese communities. What makes people with Islamic roots potentially more radical than other migrants?

Bakker: There is this idea in the air, there is this hype, there is this 9/11 appeal to youngsters; this ideology is there. And it is not the case for China. If you are Chinese in Europe, you still can be proud to be from China. China does not have this perception [that a] crusade [is being waged] against China or this perception of a fight. These Muslims identify themselves as Muslims and then they identify themselves as victims of aggression against Muslims, for instance in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq. So this identity is linked to identifying with [perceived] fights against Islam.

RFE/RL: But Iranians living in Europe, who are Muslims, seem to integrate well in European society and generally have not isolated themselves as much as people coming from the Middle East or Pakistan. Why is there such a difference?

Bakker: The Iranians who came to Europe are mostly highly educated. So there are many professors, doctors among them. And that is how they integrated better. They integrated into their new communities, communities of scholars, communities [of other professionals], and so on. And their numbers are a little bit smaller so they cannot organize themselves in such close-knit communities. There is also a big difference between Iranians and other [Muslims in Europe], Moroccans and Turks, for example. Most Moroccans [although they live] in Europe [tend to] marry somebody from their [home] village. Iranians marry either Iranians who also fled to Europe or they marry local [Europeans].

RFE/RL: How can you explain the fact that some Europeans by origin are converting to radical brands of militant Islam? Can we speak about some tendencies in this case?

Bakker: We have good contacts with, for instance, local police working in troublesome neighborhoods [in the Netherlands], so they see the same problem among Muslims but also among non-Muslims. This is a sense of [lack] of identity, purpose [in life] — these kind of things. I think that this holds [true] for many Western European countries.

There are also quite a number of women, actually, who convert to Islam. It’s of course something new. It is an underdog religion, so it has an appeal to some people, who are attracted by such a religion, that is so much bashed and therefore perhaps more interesting to them.

RFE/RL: What trends in Islam do converts usually choose?

Bakker: I studied [the cases] of all those [Muslims] who have been arrested and have been convicted of terrorism in Europe and about 5 or 6 percent are converts. Actually, many groups have at least one or two converts among them. In general, there is a problem with converts in that they want to overcompensate for the fact that they are new to a community. They want to be “holier than the pope.” And this is a general phenomenon with radicals or with converts.

RFE/RL: But radicals make up only a very small part of all Muslims. Why don’t more European converts choose mainstream Islam?

Bakker: Because they are new to the religion, they are very susceptible to very radical interpretations. They don’t know the other interpretations. So if you are new to Islam, you are not familiar with the fact that Islam is a very complicated religion, that it has a lot of different approaches. And if you are in the hands of the Salafi — this very fundamental, traditional, puritan group — you have no checks and balances, and there is nobody who would tell you, “But that’s not true.” So you are falling into the hands of the most radical views or radical preachers. So being new to religion also does not give you the mind-set and the knowledge to resist very extreme views.

Disenchantment, low self esteem, and vulnerability are the perfect personality ingredients that Salafists look for in potential converts. By bringing these individuals into a highly disciplined environment, by forcing strict rules of conduct upon those who heretofore had little purpose to their lives, these individuals are given a much craved for sense of belonging and self worth. Such recruits then become as, or more, fanatical than their mentors. What do they get for their troubles? Most are considered fully expendable by the extremists they’ve joined, mere instruments in the furtherance of the group’s agenda. CNN has an article on that very expendability, as evidenced in the case of an idealistic foreign fighter for Al-Qaeda in Iraq:

Failed suicide bomber turns on al Qaeda

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — Ahmad al Shayea is the rarest of truck bombers — he survived his suicide mission in Iraq even though the blast from his bomb was strong enough to kill 12 bystanders.

Ahmad al Shayea survived his truck bomb attack, but not without scarring to his face and hands.

Al Shayea, who was disfigured during the attack, claims al Qaeda tricked him into becoming a bomber by asking him to deliver a tanker truck, which they had rigged with a bomb.

“They told me to take it to an address in Baghdad. As soon as I got there the truck exploded,” said the native of Saudi Arabia. He survived by jumping out of the truck.

Al Shayea renounced terrorism and returned to Saudi Arabia, where he works to convince would-be insurgents and terrorists to give up their deadly ways.

“I think God took me out of death to show others what can happen,” he told CNN. “If you join al Qaeda, they will use you, and maybe you will die.” Video Hear why al Shayea turned his back on al Qaeda »

Al Qaeda propaganda videos glorify so-called foreign fighters in Iraq like al Shayea. It has recruited them from countries all across the Middle East.

Some Iraqi officials say more Saudis than any other nationality have responded to al Qaeda’s call. Saudi officials and the U.S. military deny that claim. But Saudi sources do admit that more than 800 young Saudis have gone to Iraq to fight. That’s far more than the Saudi government has acknowledged until now.

Since 9/11, when 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis, the oil rich kingdom has been accused of spreading radicalism. It’s a claim that stings this longtime U.S. ally, which also finds itself in al Qaeda’s cross hairs.

So now, Saudi officials say they are escalating their fight against homegrown al Qaeda militants. Former insurgents and terrorists like al Shayea are their chief weapon in the battle for the hearts and minds of young Saudis.

“The reality behind it is the religious misunderstanding of Islam, so we have to correct the ideas,” said Dr. Turki Al-Otayan, a psychologist.

Al Shayea and hundreds of other Saudis who were aligned with terrorists are being re-educated in prisons and rehabilitation centers. They are taught that al Qaeda’s emphasis on a violent approach to Islam is wrong.

The program offers early release from prison. It’s available only to captured jihadis who demonstrate a willingness to change over the course of repeated interviews with specialists. Al Shayea said he was questioned by security forces, then clerics, then psychologists.

“They looked at my mood, listened to me. They were nice,” he adds.

Al-Otayan said the review is thorough.

“We make sure he understands dialogue. We make sure he is not just lying. So it is not an easy job I can assure you,” he said.

The Saudi government says more than 1,000 former al Qaeda recruits have been through the program. Seven hundred of them are now free. Critics, mainly from the country’s security forces, fear mistakes could allow some al Qaeda fighters back on the street.

A native of Saudi Arabia, al Shayea was just 19 when he went to Iraq to fight for al Qaeda against American forces. He was angered, he said, by scenes of U.S. troops killings his fellow Muslims.

“I went to Iraq with Saudi men because jihad is a duty for every Muslim,” he said. “I went to Iraq to fight the jihad and kill Americans.”

He was hoping to take up arms against Americans, but said he never envisioned himself as a suicide bomber. After his truck bomb exploded, al Shayea was captured and paraded on Iraqi TV. Burned and bandaged, he was blamed for the death of 12 bystanders. He confessed.

Iraqi security officials deported him to Saudi Arabia. Today, with the backing of the Saudi government, al Shayea gets his anti-al Qaeda message out on fliers that include pictures of him before and after his bombing. He has become the anti-Al Qaeda example.

“I learned my lesson, and others will learn as well,” he said.

It is one thing to take someone, however misguided, who is ready and willing to become a suicide bomber and another very different one to dupe someone into becoming a suicide bomber. The manipulation of the individual is repulsive in both cases! To take an unwitting recruit and send him to a certain death and then claim and praise him as someone who “willingly” gave his life for Allah, shows that these extremists, these hate filled barbarians, not only have contempt for the life of their target(s), but for the life of their own recruits as well. Such cynicism, such disregard for human life, is totally incompatible with the mores of the Western world and yet The Brussels Journal tells us:

The EU Wants to Increase Muslim Immigration and Internet Censorship

A few months ago, the EU’s Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini worried about what to do with illegal immigration. To no-one’s surprise, he appears to have settled for surrendering and making it legal. The skilled glossocrat Frattini has already banned the use of the phrase Islamic terrorism: “You cannot use the term ‘Islamic terrorism,’” he insisted. “People who commit suicide attacks or criminal activities on behalf of religion, Islamic religion or other religion, they abuse the name of this religion.” He now thinks we shouldn’t use the word “immigration,” either, we should talk about “mobility.” Moreover, the “Asian” and “African” immigrants in this case generally come from the predominantly Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, with some additional ones from Pakistan and similar nations. The EU has thus decided to flood Europe with tens of millions of Muslims, at the same time as peaceful Europeans demonstrating against the Islamization of Europe were brutally harassed by the police in the EU capital of Brussels.

In the future, the next time Islamic Jihad terrorists, I mean mobile workers enriching us with their presence when they are not abusing Islam, massacre scores of Europeans, the EU will assure us that they did everything in their power to stop this, and then they will continue facilitating the Islamization of the continent as if nothing has happened. The sensible option would be to point out that we had no Muslim terrorism in Western Europe before we had Muslim immigration. The key to ending Muslim terrorism should then logically be to end and preferably reverse Muslim immigration. The EU’s solution to this is to continue and even increase Muslim immigration while stopping web searches for the word “bomb.” The scary part is that once the infrastructure and principle of Internet censorship has become firmly established, it could be widened to include other kinds of illegal or unwanted activities, for instance “racist” and “xenophobic” websites criticizing Islam or mass immigration. And make no mistake about it: They will do so. They are probably planning this as we speak.

Notice how EU officials announce sweeping and potentially irreversible changes, proclaim that they are “inevitable” and that we may just as well adapt and get used to it. Resistance is futile. This is a lie and it always has been. The entire European Union has been created by such lies, repeated year after year. The gradual destruction of formerly independent nation states was carefully planned and executed, and the introduction of mass immigration from non-Western countries has been and still is a crucial component of this plan. Notice how Frattini specifically singles out Italy, which has so far received less immigration than many other countries in Western Europe, for attention. He also mentions Hungary, one of the newer EU members from the former Communist bloc, meaning that these countries, too, are now supposed to receive a dose of Multicultural diversity, whether they like it or not. The purpose of this immigration, not just between European countries but from Muslim and non-EU countries as well, is to dilute and destroy the established nation states and their culture, until the natives in the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Britain, Spain etc. are too weak and demoralized to resist the creation of a pan-European superstate. Opposition to this policy should be banned as racism and hate speech.

Muslim immigration is destabilizing the entire European continent. Since the EU, which should more properly be called the anti-European Union, is facilitating this, the continued existence of the EU now constitutes a mortal threat to the very survival of European civilization. Every day the EU exists brings Europe one step closer to the grave.

EU told to accept 20m migrant workers
The Financial Times, 12 September

Europe must relax its immigration controls and open the door to an extra 20m workers during the next two decades, the European Union’s justice chief will say on Friday. Franco Frattini, justice commissioner, is to tell the bloc’s immigration ministers in Lisbon that the EU should stop erecting barriers and instead build safe pathways for Africans and Asians who risk their lives heading to the continent to find a job. “We have to look at immigration not as a threat but – when well-managed, and that is our new task – as an enrichment and as an inescapable phenomenon of today’s world,” he will say. He will suggest the word immigration should be dropped in favour of “mobility”. Germany, Italy and Hungary, with their ageing populations, are most in need of immigrants. The reforms could lead to a more than doubling of the EU’s foreign-born population by 2030.[…]

I guess that in the great humanitarian mind of EU’s Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini, the only way to solve a problem is to aggravate it! Such idiocy stems from arrogance, the elitist arrogance of Socialists who still persist in appeasing, appeasing, appeasing. Somehow they are so enamored of their bankrupt, disproved ideas that they believe that once these IslamoFascists experience enlightened Europe, they will change their ways and quickly integrate. It hasn’t happened, it will not happen!

These European Union politicians seem to ascribe to their followers a code of conduct as that exemplified by the Age of Chivalry in Medieval times, but without the religious or the honor aspect. It hardly worked then, the Arthurian legends notwithstanding, It is even more unlikely to work now especially with people who despise the West, with people to whom nothing is sacred as long as a despicable maneuver furthers their goal. But… this arrogant socialist elitism running the EU is blindly leading Europe and the West towards a bloody war whose outcome is dreadfully uncertain…


Crossposted at: Freddom's Cost

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Monday, September 17, 2007

Amateur Experts or Professional Fools?

Thomas Sowell writes at

Sometimes I feel as if I must be one of the few people left in America who is not a military expert.

For example, all sorts of politicians have been talking about all sorts of ways we ought to “redeploy” our troops. The closest I ever came to deploying troops was marching a company of Marines to the mess hall for chow.

But people who have never even put on a uniform are confident that they know how our troops should be redeployed. Maybe this is one of the fruits of the “self-esteem” that is taught in our schools instead of education.

The biggest flurry of amateur military pronouncements occurred just before General David Petraeus testified before Congress on the situation in Iraq. Many Democrats publicly dismissed what he said before he said it, and some implied that he was a liar before he opened his mouth.

The real problem is that many Democrats have bet the rent money on an American defeat in Iraq, and without that defeat they could find themselves in big trouble in the 2008 elections.

Politically, the Democrats are caught between Iraq and a hard place. Their left-wing base has been angrily pressing them to cut off financial support for the war in Iraq but Congressional Democrats dare not outrage the rest of the country by doing that.

Leaders of the Democrats in Congress have already tried various ways of sabotaging the war effort, with arbitrary timetables for withdrawal and financing the war for only short periods, so that President Bush would be forced to pull out American troops and could then be blamed for the defeat.

But that hasn’t worked either because not enough Democrats in Congress are willing to risk political suicide by obstructing the military in ways too blatant to pass muster with the public.

Regardless of one’s feelings about the righteousness or ilegality of the current Iraq War, the fact remains that once we are already fighting it we must succeed for the sake of the Iraqis themselves, for the sake of the Middle East as a whole, for the sake of world peace and for America’s sake. Any idiot, who even attempts to use whatever grey matter resides in his/her cranium, knows that you do not announce to the enemy the date when you plan to stop fighting regardless of consequences. War, like any fight, depends on the element of surprise if the enemy is to be vanquished. What then does the current debate suggest that the Democrats want? It is certainly obvious by now, their greatest dread is a for the US to succeed in propping up the Iraqi national forces to allow them to take over. Were such success visible, it would be the death knell of the Democrat Party, their hopes would be dashed for 2008 and far beyond.

The next best thing politically for the Democrats is to say that the situation is hopeless. The last thing they need to hear is that there is now some progress in Iraq.

Not only is General Petraeus reporting progress, so have a couple of Brookings Institution scholars who have studied the situation in Iraq — and who are liberal Democrats who had worked for Senator Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004.

Progress does not mean inevitable victory, much less quick victory. Nor is it easy to define what “victory” would mean in the messy circumstances of Iraq.

One of most realistic of all the insightful statements by General Petraeus was that “We are not going to kill our way” out of the problems in Iraq.

There has never been a moment when anyone in Congress, the White House, or the military has ever advocated anything other than getting out when the time is right.

All the arguments, the rhetoric, and the shouting is about when is the time right.

Nobody thinks American troops have to stay in Iraq until the last terrorist is killed or driven out of the country. It is a question of reaching the point where the Iraqis themselves can deal with the terrorist and other problems of their country without American troops.

That is the direction in which the Iraqis seem to be moving already. It is not that we have “won the hearts and minds” of the Iraqi people.

The foreign terrorists — whom our media still insist on calling “insurgents” — have turned both Sunnis and Shi’ites against them with their barbaric attacks on innocent civilians.

You cannot be an “insurgent” in somebody else’s country by killing the people of that country.

Those who warn that Iraq could be “another Vietnam” need to get their history straight about Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government continued to defend itself against military invasion from the north after American troops withdrew.

Only after congressional politicians pulled the rug out from under them by cutting off financial aid, while their enemies were still receiving financial aid from other countries, did South Vietnam fall to the invaders.

Only similar congressional sabotage, in response to similar left-wing supporters, can make Iraq another Vietnam.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen’s Guide to the Economy

The MSM and the interests who pull its leash should have the courage of their convictions and stop the inane platitudes to disguise their real intentions. There was a time when I proudly proclaimed my membership in the Democrat Party, instead today it was taken over by a new breed, a breed who cares little for America, a breed who cares little for the free world, but expends all its effort in trying to perpetuate themselves in power. The personal attacks on General Petraeus are, thus, political in nature. When you can not destroy the other guy’s arguments, you destroy that other guy instead through lies, innuendos and all types of of insinuations which no bearing or relation to the facts.

These politicians are realizing they embraced the wrong cause or, at least, they attacked the war the wrong way, they went too far. They let their fantasies take over their intellect. Now they must choose between keeping their place in Congress or betraying the country. Alas, they chose betrayal!

These politicians are not “amateur experts.” Even an “amateur expert” knows when he/she is pursuing a failing policy. They are opportunists of the worst kind, who just got trapped by their own game. The sheep who blindly support them without the slightest understanding of the circumstances, without looking at the long term consequences of these policies are merely fools, yet brilliantly professional in their idiocy!


Crossposted at Freedom's Cost

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

An Easier way to Rape Women

schoolgirls burned in Saudi fire - lack of headscarves

I read this story over a week ago about the Saudi Religious Police demanding that the authorities of Medina, one of Islam's holiest cities, build separate sidewalks for women. I didn't bother blogging about it because it was just another instance of Islamic misogyny and it didn't have the same impact as when the same Religious Police beat back those poor schoolgirls into a burning school in Mecca, because they were not wearing headscarves and abayas in March 11, 2002. 15 girls died and 50 were injured as a result of this barbaric, primitive, and savage devotion to a fake religion.


Here's the sidewalk story:

RIA Novosti,
31 Aug 2007,
Saudi Arabian religious police call for sex-segregated sidewalks

The country's Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (CPVPV), tasked with enforcing Sharia law, believes men and women should not be allowed to mix on the streets of the Islam's second holiest place, where the Prophet Muhammad is buried.

The clerical police, or Mutaween, are authorized to arrest unrelated men and women caught socializing, anyone suspected of being homosexual or a prostitute, and to enforce Islamic dress codes.

The Mutaween enforce Islamic female dress codes, ordering women to wear headscarves and abayas, long black dresses covering the whole body except for face, hands and feet. Women are not allowed to leave their houses without their husbands or immediate male relatives.

Saudi women are also not allowed to ride a bicycle or drive a car, because if the vehicle breaks down, a woman might have to talk to an unknown male.

Read the rest here.

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Jerry Lewis sorry for gay slur

Jerry Lewis annual telethon for muscular dystrophy - click for article on 2006 telethon

Comedian Jerry Lewis on Tuesday apologized (see video) for using the word "fag" as he broadcast his annual Labor Day Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy which, by the way, raised a record $63.8 million in pledges and contributions.

He made a sincere apology and that settles the matter for me. What does bother me is the reaction of GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation):

Jerry Lewis apologizes for saying gay slur

Giuliano said GLAAD was requesting a meeting with the comedian, who has done the Labor Day telethon for 42 years.

"We want to sit down with him, help him understand why these words are so hurtful, and give him an opportunity to raise public awareness about the destructive impact of these kinds of anti-gay slurs, even more so in attempted humor," he said in his statement.

Read the rest here.

Labels: , , , ,

Socialize this! Personalize this! Radicalize this!

Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Oliver Stone to film life of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

oliver stone

Last month they called each other names: Iran's president rejected an offer from director Oliver Stone to make a movie about him saying "It is right that this person is considered part of the opposition in the U.S. but opposition in the U.S. is a part of the Great Satan." Stone bristled back, "I wish the Iranian people well and only hope their experience with an inept, rigid ideologue president goes better than ours." Oh, snap!

But they seem to have patched up their differences:

Iran president has "no objection" to Stone film

Ahmadinejad told a news conference: "I have no objection, generally speaking, but they have to let me know what are the frameworks. They should talk to my colleagues ... Principally speaking, I have no objection."

Stone has made movies voicing the frustration of the Vietnam War generation and in May revealed a political advertisement calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, a demand Ahmadinejad regularly makes.

Ahmadinejad, the son of a blacksmith, rose through the ranks of Iran's ideologically driven Revolutionary Guards, became mayor of Tehran and swept to the presidency in 2005 pledging to share out Iran's oil wealth more fairly.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appearing at 'The World Without Zionism' conference Oct. 26, 2005

Read more here.

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