Thursday, August 31, 2006

Pity The Poor Media

As widely anticipated hurricane Ernesto disaster failed to materialize, media networks are growing increasingly frustrated with the Bush Administration's handling of everything. "I prepared a perfectly credible report on the connection between hurricanes, Global Warming, racism, and Prescott Bush," says devastated CNN newsman Lou Dobbs. "What am I to do now? Report on how Karl Rove's weather machine stopped the hurricane to help Republicans win elections and lower oil prices? Uhm... gotta write that down."

War is it or not

Observing the events of today—the hesitation and uncertainty, the stubborn clinging to the fantasy that the enemy can be appeased if we just keep talking and find the right diplomatic solution—I now feel that, for the first time, I really understand the leaders of the 1930s. Their illusion that Hitler could be appeased has always seemed, in historical hindsight, to be such a willful evasion of the facts that I have never grasped how it was possible for those men to deceive themselves. But I can now see how they clung to their evasions because they could not imagine anything worse than a return to the mass slaughter of the First World War. They wanted to believe that something, anything could prevent a return to war. What they refused to imagine is that, in trying to avoid the horrors of the previous war, they were allowing Hitler to unleash the much greater horrors of a new war.
Today's leaders and commentators have less excuse. The "horror" they are afraid of repeating is the insurgency we're fighting in Iraq—a war whose cost in lives, dollars, and resolve is among the smallest America has ever had to pay. And it takes no great feat of imagination to project how much more horrible the coming conflict will be if we wait on events long enough for Iran to arm itself with nuclear technology. Among the horrific consequences is the specter of a new Holocaust, courtesy of an Iranian nuclear bomb.

The First Action Of The U.S. Civil War II?

The Leftist hatred for the military, Right Wing and war against Islam comes to its logical conclusion in the beating of a soldier.

This could be the beginning of another civil war.

The Study Of Revenge

Rated five stars by Ronbo.

"The Study of Revenge" blog has been deleted and I'm wondering if the Islamists had a hand in it. I know they did get Google to label it a "hate" website.


That durst dislike his reign, and me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power oppos'd
In dubious Battel on the Plains of Heav'n,
And shook his throne.
What though the field be lost?
All is not lost; the unconquerable Will,
And study of revenge,
immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield:
And what is else not to be overcome?

Wake Up America! We Are Under Attack!

The Hizballah attack on Israel is NOT just another local conflict between Jews and Muslims, as some would have us believe. It is part of a far larger, long term, Islamic jihad against America and the West. Radical Islam is now attacking America and the West via the Hizballah assault on Israel. This attack is a deliberate escalation in their global jihad that must be recognized for the increased danger it poses. Any setback for Israel is viewed by radical Islam as a successful campaign against the democratic West. We need to recognize this new situation and revise our strategies quickly. It is also overdue to strengthen our relationship with Israel in our own interest....


Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Disarm, Or Die !!!!

Force Conversions To Islam

Forced conversions in Islamic history are not exceptional—they have been the norm, across three continents—Asia, Africa, and Europe—for over 13 centuries. Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties—Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi’ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India. Moreover, during jihad—even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century [i.e., the jihad genocide of the Armenians during World War I, the Moplah jihad in Southern India [1921], the jihad against the Assyrians of Iraq [early 1930s], the jihads against the Chinese of Indonesia and the Christian Ibo of southern Nigeria in the 1960s, and the jihad against the Christians and Animists of the southern Sudan from 1983 to 2001], the (dubious) concept of “no compulsion” (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters “confessional”!), has always been meaningless. A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the “Dar al Islam”, where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children, were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased. Two enduring and important mechanisms for this conversion were concubinage and the slave militias—practices still evident in the contemporary jihad waged by the Arab Muslim Khartoum government against the southern Sudanese Christians and Animists. And Julia Duin reported in early 2002 that murderous jihad terror campaigns—including, prominently, forced conversions to Islam—continued to be waged against the Christians of Indonesia’s Moluccan Islands.
Given this enduring (and ignoble) historical legacy, it remains to be seen whether contemporary Muslim religious authorities—particularly those within Palestinian society, and affiliated with Hamas or Fatah—will condemn publicly the forced conversions of the kidnapped Fox reporters. Moreover, will they be joined by a chorus of authoritative voices representing the entire Muslim clerical hierarchy—Sunni and Shi’ite alike—from Mecca and Cairo, Qom and Najaf, to the Muslim advocacy groups in the West (such as CAIR in the United States, and the Muslim Council of Britain in England)—unanimous in their condemnation of this hideous practice, and formalized by a fatwa stating as much? Will such Muslim authorities at least recognize the acute predicament of Centanni and Wiig by issuing a fatwa stating that their “conversion”, being under duress, was not bona fide, condemning in advance any Muslim who might now attack these journalists for “apostasy” from Islam?
But remember: "There is no compulsion"

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Reasons To Go To War Against Iran

NYT: Pluto Crisis Editon

Muslim Mothers

Bush's B-2 Flights Over Tehran for "Peaceful Purposes"

By Scott Ott, Editor-in-Chief,
News Fairly Unbalanced.
We Report. You Decipher.

Just hours after Iran opened a new plant capable of making plutonium “for peaceful purposes”, U.S. President George Bush assured his Iranian counterpart that any B-2 bombers that appear over Tehran in the near future would also serve peaceful purposes.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cut the ribbon on the new heavy-water nuclear plant Saturday as part of a month-long Iranian tribute to the effectiveness of the United Nations.

Mr. Bush hailed Iran’s “transparent diplomacy” and said, “I called President Ahmadinejad today to congratulate him, and I told him that if he happens to notice one of them Stealth bombers going over his town at about 600 miles per hour, he can be assured that the pilot has only the best intentions in his heart for world peace.”

“There’s nothing like the B-2 when it comes to giving peace a chance,” Mr. Bush added.

URL to article:

Friday, August 25, 2006

Majority Public Opinion In Britain Turns Against Islam

The alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners and last year's terrorist attacks on London have made more people fear Islam as a religion, not merely its extremist elements, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.

A growing number of people fear that the country faces "a Muslim problem" and more than half of the respondents to the YouGov survey said that Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy. That compares with less than a third after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America five years ago.

The findings were revealed as Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, conceded that the multi-culturalist approach encouraged by the Left for two decades had probably been a mistake and could have contributed to the alienation that many young Muslims said they felt and experienced.

Thus "Axis of Liberty" -- The Grand Alliance of the USA, UK, Australia and Israel is coming together as public opinion shifts to a hard anti-Islam direction that seeks confrontation. Next on the agenda is the election to office of hardline leaders who will lead the Allied war effort into its next logical stage, which is war against Syria and Iran. The day of the limited war led by Blair, Bush and Olmert is nearly over: Appeasement, half steps and negotiations with evil never work and should never have been attempted in the first place.

So let us, good men and women who fight for The Right, hoist up the Black Flag against Islam and make this our song as we march into battle:

Tom Petty
I Won’t Back Down

Well I wont back down, no I wont back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I wont back down
Gonna stand my ground, wont be turned around
And Ill keep this world from draggin me down
Gonna stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby, there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down.
Well I know whats right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down
No, I wont back down

Evil: Thy Name Are The Mainstream Media (MSM)

A warning to the MSM

Observing the mainstream media’s (MSM) behavior during the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, I was struck by the number of biblical sayings that are applicable to their treacherous ways. Here are just a few examples:

Their throats are open graves;Their tongues practice deceit. (Psalm 5:9)
The poison of vipers is on their lips. (Psalm 140:3)
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. (Psalm 14:1)
There is no one [MSM outlet] that does good,Not even one. (Psalm 53:1)
Ruin and misery mark their ways. (Isaiah 59:7)
They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. (Romans 1:29)
There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Psalm 36:1)
Referring to fallen human nature we all can benefit from an earnest contemplation of these maxims, but the mainstream media especially should pay heed in this serious hour. Respect for God and truth would be a good first step toward redemption from the lies and deception they have been so shamelessly perpetrating all these years. Evidence is mounting that their sins are catching up with them fast. They would do well to repent and change their wicked ways before they meet with the higher judgment and/or lose most of their audience.

The Muslim Persecution Of Lina Joy Of Malaysia

A leading Malaysian civil rights lawyer, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, who is Muslim, has advocated for Lina Joy, a Malay who converted from Islam to Christianity and now wants to marry. Under Malaysian law, ethnic Malays are Muslim, and need permission from an Islamic court to marry. Those challenging this contention have received death threats.

The persecution of Lina Joy
By Michelle Malkin ·
August 25, 2006
The last time I visited the subject, an ex-Muslim man's life was at stake in Afghanistan. Remember Abdul Rahman? Now, meet Lina Joy. Like Rahman, she was born Muslim, converted to Christianity, and is facing death threats for abandoning Islam. She wants to marry a fellow Christian man in her native Malaysia. A Muslim legal advocate for Joy, Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, also faces death threats for defending her in a case that has reached the highest court in their country. The Wall Street Journal and NYTimes both spotlight her plight today. WSJ summarizes:

An American Muslim (spit!) Protests....

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Today Israel. Tomorrow America.

The United States of America has six million Muslims.

All Muslims are required to take part in Jihad (Holy War) against the Infidel (non-Muslims) if they are physical fit.

If only 10% of American Muslims are Jihadists, the number is 600,000.

If only 10% of these work up the courage to become suicide bombers, the number is 60,000.

How many innocent Americans may be killed by 60,000 suicide bombers, if each kills ten Americans each?


600,000 American coffins covered by Old Glory. 600,000 families ripped apart by the death of a beloved father, mother, sister,brother, aunt, uncle, son, or daughter....600,000 dead.

Today Israel. Tomorrow America.

When In India eat at the Adolf Hitler restaurant

The "Hitler's Cross?"

More like the "Hitler's Double Cross."

Anyhow, its very popular with the Muslims, I understand, for obvious reasons.

It's like if "The Producers" opened an eatery

By Krittivas MukherjeeMon Aug 21, 8:43 AM ET

A new restaurant in India's financial hub, named after Adolf Hitler and promoted with posters showing the German leader and Nazi swastikas, has infuriated the country's small Jewish community.

'Hitler's Cross', which opened last week, serves up a wide range of continental fare and a big helping of controversy, thanks to a name the owners say they chose to stand out among hundreds of Mumbai eateries.

"We wanted to be different. This is one name that will stay in people's minds," owner Punit Shablok told Reuters.

"We are not promoting Hitler. But we want to tell people we are different in the way he was different."

But India's remaining Jews -- most migrated to Israel and the West over the years -- say they are outraged by the gimmick.

"This signifies a severe lack of awareness of the agony of millions of Jews caused by one man," said Jonathan Solomon, chairman of the Indian Jewish Federation, the community's umbrella organization.

"We are going to stop this deification of Hitler," he said without elaborating.

The small restaurant, its interior done out in the Nazi colors of red, white and black, also has a lounge for smoking the exotic Indian water pipe or "hookah."

Posters line the road leading up to it, featuring a red swastika carved in the name of the eatery.

One slogan reads: "From Small Bites to Mega Joys."

A huge portrait of a stern-looking Fuehrer greets visitors at the door. The cross in the restaurant's name refers to the swastika that symbolized the Nazi regime.

"This place is not about wars or crimes, but where people come to relax and enjoy a meal," said restaurant manager Fatima Kabani, adding that they were planning to turn the eatery's name into a brand with more branches in Mumbai.

The swastika has its roots in ancient Indian Hindu tradition and remains a sacred symbol for Hindus. Nazi theorists appropriated it to bolster their central hypothesis of the Aryan origins of the German people.

Internet Junkies: Help for your addiction is here at last!

"Hello, everyone, my name is Chen, and I'm an Internet addict."

"Hello, Chen."

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - Mainland China has opened its first halfway house for Internet addicts, offering shell-shocked teenagers counselling, books -- and the use of computers.
The shelter can hold four minors for one-night stays and help bridge gaps between children and parents, the Shanghai Daily said. "None of the teenagers are forced to come here," the newspaper quoted Wang Hui, the house's chief social worker, as saying. "We wander around in nearby Internet bars at night and bring them to the halfway house if the teen agrees."
Computer and online gaming has exploded in China in recent years, with an estimated 14 million people taking part. Amid growing concern that more and more young people are getting hooked, China has issued a raft of regulations aimed at curbing excessive game playing at Internet cafes and heavily fining owners that admit minors.
The Shanghai shelter, modeled on one already in operation Hong Kong, took in the first three boys on Monday, the paper said, including Chen Jiafeng -- a 17-year-old "fed up with the depressive atmosphere" of his family. Chen went home after talking with a psychologist for four hours and after social workers visited his family to discuss proper parent-child communications, the paper said.
In May, the parents of a 13-year-old boy who killed himself after playing a computer game for 36 hours sued the game's Chinese distributor.

The New Nazis On The March!

Ahmadinejad and company must have gotten a chuckle out of the brouhaha over the August 22 date selected by Iran for its official reply to a UN Resolution. It turned out to be much ado about nothing, didn't it? A simple head-fake made some pundits trip over their own feet.

The Truth About Muhammad

The Truth?


You can't stand to be told the TRUTH!

The Hidden Imam Chickens Out

No doubt because of a vast Zionist-Yankee conspiracy!

Mohammad Skyhook: "I say this is yet another vast Zionist Conspiracy!"

The Jews are NOT the problem.

It's the Muslims.....

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Of Animals And Muslims

Projection: The Psychological Disorder of Islam

I have long noticed, as have many other Americans, that the Muslims frequently charge the West, in particular the USA and Israel, of doing things they themselves do.
One of the most outrageous example of this is the failure to accept Muslim responsibilty for the attacks on the USA on 9/11. This despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary and a video taped confession by the Muslim leader of the attack, Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless, Muslims often charge that the events of September 11, 2001 were the work of the Jews, or the work of the Bush Administration working with the Jews.
This is the psychological disorder known as "Projection" in which a person projects on to another individual his own feelings, thoughts, desires, plans and even criminal nature. For instance, a thief in order to justify and rationalize his criminal nature may tell himself, "So what if I'm a thief? Everyone steals."
Please read the transcript & watch the video on a typical Muslim rant against Israel and the USA:
Then read the article on psychological projection.
Thus armed with this knowledge, understand the baseless charges leveled against Israel and the USA by the Muslims are a statement of the truth of the Muslim religion; a type of confession to the effect that Islam is indeed the cult of violence, tyranny and world conquest.
So when Naim Qassem states this obvious lie:
"I was looking for a suitable description for George Bush. I came up with two descriptions: either Hitler of the 21st century or the number one international criminal. He's nothing but a pharaoh who thinks the world can be run by force, and he does not realize that nations have feelings and concerns."
He is in reality making a confession of the many parallels in Islam with Nazism, the many connection of Islam with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 40s and his admiration for Adolf Hitler.
Excellent video of the Nazi-Muslim connection:

Islamic Fascists?

Islamic Fascists?
What’s in a name?
By Chuck Colson
Monday, August 21, 2006
Shortly after British authorities announced that they had foiled a plot to bomb transcontinental flights, President Bush called it a “stark reminder” that the United States is “at war with Islamic fascists.”
The president’s comments triggered a series of responses. The Saudi government rejected even the possibility of Islamic fascism. A spokesman for King Abdullah said that “what Islam is being charged with today, such as fascism, is primarily the result of Western cultural heritage.”
Closer to home, American liberals, of course, called it politically incorrect to say this. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, suggested that expressions like “Islamic fascists” might inadvertently “start a religious war against Islam and Muslims.” It complained that the expression “attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals...”

If I didn’t know better, I would have thought that CAIR was kidding. The expression “Islamic fascism” is used in order to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and the perpetrators of terrorism. It serves also to make a point that our enemy isn’t Islam itself, but a particular kind of Islam that perpetrates terrorism and tyranny. These are the distinctions that groups like CAIR ought to be supporting.

That still leaves the question: Is it right to call the bin Ladens of the world “Islamic fascists”? The answer is “yes.” The president was right on.

As Stephen Morris of Johns Hopkins recently wrote, fascism’s goal is to “achieve national greatness” through totalitarian control of both political and social life; it seeks to create an empire; and it “aspires to re-create a mythical past.”

Sound familiar? It should. What was true of Germany and Italy in the 1930s and ’40s is also true of groups like Iran, al-Qaeda, and millions of Islamic radicals today.

Countries like Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban are and were undeniably totalitarian. All aspects of life, not just politics, are subject to strict ideological control.

Nor can radical Islam’s imperial ambitions be denied. Iran, al-Qaeda, and even Hamas talk about an Islamic empire stretching from India to the Iberian peninsula. What Morris says about aspiring to “re-create a mythical past” is evident in bin Laden’s continuing references to the “tragedy of Andalusia” and Hamas’s demands for the return of Seville. The Iranians take it a step further and see themselves as ushering in a messianic age.

The fascist influence on today’s Islamic terrorists is made crystal clear in the book In the Shade of the Koran written by an Egyptian radical named Sayyid Qutb and widely read today by jihadists all over the world. Qutb was profoundly influenced by the same anti-Semitic liberal intellectuals in Europe who shaped Hitler’s demonic vision. Though Qutb was executed, his teachings profoundly influenced Osama bin Laden.

Today’s Islamic fascists share with their Nazi counterparts violence and intimidation as their tactics. And now, as in World War II, free people of all faiths must oppose them. But wisdom begins with a willingness to learn from history and call things by their proper name, which is precisely what the president did.

For further reading and information:

William Shawcross, “Yes, the Problem Is ‘Islamic Fascism’,” Jerusalem Post, 14 August 2006.
Stephen J. Morris, “It Is Islamic Fascism,” The Australian, 14 August 2006.
David Ignatius, “Are We Fighting ‘Islamic Fascists’?” Washington Post, 18 August 2006,

Thank You, O Great Religion Of Peace!!!!!!

Amanpour: Bin Laden still deadly relevant

Ex-CIA official says cleric sets cap of 10 million U.S. deaths

By Christiane Amanpour

Where The Hell Are The Missing Fox Journalists?

Why the mainstream Media silence?

We know why.

They work for a conservative news Media.


Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Point of No Return?

August 22, 2006
Point of No Return?
It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.
Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred.
Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.
The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work.
Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by "trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such concessions that might have worked in other times and places.
Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.
There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves.
Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in general for their own lagging position.
Hitler was able to rouse similar resentments and fanaticism in Germany under conditions not nearly as dire as those in most Middle East countries today. The proof of similar demagogic success in the Middle East is all around.
What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?
These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons. And what of ourselves?
Do we understand that the world will never be the same after hate-filled fanatics gain the ability to wipe whole American cities off the face of the earth? Do we still imagine that they can be bought off, as Israel was urged to buy them off with "land for peace" -- a peace that has proved to be wholly illusory?
Even ruthless conquerors of the past, from Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, wanted some tangible gains for themselves or their nations -- land, wealth, dominion. What Middle East fanatics want is the destruction and humiliation of the west.
Their treatment of hostages, some of whom have been humanitarians serving the people of the Middle East, shows that what the terrorists want is to inflict the maximum pain and psychic anguish on their victims before killing them.
Once these fanatics have nuclear weapons, those victims can include you, your children and your children's children.
The terrorists need not start out by wiping our cities off the map. Chances are they would first want to force us to humiliate ourselves in whatever ways their sadistic imaginations could conceive, out of fear of their nuclear weapons.
After we, or our children and grandchildren, find ourselves living at the mercy of people with no mercy, what will future generations think of us, that we let this happen because we wanted to placate "world opinion" by not acting "unilaterally"?
We are fast approaching the point of no return.

Smile Moozlams: You're on candid camera!

ČTV documentary angers Muslims

Critics cite hidden camera in mosque, biased editing

By Brandon SwansonStaff Writer, The Prague Post
March 01, 2006

Jiří Ovečka stands by his choice to use the secretly filmed footage.

A Czech Television (ČTV) documentary is threatening to raise tensions within the country's Muslim population to a level not seen here during weeks of recent global unrest over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad.

Ambassadors to the Czech Republic from Arab nations and members of the Czech Muslim community say they are outraged by a documentary aired on ČTV last fall that used hidden camera footage of conversations in a Prague mosque and spliced it — they say unfairly — with images of terrorism.

"The reaction is usually immediate, while in this case it took a month for any reaction to appear and two months for it to grow," says Jiří Ovečka, the documentary's producer. "It was the same with the Muhammad cartoons."

Protests came just weeks after dozens of European publications, including several in the Czech Republic, printed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad — considered blasphemous in Islam. Riots over the cartoons in the Muslim world resulted in more than 100 deaths.

In its own way, the cartoon controversy rekindled anger over the documentary.
The Council of Arabic Ambassadors to Prague is now renewing its protest about the undercover footage first aired Oct. 7 in the documentary I, Muslim on the public station ČT2.

Members of the Muslim community first filed a complaint with the Czech Radio and Television Broadcasting Council (RRTV) that month, claiming the program is biased, provokes fear and manipulates footage to promote false stereotypes.

"It was made in a confrontational style," says Vladimír Sáňka, head of the Islamic Center in Prague. "We see it as a one-sided documentary, which evokes a distorted look at Islam in the eyes of the Czech public."

RRTV spokesman Petr Bartoš says the complaint is on the RRTV's agenda, but it has yet to debate the issue. If found guilty, ČTV would face a fine of up to 10 million Kč ($416,000).

ČTV declined to comment, saying it is waiting for the RRTV to rule.

What it is: Czech Television airs a documentary called I, Muslim, showing undercover footage of Muslims inside a Prague mosque

Why it was done: According to the producer, to learn what the "true, real stance" of Czech Muslims on Islamization of the Czech Republic
The reaction: The Council of Arabic Ambassador condemns the program, calling it a deliberate attempt to distort the truth
Where it stands: The Czech Radio and Television Broadcasting Council has yet to decide on the issue. It can fine Čzech Television up to 10 million Kč ($416,000)

Hidden feelings

The footage in I, Muslim shows a reporter pretending to be someone interested in converting to Islam. He conducts several conversations with members of the mosque, located in Černý Most, about Islam, Europe, terrorism and the role of women.

Ovečka says he stands behind his choice to use the hidden camera footage.
"I wanted to get real opinions of the local Muslim community on the issue — find out what the differences are between Czech and foreign Islam," he says.

One Muslim in the documentary compares Islamic terrorists to Jan Palach, the Czech student who committed suicide by setting himself on fire in protest of the 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Another says Islamic law should be implemented in the Czech Republic, including the death penalty for adultery, Ovečka says.

"I have to say with 100 percent certainty that by using hidden camera I have learned things that I would never have learned otherwise," he says. "The result was alarming, and if not for the hidden camera, I would have never had any of this footage."

Skewed view

The documentary's editing is drawing the most criticism.

Marek Čaněk, a project coordinator with the Prague Multicultural Center, says the documentary was edited in such a way that it fed into pre-existing xenophobia.

Opponents of the documentary cite its footage of the mosque, intercut with images of terrorist attacks, without any proven connection between the two.
They also say the use of a hidden camera makes it seem as though such discussions in mosques are secretive, when in fact anyone can film inside a mosque with permission.
"I consider it a scandal that it has been produced and broadcast by public television," Čaněk says. "It fits in the general frame of fear of Islam and Muslims coming to us from other parts of Europe. People are afraid without knowing what exactly they fear."
Ovečka says that any xenophobia the documentary created was not the result of anything he did.
"It's like this: During official shooting they were peaceful, nice," he says. "Hidden camera footage showed something else — aversion, hatred toward Europe, the entire world, and a mild attitude toward terrorism."
History of bias
Czech public television is "marred by excessive politicization," according to an independent report released by the European Union Monitoring and Advocacy Program (EUMAP) Feb. 20.
Eva Rybková, the EUMAP reporter for the Czech Republic, says she has not seen the I, Muslim program, but did say that the station has faced several cases of sanctions for biased reporting in the past.
"ČTV editors are aware of what impartial and balanced news content should look like, and it tries to give space to both sides of the dispute," she says. "But this doesn't mean that ČTV broadcasts were never biased."
Rybková says the situation has improved since the protests against managerial changes at the station in 2001 and the arrival of new general director Jiří Janeček in July 2003, but she adds that there is still the need to distinguish ČTV from its commercial counterparts.
"The content on ČTV is still the station's attempt to compete with commercial stations," she says.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Britain And The Town Square Test

A young colleague of ours recently went for a walk in central Oxford, England – almost literally in the town square. She was not, initially, intending to apply Sharansky's town square test but that's how it turned out. Whether Britain passed or not is still in doubt. Judge for yourselves. Here is her account, which she has adapted from three posts on her personal blog:

Looking for the Will Beyond the Battlefield

August 20, 2006
Everybody's Business
Looking for the Will Beyond the Battlefield
IT’S been a bitter month or so.
Mighty Israel, the redeemer of faith in what free men and women can do with arid desert if they are motivated, redeemer of faith that maybe there is a place for the Jews as a sovereign people and technological superpower, has been fought to a standstill by Hezbollah.
Can it possibly be that Hezbollah is better motivated, better led, better dug in and better armed than the Israeli army, which is supposed to be the best army, pound for pound, in the world? Can it be that Israel, which used to beat whole armies of countries like Egypt and Syria, has been humbled by a few thousand very well-motivated and well-armed men firing from between apartment buildings?
Or could it be that what’s different this time is the trumpet and, specifically, its uncertain sound? Israel geared up for a huge offensive, then called it off, then huffed and puffed, then called it off again, then said, “Watch out, this time we’re really going to blow your house down,” and then called it off again.

Now, Israel’s very survival is on the line, and it is a tiny state, about the size of New Jersey. If Israel cannot get it together to fight a serious war against a group, Hezbollah, that the State Department identifies as a terrorist organization, who will?

So, Israel, which was supposed to be the shining light of how peace is won, is not shining as bright — despite President Bush’s extreme support for a good long time.

Terrorists are still hatching plots against the air traffic system of the West, and this time bigger and worse than before. Obviously,
Al Qaeda is far from dead. We have much to fear from it still. The fact that the suspects were almost all home-grown Britons makes the situation that much more frightening and unpredictable. How long will it be until American-born terrorists strike against American targets? We are a big country and we have a lot of unhappy people. How long until they organize themselves to kill? Not long, I am afraid.

While we’re at it, yes, it’s miraculous and wonderful that the plot was foiled, if it was. But now the whole Western world will be seriously inconvenienced in its travel for years, maybe decades. Isn’t this already a victory for our enemies? Isn’t this already a blow against world business? Might it be enough to push our already slowed growth into a recession?

But the worst is what is to come: I got a jolting hint of this when I read the obituary for John L. Weinberg, who ran
Goldman Sachs from 1976 to 1990. Mr. Weinberg was 81 when he died this month in Greenwich, Conn., after a lifetime of major achievement. I had the pleasure of dealing with him when he and I were a lot younger and I was in law school, also studying finance, at Yale.

My dear old father was a friend of his father, the venerable Sidney J. Weinberg, who ran Goldman Sachs from 1930 to 1969. My dad wangled a job interview for me with John Weinberg, an unprepossessing figure but obviously a smart guy. After some talk, he offered me a job. I would start by spending two years sitting at a desk until late at night going over spreadsheets. “Really?” I asked. That did not seem to be so glamorous. “Yes, really,” he said. “That’s how we all start.”

I turned it down and became a poverty lawyer instead. But what I did not know about John Weinberg was that even though he was rich and well connected, as a young man he joined the Marines to fight the Japanese in the Pacific, then fought again in Korea. That was America’s ruling class then. The scions of the rich went off to fight.

My longtime pal and idol, Peter M. Flanigan — a former high honcho of Dillon, Read; a high aide to my ex-boss,
Richard M. Nixon; and heir to a large brewing fortune — was once a naval aviator. My father left a comfortable job in Washington to join the Navy. The father of my pal Phil DeMuth left a successful career to be an Army Air Corps pilot, flying death-defying missions over Burma. Congressmen resigned to serve. Senators resigned to serve. Professional athletes resigned to serve in the uniform.

Now, who’s fighting for us in the fight of our lives? Brave, idealistic Southerners. Hispanics from New Mexico. Rural men and women from upstate New York. Small-town boys and girls from the Midwest. Do the children of the powers on Wall Street resign to go off and fight? Fight for the system that made them rich? Fight for the way of life that made them princes? Surely, you jest.

And that’s the essence. The other side considers it a privilege to fight and die for its beliefs. Those on the other side cannot wait to line up to blow themselves up for their vision of heaven. On our side, it’s: “Let the other poor sap do it. I’ve got to make money.” How can we fight this fight with the brightest and best educated rushing off and working night and day to do private equity deals and derivatives trading? How can we fight this fight with the ruling class absent by its own sweet leave?

I keep thinking, again, that if Israel, with its back to the sea, cannot muster the will to fight in a big way, then the fat, faraway U.S.A. will never be able to do it. I keep saying this and it terrifies me.

We’re in a war with people who want to kill us all and wreck our civilization. They’re taking it very seriously. We, on the other hand, are worrying about leveraged buyouts and special dividends and how much junk debt the newly formed private entity can support before we sell it to the ultimate sucker, the public shareholder.

We’re worrying whether Hollywood will forgive
Mel Gibson and what the next move is for big homes in East Hampton. We’re rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The terrorists are the iceberg.

WHAT stands between us and the iceberg are the miraculously brave men and women of the armed forces. They’re heroes and saints as far as I’m concerned. But can they do it without the rest of us? Can they do it while we’re all working on our tans and trying to have our taxes lowered again? How can we leave them out there all alone to die for us when we treat the war to save civilization as something we can just wish away?

If we don’t win this war against the terrorists, there’s not going to be business as usual ever again. If the terrorists get to their goal, there’s not going to be a stock exchange or hedge funds or Bain Capital or the Carlyle Group or even Goldman Sachs. If the terrorists get their way — and so far, they’re getting their way — there’s not going to be business, period.

Everyone with the really big money at stake is — again — bidding for the best deck chairs as the iceberg looms, not so far, any longer, under the surface, and very large and very cold and very solid.

Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist. E-mail:

Friday, August 18, 2006

Counter Terrorism Against Islam: It takes all the fun out of Jihad

What's remarkable about Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Laureate Tom Schelling, and Hassan Nasrallah is that they probably agree with Keyser Soze, the legendary fictional villain of The Usual Suspects on one subject. Part boogeyman and part urban legend, Soze was a near-metaphysical example of implacable retribution. Soze's presence exists entirely offscreen until the final scene, but his legend is created in a an early bit of movie dialogue...

Bombing Iraq to kill Saddaam never made sense, no more than destroying Iranian infrastructure makes sense to decapitate the regime. We are using nation state tactics against a criminal gang mentality. The tactics of Soze are as old as mankind and used widely by Degenerate Islam. It has been clear for some time that the West has handicapped itself in dealing with Degenerate Islam. There are no tactics too awful for them not to use. They often record their crimes and the CD's or video clips are widely distributed in the ME. They are used to intimidate, recruit and control, not their enemies but their "families". Their enemies do not get to see the videos as the western media censors them. The same media records every deed and misdeed of US forces.
The US military is constantly using greater technology and an evolving “rules of engagement”. Degenerate Islam has shaped the battlefield using their version of Kaiser Soze. It has done so to a ruthless efficiency. The West has chosen to lock itself into a rigid standard of war that is insane and represented by the absurd methods used to screen passengers on airplanes. Our governments and masters cannot even admit the obvious that it is Muslim males who are killing us.
I restate my position. “We know who the enemy is. They told us. We know where they meet. We know a lot about them. It is time to go silent and go dark. No speeches, no threats, no lawyers, no mercy. Isolate and eliminate the radical clerics, financial supporters, politicians, tacticians, academics, theorists, and all supporters of radical Islam.”

Hunt them and kill them one at a time and take all the fun out of the jihad.

Mel Gibson quoted by high ranking Moslem

Former Pakistan Intelligence Chief on Al-Jazeera: 'Israel is Our Main Enemy'; As Mel Gibson Said, 'The Jews Caused All the Wars'

See transcript and video at:

Devout Christians, Jews and Muslims

A Devout Muslim's potential acts of terrorism are backed by the Koran
When a Christian is reborn, he usually does good deeds and begins witnessing about Jesus.
A newly observant Jew might keep kosher, become Sabbath-observant or start studying Torah.
When a Muslim feels the spirit move him, he quite naturally starts planning ways to commit “mass murder on an unimaginable scale.”


Obsession" is one of the most powerful, expertly crafted and undeniably important films I've seen this year. This courageous, utterly gripping expose' deserves the attention of every American -- and merits serious consideration for the Academy Award for Best Feature Length Documentary."
-- Michael MedvedNationally Syndicated Radio HostFilm Critic, "Eye on Entertainment"

The Bin Laden Amendment

Thursday, August 17, 2006

To Israel With Love

ANYBODY who doubts the size of the transatlantic divide over Israel should try discussing the Middle East conflagration in Britain and then doing the same in America. Everybody watches much the same grisly footage. But, by and large, people draw very different conclusions. The emphasis in Britain is overwhelmingly on the disproportionate scale of the response. Americans are much more inclined to give Israel the benefit of the doubt—and to blame Hizbullah. Some Jewish organisations are so confident of support for Israel that they even take out slots during news programmes, pleading for donations.
---Opinion polls confirm that Americans are solidly on Israel's side. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th showed that eight in ten Americans believed that Israel's action was justified—though a majority were worried about the scale of the action. A plurality (44%) thought that America was doing “about the right amount” to deal with the conflict. An earlier USA Today poll found that 53% put “a great deal” of the blame for the current crisis on Hizbullah, 39% put the blame on Iran and only 15% blamed Israel.
---Similarly, Americans are far more likely than Europeans to side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians.
---The political establishment is even more firmly behind Israel than the public is. Support for Israel stretches from San Francisco liberals like Nancy Pelosi to southern-fried conservatives like Bill Frist. The House and Senate have both passed bipartisan resolutions condemning Hizbullah and affirming Congress's support for Israel. The House version passed by 410 to 8 (of which three were from districts in Michigan with concentrations of Arab-Americans). The Senate resolution, sponsored by 62 senators—including the leaders of both parties—passed unopposed.
---Indeed, the parties are engaged in a competition to see who can be the most pro-Israeli. Twenty or so Democrats, including Ms Pelosi, the House leader, and Harry Reid, the Senate leader, demanded that Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, retract his criticisms of Israel or have his invitation to address Congress cancelled. (Mr Maliki, strongly backed by the administration, was eventually allowed to go ahead.) Several leading Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have addressed pro-Israeli rallies. The contrast with the simmering rage within the Labour Party over Tony Blair's support for George Bush could hardly be more marked.
---Pro-Israeli forces command the intellectual high ground as well as the corridors of power. Commentators such as Charles Krauthammer issue column after column ridiculing the notion of proportionality and stressing Hizbullah's responsibility for civilian casualties. Most middle-of-the-road commentators question the effectiveness, rather than the morality, of Israel's actions. Out-and-out critics of Israel are relegated to the sidelines.
---Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right. AIPAC, which has an annual budget of almost $50m, a staff of 200, 100,000 grassroots members and a decades-long history of wielding influence, is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington, mightier even than the National Rifle Association.
---“Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world,” says Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister. The lobby, which is the centrepiece of a co-ordinated body that includes pressure groups, think-tanks and fund-raising operations, produces voting statistics on congressmen that are carefully scrutinised by political donors. It also organises regular trips to Israel for congressmen and their staffs. (The Washington Post reports that Roy Blunt, the House majority whip, has been on four.)
---The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming.
---Religious-right activists are trying to convert this latent sympathy into political support. John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who believes that supporting Israel is a “biblical imperative”, recently founded Christians United for Israel. Last month he brought 3,500 people from across the country to Washington to cheer Israel's war against Hizbullah. Mr Hagee's brigades held numerous meetings on Capitol Hill; both Mr Bush and Mr Olmert sent messages to his rally.
---These pressure groups are clearly influential. Evangelical Christians make up about a quarter of the American electorate and are the bedrock of Mr Bush's support. Congressmen take on AIPAC at their peril. But they deal with well-heeled lobbies every day. And the power of the religious right can hardly explain why Democrats are so keen on Israel. Two other factors need to be considered: the war on Islamic radicalism, and deep cultural affinities between America and Israel.
--Seeing themselves in IsraelAmericans instinctively see events in the Middle East through the prism of September 11th 2001. They look at Hizbullah and Hamas with their Islamist slogans and masked faces and see the people who attacked America—and they look at Israeli citizens and see themselves. In America the “war on terror” is a fact of life, constantly reiterated. The sense that America is linked with Israel in a war against Islamist extremism is reinforced by Iranian statements about wiping Israel off the surface of the earth, and by the political advance of the Islamists of Hamas in Palestine.
---But the biggest reason why Americans are so pro-Israel may be cultural. Americans see Israel as a plucky democracy in a sea of autocracies—a democracy that has every right to use force to defend itself. Europeans, on the other hand, see Israel as a reminder of the atavistic forces—from nationalism to militarism—that it has spent the post-war years trying to grow beyond.
---Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans. A German Marshall Fund survey in 2005 found 42% of Americans strongly agreeing that “under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice” compared with just 11% of Europeans. A Pew survey found that the same proportion of Americans and Israelis believe in the use of pre-emptive force: 66%. Continental European figures were far lower.
---Yet all this unquestioning support does not mean that America will give Israel absolute carte blanche to do whatever it wills. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was visibly shaken after the tragedy in Qana where at least 28 civilians, half of them children, were killed by Israeli bombs. There are growing worries both about Israel's conduct of the war and its wider impact on the Middle East. Many of these anxieties are expressed by the “realist faction”. Chuck Hagel, a Republican maverick, has given warning that America's relationship with Israel “cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships”. Richard Haass, a State Department official under George Bush senior who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations, has laughed publicly at the president's “birth of a new Middle East” optimism about the crisis. Some of the worries extend to conservatives. Tony Blankley, a former press secretary for Newt Gingrich and a fire-breathing columnist for the Washington Times, says that “We ignore world opinion at our peril.”
---A few cracks are starting to appear. But they are still insignificant in the mighty edifice of support.

Hitler Meets & Enlists The Muslims

Hitler, the Mufti of Jerusalem, and Islamic Fascism

I’ve read about the alliance between Adolf Hitler and Muslim Arab leaders in World War II, and seen still photographs, but this is the first time I’ve seen actual video of Hitler meeting with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini—Yasser Arafat’s alleged uncle. From a German TV documentary, with English subtitles. (Hat tip: Justify This, who also created the Azzam Tamimi “shrieking jihad” video.)


Wednesday, August 16, 2006

Islam Is The Enemy, STUPID!!!

Corruption of the Faith?
August 15th, 2006
--Far too many people in the public eye mischaracterize the acts of terrorists and other villains as inconsistent with “mainstream” Islam, as a “corruption of the faith.” While this belief is comforting, especially to those who know, work with, or must obtain cooperation from non-violent Muslims, it is historically and theologically ignorant.
--An August 12 Washington Times editorial endorsed President Bush’s use of the term “Islamic Fascism” to denote the ideology of the jihad terrorists whose plot to slaughter thousands of airline passengers leaving Britain was thankfully disrupted. The editorialists characterized the jihadists ideology more specifically as
…chauvinistic, regarding non-Muslims as a lesser breed of expendable or contemptible dhimmis and infidels. It favors autocracy and severe social and economic restrictions, as did the Taliban. It demands the total subordination of the individual to the group—sometimes manifesting in murderously suicidal deaths like the fiery destruction Britain’s would-be bombers sought. This is not mainstream Islam, of course. It is a corruption of the faith. [emphasis added]
--Ignoring the expected outpouring of complaints from apologists for jihad terror who cynically decried (for example here and here), any“Islamic” references, or other less pressing semantic concerns ( “Islamism” versus “Islamic fascism”), the Washington Times editorial, indirectly, raises this critical question: just what comprises “mainstream” Islam (“of course”), as opposed to “corruption of the faith”?
--These pressing corollary questions arise as well: What is the origin of “chauvinistic” concepts such as the treatment of non-Muslims as “contemptible dhimmis and infidels” who are rightfully placed under “severe social and economic restrictions”? Is it accurate to maintain that such discriminatory beliefs and practices merely derive from the very recent Taliban movement in (Pakistan and) Afghanistan, are unrelated to “mainstream” Islam, and further, represent a “corruption” of Islam? Is it really out of bounds to even consider that the heinous practice of suicide-homicide bombings may have profound Islamic religious justification?
--In his seminal The Laws of Islamic Governance al-Mawardi (d. 1058), a renowned jurist of Baghdad, examined the regulations pertaining to the lands and infidel (i.e., non-Muslim) populations subjugated by jihad. This is the origin of the system of dhimmitude. The native infidel “dhimmi” (which derives from both the word for “pact”, and also “guilt”—guilty of religious errors) population had to recognize Islamic ownership of their land, submit to Islamic law, and accept payment of the Koranic poll tax (jizya), based on Koran 9:29. The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples.
--Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims-Jews, Christians, [as well as Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists] – subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis), and of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims.
--It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’ a. The writings of the much lionized Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali (d. 1111) highlight how the institution of dhimmitude was simply a normative, and prominent feature of the Shari’a:
...the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle.. .Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]...on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]... They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddler-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue.
--The practical consequences of such a discriminatory system were summarized in both A.S. Tritton’s 1930 book The Caliphs and their Non-Muslim Subjects, and Antoine Fattal’s 1958 Le Statut Legal de Musulmans en Pays’ d’Islam, pioneering treatises on the status of the dhimmis:
…[C]aliphs destroyed churches to obtain materials for their buildings, and the mob was always ready to pillage churches and monasteries…dhimmis…always lived on sufferance, exposed to the caprices of the ruler and the passions of the mob…in later times..[t]hey were much more liable to suffer from the violence of the crowd, and the popular fanaticism was accompanied by an increasing strictness among the educated. The spiritual isolation of Islam was accomplished. The world was divided into two classes, Muslims and others, and only Islam counted…Indeed the general feeling was that the leavings of the Muslims were good enough for the dhimmis. [Tritton]
--If he [the dhimmi] is tolerated, it is for reasons of a spiritual nature, since there is always the hope that he might be converted; or of a material nature, since he bears almost the whole tax burden. He has his place in society, but he is constantly reminded of his inferiority…In no way is the dhimmi the equal of the Muslim. He is marked out for social inequality and belongs to a despised caste; unequal in regard to individual rights; unequal in the Law Courts as his evidence is not admitted by any Muslim tribunal and for the same crime his punishment is greater than that imposed on Muslims…No social relationship, no fellowship is possible between Muslims and dhimmis… [Fattal]
--Thus when the Taliban ordered Afghanistan’s tiny residual Hindu minority (as reported in 2001) to wear yellow badges inscribed with the words “I am a Hindu”, this action was in full accord with Islamic law. And a 1950 report from the American Jewish Committee (p.67) makes clear that in the pre-Taliban modern era discrimination as sanctioned by Islam was typical for Afghanistan’s small Jewish minority community, now (having escaped via India to Israel) extinct:
--Scattered among the primitive Muslim population, whose religious observance has remained untouched by any modern influence, the Jews in Afghanistan are still subject to all the forms of discrimination which rigorous adherence to the Koran requires. They have to pay the jizya poll-tax imposed upon infidels, and the payment is accompanied by humiliating ceremonies as laid down in Sura 9:29 of the Koran. Until recently they were not permitted to buy food in the market or send letters abroad. There are no Jews in the Government service or in the police. Though every Jew must report for military service at the age of 20, he is not permitted to carry arms and is not given a uniform, the Jews being employed only in the lowest type of menial work.
--Professor Franz Rosenthal, the great American scholar of Islam, who, 50 years ago, translated Ibn Khaldun’s classic Introduction To History, also wrote a seminal essay entitled “On Suicide in Islam” in 1946. Rosenthal’s research confirmed how Islam extolled “suicidal” martyrdom attacks:
--While the Qur’anic attitude toward suicide remains uncertain, the great authorities of the hadith leave no doubt as to the official attitude of Islam. In their opinion suicide is an unlawful act….On the other hand, death as the result of “suicidal” missions and of the desire of martyrdom occurs not infrequently, since death is considered highly commendable according to Muslim religious concepts. However, such cases are no[t] suicides in the proper sense of the term. [Emphasis added.] 1
--These orthodox Islamic views have been reiterated by Yusuf Al Qaradawi—“spiritual” leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, head of the European Fatwa Council, and immensely popular Al-Jazeera television personality. Sheikh Qaradawi openly endorsed murderous Palestinian homicide bomber “martyrdom” operations against innocent Israeli citizens (all of whom are considered “combatants” who obstruct the “call to Islam”) during a fatwa council convened in the heart of Europe (in Stockholm, July, 2003).
--Those who oppose martyrdom operations and claim that they are suicide are making a great mistake. The goals of the one who carries out a martyrdom operation and of the one who commits suicide are completely different. Anyone who analyzes the soul of [these two] will discover the huge difference between them. The [person who commits] suicide kills himself for himself, because he failed in business, love, an examination, or the like. He was too weak to cope with the situation and chose to flee life for death…In contrast, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation does not think of himself. He sacrifices himself for the sake of a higher goal, for which all sacrifices become meaningless. He sells himself to Allah in order to buy Paradise in exchange. Allah said: ‘Allah has bought from the believers their souls and their properties for they shall inherit Paradise…While the [person who commits] suicide dies in escape and retreat, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation dies in advance and attack. Unlike the [person who commits] suicide, who has no goal except escape from confrontation, the one who carries out a martyrdom operation has a clear goal, and that is to please Allah
--For the past decade, Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi has served as Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in Sunni Islam. Sheikh Tantawi, who is the nearest equivalent to a Muslim Pope, has also confirmed the legitimacy of homicide bombing of Jews, characterizing these grisly attacks as
…the highest form of Jihad operations…the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all…every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land
--On July 25, 2005, historian David Littman attempted to deliver a prepared text in the joint names of three international NGOs, but was prevented from doing so by the intervention of Islamic members of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Human Rights. Following repeated interruptions he was unable to complete his speech. Littman was simply trying to support the argument that those who issue fatwas to kill innocent people in the name of Islam are not real Muslims and should be treated as apostates. But as he noted, just before the 7/7/05 London bombings a major conference of 170 Muslim scholars from 40 countries meeting in Amman, Jordan gave an opinion in a Final Communiqu, dated July 6, 2005:
--It is not possible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in Allah the Mighty and Sublime and His Messenger (may Peace and Blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and respects the pillars of Islam and does not deny any necessary article of religion.
--This unfortunate communiqué clearly provides immutable protection to authentic Islamic advocates of homicide bombing—like the “esteemed” clerics Yusuf Qaradawi and Al-Azhar Grand Imam Tantawi.
--Given the vitality of destructive but sacralized Islamic doctrines (such as dhimmitude, and jihad martyrdom) that date from the religion’s formative years, editorialists, policymakers, and theologians must avoid glib formulations and start addressing the uncomfortable realities of mainstream Islam
--Andrew Bostom

West Lacks Will To Fight Islamofascism

UN Ceasefire Will Lead to More Death;West Lacks Will to Fight Islamo-Fascism
August 15, 2006
By Rush Limbaugh
--RUSH: Before we get into the details, let me just tell you what I think. I think the prime minister of Israel is a disaster. I think our continuing reliance on the UN is a disaster; and I for one do not understand it, and there's nobody that can make me understand it. I don't care who wants to try, you won't succeed, and as a result we are prolonging this war. This ceasefire, however long it takes, it is just going to be used for Hezbollah to ramp up and arm up. It's another meaningless UN resolution, and I honestly think that what's going on right now, folks, is that our leaders around the world that represent western societies and western cultures really don't have the will to fight this right now, and I think they don't even have the guts to admit what this is.
--This is a religious war. It is viewed in too many circles as just episodic events, an episode of terrorism here, an episode of terrorism over there, an episode there, but not really related, we'll just keep dealing with these episodes. But it's more than just an episodic series of events here, and I am stunned
-- I was stunned all weekend that we have reversed course and now push for this lame ceasefire BS. How many ceasefires have we had? Too many to count and they all end up being the same thing. You can look at all the celebrations. This guy in Iran today is cheering. Bashar Assad is out there saying the US vision of the Middle East is nothing more than an "illusion." Hezbollah is out there pounding their chest, saying they won -- which they would do anyway, regardless.
--When I say it's a religious war, religious wars are numerous. You can look them up historically, and one of the things about religious wars and one of the reasons why so few people really want to categorize this as a religious war is because there is no room for compromise in a religious war. Fervently devout religious believers don't compromise. That's the whole point. As an example, you don't go to the pope and say, "Hey, Pope, in order for us to have a little peace, will you please accept that Mohammed did fly to the heavens and so forth on a horse and that maybe Mohammed is actually Jesus, just for peace?" The pope's not going to do that.
--Whatever religion you go to, you could go to the Jewish people, "Would you please accept that somebody's been a messiah here so we can have some peace?" Nope, not going to do it. Would you go to the Christians, "Come on, you know damn well it's impossible somebody could be born from a virgin mother? You've gotta give that one up." Nope, ain't going to happen. So there's no room for compromise. That's why there's no room for the UN. There's no room for a settlement negotiated when you're talking about religious wars, and we are in the midst of a religious war, and the aggressors in this case are militant Islamists finally so proclaimed by the president. Of course, there's outrage that he would dare refer to these people as Islamic fascists, which he did.
--But, you know, it's amazing, we continue to react as though we'll be hurt and stung by words, that the words we hear will offend us. The words we speak will offend someone else. It's a setback. I told you. I can't say I'm actually surprised. This is going to come to a head at some point, and I told you last week, may not be in our lifetimes, may go through all these sufferin' ceasefires to end the sufferin' and so forth, but here's the truth. I'll just lay the truth out for you, we'll get into some detail in a minute. The enemy has not suffered a loss yet. They've just taken Somalia, they're slaughtering people in Iraq, and they're on the rise in Afghanistan. I'm not saying that we haven't made any progress. But we're not taking the war to this enemy. We're not doing it. This move with Israel will prolong the war when we could have used it, and it could have been used to make great advances. And then again, when I hear the president say, "We can't let Iran take over the Middle East."
Would somebody tell me what we're doing to stop that?
--RUSH: Right, right. I know. Yeah. Ha, ha. This time the UN, they really mean it! Oh, yeah, and this time, the Lebanese army, well, they're really going to work the job this time. The Lebanese army really going to make it happen this time. I said they're not (interruption). Well, they're not supposed to disarm Hezbollah. That's not what (interruption) Yeah, well, they say that. I'm being facetious, Snerdley. Of course this is a joke! This time the UN really means it? Yeah, right. This time the Lebanese army really will do its job? This time the international community really will come to Israel's side when the terrorists attack them? Yeah. We got faith. This time everybody is going to do the right thing. We just helped negotiate a resolution that enhances the Hezbos' standing from a terrorist group to some kind of legitimate enemy.
--What do you mean we've got peace? We don't have peace and you know damn well we don't have peace. Peace follows victory. We've got another ceasefire. Here are the elements as I understand them. Here are the elements of this negotiated settlement over which they probably had hot dogs and beer this weekend at the state department, United Nations. This resolution, what is this one now, 1701? Okay, well, 1559 is still out there, didn't do diddly-squat, so I guess we're just going to forget it. Now we've got resolution 1701, that's supposed to help the democratically elected Lebanese government emerge from this conflict stronger and better able to extend its sovereignty over all of its territory as called for in Resolution 1559.
--This will mean more security and a better chance for peace for the people of both Israel and Lebanon. Well, fine, but it's still a new resolution. Instead of going through the details first, let me go to the conclusion of the details here and just get to the nut of it. The nut of it is this. Now comes the hard part. Implementing the resolution and making good on the world's commitment to save Lebanon and the people in Lebanon and Israel who didn't want this war and who do not want another. The president's called on the international community to turn its words into action. That's precisely what the United States intends to do. But the key word here, now comes the hard part, implementing the resolution. Seems to be always the stumbling block.
--It just seems to me, folks, that it would have been better if the Hezbos had been crippled and unable to continue to fight and maybe even reconstitute themselves rather than go through this ruse, but here's what the resolution 1701 does. It makes clear who's responsible for the war, and the blame is pinned squarely on the Hezbos, their July 12th attack. It calls for the unconditional release of the Israeli prisoners abducted by the Hezbos, although I don't think it does. There's a disagreement of opinion on that. Amir Taheri, who writes about this in the New York Post today, says it does not, the latest UN resolution is really designed to fudge the real issues. It does not provide for an immediate release of the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah. So that remains up in the air.
--What else did it call for? An immediate cessation of hostilities. That means that Hezbollah stops attacking Israel and Israel suspends its offensive operations. Israel, however, does not withdraw until the arrival of a robust international force and the deployment of the Lebanese armed forces. The Hezbos cannot be allowed to return to their old positions from which they harassed northern Israel. Now, diplomats say that France is likely to lead this force. Now, you just have to excuse me. That would be Douste-Blazy, right? That would be Philippe Douste-Blazy, French foreign miniature -- a faux pas there -- but I'll stick by it. The French foreign miniature, Philippe Douste-Blazy, was due in Beirut tomorrow to discuss the conditions for the deployment of the international force; the re-opening of Lebanon's ports and airport and humanitarian aid.
--Lebanon's defense minister said the Lebanese army would send 15,000 troops to the north of the Latani river around the end of the week ready to enter the southern border areas. However, he said -- and this is the Lebanese defense minister, he said, "The army is not going to the south to strip Hezbollah of weapons and do work Israel did not." All right. You know, this Douste-Blazy guy called the Iranians a "stabilizing force." Send them in there! We may as well send the Iranians in with the French to monitor all this, for all it's worth and all the good that it will do. The resolution also calls for "a robust international force to deploy throughout the south, authorized to assist the Lebanese army to enforce an arms embargo to prevent the resupply of Hezbollah."
--Hezbollah is not being disarmed. That's not in the resolution, and the Lebanese say we're not going to do it. Hey, that's what the Israelis were supposed to do. We're not going to help the Israelis do their work! This resolution, we're just not going to allow them to be rearmed. It enhances the existing UNIFIL. Though the enhanced force still carries the UNIFIL name, this is the robust international force going in there, folks, to make this really work. That's not the same force. This force has a broader mandate (unlike the current bunch): the authority to take the initiative because the resolution authorizes it to take all necessary action to fulfill its mission. It also will have the capabilities to take the initiative. The enhanced force will be much larger than the existing one.
--We set a target of 15,000 soldiers, sevenfold increase. This robust and enhanced force will deploy with another 15,000 Lebanese troops. I'm just here to tell you that the 15,000, the international troops from France and wherever else, and the 15,000 troops from Lebanon, are not at any moment in time going to consider the Hezbos to be the enemy nor the problem. Now, this just this morning from the Jerusalem News Wire. "Anticipating Hezbollah's failure to comply with the UN-brokered ceasefire, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan sent a letter to Jerusalem over the weekend insisting that Israel not respond militarily to any violation of Security Council resolution 1701," this according to the Jerusalem Post.
--"The secretary-general said that Israel should only respond in immediate self-defense, not by re-launching a wider military offensive against the terror group." In effect, Kofi Annan saying that Israel should totally ignore Hezbo efforts to reestablish itself in southern Lebanon, even though they're supposed to get out of there under terms of 1559. The Israelis are supposed to ignore Syrian efforts to resupply the group and should only respond in a very pinpoint manner to any further firing of missiles at northern Israeli. "Both the Lebanese military and French forces expected to bolster peacekeepers already on the ground have said they will not confront Hezbollah with force if the terror group fails to go along with the ceasefire terms. The Israeli government sources said Annan's letter was unacceptable and that a firm response was being drafted." So there you have it. That pretty much sums it up in a nutshell. Ceasefire leads to more war. Ceasefires lead to increased wars, increased intensity.
Ceasefires lead to more death.
--RUSH: Something else about this resolution. It totally, totally ignores the previous one, Resolution 1559. It just totally ignores it. It's like it's not even there. That was passed two years ago and it called for the disarmament of the Hezbos as a step toward giving a legitimate Lebanese government a monopoly of armed forces in the country, and everybody says that the purpose of this new resolution is to establish a firm and functioning government in Lebanon, that the Lebanese totally control. Well, that's what 1559 was, and it's just been pffft, thrown away in the wind. This new resolution, 1701 just says nothing about it whatsoever.
--Caroline Glick, a columnist for the for the Jerusalem Post, says the big winners here are Kofi Annan, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran. Kofi Annan is a major beneficiary of the resolution because it named him the arbiter of compliance with the ceasefire, and that's why he fired off that letter to the Israelis that I just shared with you. Moreover, by retaining the United Nations peacekeepers and widening their mandate, it rendered Annan generalissimo Kofi Annan of Lebanon. Israel can expect daily condemnations from the UN secretariat's office for any act to defend itself against has strikes. The Hezbos are the big winner of the resolution because it adopts almost every Hezbo demand. Hezbollah will not be disarmed. An arms embargo will not be instituted against it. Its unsupportable claim to Lebanese sovereignty over the Shebaa farms in the Golan Heights has received international recognition.
--It's not going to be forced to release the Israeli soldiers it holds as hostages. As Hassan Nasrallah put it: Yippee, we won! But we still have more demands so you better watch out in Haifa. They are being emboldened, and of course Syria is a winner because the resolution made no mention of the fact that Syria is the Hezbollah logistical base. By ignoring Syria's central role in the war, the resolution effectively gave its blessing to continued Syrian aggression against Israel and US forces in Iraq through terrorist proxy armies. Big winner of all is Iran. Iran, which was the architect of the entire war, did not even receive a mention in this resolution. It's already using this victory to force the Arab world to accept its leadership. The Iranian foreign minister's visit Sunday with Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was a clear sign that its stock is sky high.
--Iran has not had full diplomatic relations with Egypt since 1979. So they're feeling their oats out there, and then that little Bashar Assad up in Syria, said that America's plan for a new Middle East has collapsed, that it is an illusion. This is after the Hezbos' successes in fighting against Israel. "'The Middle East the Americans aspire to has become an illusion.' Assad was speaking to a journalists association in Damascus. He said, 'The region had changed because of the achievements of the resistance.'" In this case the resistance actually was the Israelis, but the resistance is being called the Hezbollah group. Hezbollah is minding their own business, just doing their social programs, building highways and bridges and roads and hospitals and all these other good works, health care for the masses. All of a sudden here come the Israeli tanks over the border, and the great resistance of the Hezbos mounted this attack, this defensive maneuver, and saved the day and showed the rest of the world that the mighty Israel is now impotent and so is its ally the United States.