Saturday, September 30, 2006
There are some incredibly good posts there from serving military members in Iraq and Afghanistan and if you like the likes of BlackFive then it's a site that is definitely worth checking out. Some very interesting reading.
"Being a lover of freedom, when the [Nazi] revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it [freedom], knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly." - Albert Einstein, translated from Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche
On Friday, Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters held a peaceful rally in Gaza to denounce the state of Israel and declare that they would never recognize its right to exist.
"We ask God to punish the so-called Israel and the allies of Israel and to punish those who recognize Israel and those who called on us to recognize Israel," Hamas lawmaker Mushir al-Masri told the crowd that thronged the Jabalya refugee camp.
"We vow to God that we will never recognise Israel even if we would be all killed," Masri told the cheering audience of men, women and children, many of whom were wearing green Hamas baseball caps and held aloft Hamas banners.
Masri, a popular young lawmaker, also aimed criticism at Fatah, a rival movement headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, saying it was trying to pressure Hamas, which now runs the Palestinian government, into recognizing Israel.
"Those people are demanding of us openly to recognize the occupation and that will never happen," Masri said.
Hamas and Fatah have held talks in recent weeks over the possibility of forming a unity government, but those negotiations now appear to have almost completely broken down.
"The protest aims to stress our rejection to recognize the legitimacy of the occupation," Masri said, referring to what Hamas views as Israel's occupation of all of what is calls historic Palestine.
So much for the moderating effect of Hamas coming to power.
A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum.
The "prophet" Mohammed? Not just Mohammed or the alleged prophet or the so-called prophet- but the prophet Mohammed. Next I guess they- and the many other publications which are doing the exact same thing now- will be adding "pbuh".
Friday, September 29, 2006
With suicide bombings spreading from Iraq to Afghanistan, the Pentagon has tasked intelligence analysts to pinpoint what's driving Muslim after Muslim to do the unthinkable.
Their preliminary finding is politically explosive: it's their "holy book" the Quran after all, according to intelligence briefings obtained by WND.
They've found that most Muslim suicide bombers are in fact students of the Quran who are motivated by its violent commands – making them, as strange as it sounds to the West, "rational actors" on the Islamic stage.
Well, who would have thought it? Jihadis, who routinely record martyrdom videos reciting their reasons for committing mass murder in the name of Allah, are actually inspired by passages in the Koran. This must come as a shock to many people.
The 9/11 hijackers and the London bombers made martyrdom videos. In their last testaments, they recite the Quran while talking of their "love of death" and "sacrificing life for Allah." Seven martyrdom videotapes also were recovered by British authorities in the foiled transatlantic sky terror plot.
French documentarian Pierre Rehov, who interviewed the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it, says it's not a myth or fantasy of heretics.
He says there's no doubt the Quran "promises virgins" to Muslim men who die while fighting infidels in jihad, and it's a key motivating factor behind suicide terrorism.
"It's obviously connected to religion," said Rehov, who features his interviews with Muslims in a recently released film, "Suicide Killers." "They really believe they are going to get the virgins."
He says would-be Muslim suicide bombers he's interviewed have shown him passages in the Quran "in which it's absolutely written that they're going to get the girls in the afterlife."
I can already hear it- these analysts must have caught a bad case of Islamophobia, right? Someone better tell these chaps too-
British scholar Azzam Tamimi recently told 8,000 Muslims in Manchester, England, that dying while fighting "George Bush and Tony Blair" is "just" and "the greatest act of martyrdom." Earlier, he said it's "the straight way to pleasing Allah."
And the founder of an allegedly mainstream Muslim group in Washington – the Council on American-Islamic Relations – also has given his blessing to suicide bombings.
Addressing a youth session at the 1999 Islamic Association for Palestine's annual convention in Chicago, CAIR founder Omar Ahmad praised suicide bombers who "kill themselves for Islam," according to a transcript provided by terror expert Steve Emerson's Investigative Project.
"Fighting for freedom, fighting for Islam, that is not suicide," Ahmad asserted. "They kill themselves for Islam."
Osama bin Laden has encouraged "Muslims brothers" to defeat the U.S. and U.K. with suicide attacks.
"I tell you to act upon the orders of Allah," he said in 2003, "be united against Bush and Blair and defeat them through suicide attacks so that you may be successful before Allah."
He begins by lambasting Michelle Malkin, and later in the comments, Jihad Watch, LGF and Jawa Report, for all muddling up Muslims as one homogenous whole. His charge is that not distinguishing between Muslims and radical/extremist Muslims is a very bad thing indeed.
Thing is, he does it himself in his response to Malkin's response. Here he is on Michelle-
Michelle says things like, "The Muslims clearly have no response to this, because their religion was spread by the sword, and we can see it is spread so still by the forced conversions of Steve Centani and his camera operator." Not Islamic radicals or extremists. Just Muslims.
And here's Esmay himself later in the same post-
But she did not mention that three Muslims are now on Death Row in Indonesia for the bombing in Bali. Yes, one Islamic radical got off with a light sentence of only a couple of years, but three other Muslims are sentenced to die for their horrible murder of Australian tourists and non-Muslim Indonesians.
Come on, Dean, you big Islamophobe- just Muslims, not radicals or extremists? You swine you, how unpatriotic and traitorous can you get? For more of Esmay's rather shocking use of the M-word without the "radical" disclaimer go and read his post here. Again and again his Islamophobia comes out as he repeatedly refers to the convicted Bali bombers as only being "Muslim". What better way to offend and outrage our Muslim allies around the world!
In fact, he keeps going on about "right wingers" not recognising our Muslim allies, specifically referencing Hamid Karzai and his recent comments alongside President Bush. A video that I heard about and watched over at HotAir.
Does this guy even realise what he's writing? I guess he got a lot of traffic out of his attack on Jihad Watch and wanted a little more of that limelight attention.
Isn't it bizarre- after cartoon-rage and Pope-rage and the worry of opera-rage, news agencies around the world seem to have absolutely zero problem with actually publishing pictures of Mohammed's severed head. All right, it's not his actual severed head but it's a representation of it. Wasn't that exactly why all those Muslims around the world got so incensed about the cartoons?
Where's the rage now? Or does that need to be carefully stoked and stage-managed by various leaders to emerge? Perhaps they just don't have their supplies of German flags ready for burning yet. Some delay with the postal service probably. Maybe it's just me but a fairly inocuous cartoon of Mo with a bomb in his turban causes colossal property damage and death, but pictures of a fake severed head dripping blood gets no response at all. Doesn't make much sense.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Yesterday, BBC One revealed its new channel “identity” in a £1.2 million rebranding campaign designed to strengthen its bond with viewers who can now choose from hundreds of competing channels.
The eight 30-second films, costing £150,000 each, feature surfers, stunt motorbike riders, kite fliers and hippos, whose activities converge in the shape of a spinning circle — or a globe, to older viewers.
A further seven films, known as “idents”, will be produced, taking the total budget of the campaign to £2.25 million.
Critics believe that the BBC is spending too much buffing its image as it seeks an above-inflation increase, which could set the licence fee at £180.
What appalls me most is this-
However, with the BBC implementing cuts and redundancies, Mr Fincham was challenged to explain why he was spending the equivalent of two hours of quality drama on four minutes of self-promotional imagery.
What this blithering idiot seems to have missed is that people don't watch the BBC for the blasted clips they play before the programmes start- they watch it, or not, depending on the programmes they broadcast. Such a simple concept and yet it seems to have completely eluded him. If the BBC wants to "strengthen its bond" with viewers they would be advised to actually broadcast shows that people want to watch- instead of continual repeats, medical dramas and reality shows.
I don't watch too much TV anymore- recently I've been hooked on House, Prison Break, NCIS, CSI Miami. All American made and all broadcast on Channel 5. The only other thing I'd tend to sit down to are the excellent ITV murder mysteries- Midsomer Murders or Poirot. In fact, I can't think of anything on the BBC I do watch- the occasional movie (and there are slim pickings there too) or maybe the odd episode of Diagnosis Murder, or whatever show David Attenborough has just made. And that's it. The other channels pay their own way through advertising but I'm forced to pay for the BBC which I hardly ever watch. Even BBC radio tends to be pretty bad- most of the presenters seem to think that people tune in to hear them rather than play music. Again, nothing that can't be had elsewhere, for free, and better.
And this is what they do with the tax their receive from British TV owners- waste it on slots that show for a few seconds between the terrible programmes they broadcast.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
The tactics employed by Hizbullah against Israel provide an "attractive model" for Palestinians' armed resistance, according to a poll of Israeli and Palestinian public opinion...According to the poll, which was conducted last week, nearly two-thirds of Palestinians (63%) agree that Palestinians should emulate Hizbullah by firing rockets at Israeli cities, compared to 35% who disagreed.
The latest poll also showed that a majority of Palestinians (57%) supports attacks against Israeli civilians inside the Green Line.
Here are a couple of samples from the transcript here.
BUSH: I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their murderous ways.
Some people have, you know, guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe.The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason; they want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight this young democracy in Afghanistan.
And they use it as a recruitment tool because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq.
This statement is particularly telling- My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. They kill in order to achieve their objectives.
KARZAI: We are a witness in Afghanistan as to what they are and how they can hurt. You are a witness in New York.
Do you forget people jumping off the 80th floor or 70th floor when the planes hit them? Can you imagine what it will be for a man or a woman to jump off that high?
Who did that? And where are they now? And how do we fight them, how do we get rid of them, other than going after them? Should we wait for them to come and kill us again?As HotAir notes, it's the way that Karzai delivers this which has the most impact-
It’s not so much what he says as how he says it: the long pauses, the look of utter incredulity that an educated person — from New York City, no less — might not still appreciate the stakes five years later.
I've just watched a clip on the BBC lunchtime news about the NIE leak and subsequent declassification and they completely misrepresented it. They went to pains to spell out this- The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.
And then left out the next sentence- Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.
So much for unbiased reporting.
Officials with the world-renowned Deutsche Oper decided late Monday that the show -- an avant-garde remake of Mozart's "Idomeneo" -- could not go on after police warned that it could result in a violent backlash from Muslim fundamentalists. Opera officials said they were worried about a repeat of the worldwide protests that erupted this year after a Danish newspaper published cartoons satirizing Muhammad.
The tactic of the perpetually agrieved Muslims is working- complain long enough, loudly enough and violently enough and they get their way.
At least he tried? So what does he call the Bush administration's overthrow of the Taliban regime of Afghanistan and the campaign that has since killed thousands of Al Qaeda operatives and driven the leadership into hiding?
That's not trying?
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Tired of the criticism of his films, controversial German film director Uwe Boll took on four of his critics in a Vancouver boxing ring, and ended each bout with a knockout.
Here's my favourite part of the story-
Jeff Sneider of Los Angeles, a journalist with Ain't It Cool News, went down in a technical knockout in the first round after his trainer threw in the towel.
He said Boll, 41, had told him it was just a joke, a public relations stunt.
"Then he started beating the crap out of my head," he said. "I think he's a jerk. This might be PR but I don't want to keep getting punched in the head."Boll's films aren't terrible- but they are frustratingly on the verge of being the sorts of films that I really enjoy. Which in itself is a guilty pleasure for me- films that don't quite reach their potential are the sorts of projects I like to waste time on rewriting.
So, for his sterling perfomance in the ring trouncing film critics of all people, I will surely make an effort in future to go see his films.
I didn't always agree with everything he wrote (most of it, yes) but his column in Guns and Ammo was always the first thing I read when each new issue arrived. His commentaries are available to read online here.
He will be missed.
UPDATE- MadOgre commented on Col. Cooper's untimely passing and he had this to say, "He has said a lot of things that are controversial, but you have to understand where he is coming from. He is coming from a better time, when men were men and women were treated with respect." And that really nails it- he really did seem to be a real gentleman. That he came from a bygone age is a terrible indictment of our current society. We may have improved our technologies but manners, politeness and civility haven't faired anywhere near as well.
Monday, September 25, 2006
There's simply no other word for it but "clueless". I mean, really- look at the sticker on her banner. It states "Stop Dictatorship now. Support a Caliphate." Can you believe that anyone can be so uninformed? Amazing. There's another shot of the same sticker here at Flickr.
I can't make out the web address at the bottom to see who made them up. Can anyone supply that info?
POLICE have agreed to consult a panel of Muslim leaders before mounting counter-terrorist raids or arrests. Members of the panel will offer their assessment of whether information police have on a suspect is too flimsy and will also consider the consequences on community relations of a raid.
Members will be security vetted and will have to promise not to reveal any intelligence they are shown. They will not have to sign the Official Secrets Act.This week the Association of Chief Police Officers will discuss with MI5 and the Home Office whether to reveal to the panel intelligence information from the security service.
I cannot think of any other time in history where the police had to get approval from the community hosting a terrorist threat to take action. Sounds like a winning plan, doesn't it? The fact is I am utterly stunned that police will have to seek approval from any committee before carrying out anti-terror raids. If nothing else, how the hell are they supposed to act quickly on time-sensitive intelligence? And why the f**k are these people, who may even be shown information from the intelligence service, not being made to sign the Official Secrets Act? Would that somehow offend their delicate sensibilities?
LGF has details of the Muslim group involved, the MSF-
The Muslim Safety Forum (MSF) was formed by some leading concerned Muslim organisation following 9/11 and the subsequent unfair focus on the Muslim community when it came to policing activities and enforcement of anti-terror policing legislations...Consequently, the MSF came into existence in the year 2000 and had been scrutinizing police activities that have been particularly affecting the Muslim community.
Stop me if I'm wrong, but didn't 9/11 take place in 2001? So how can this group have been formed following that terrible event in 200? Is this a typo or what?
This is the group that calls stop-and-search and anti-terror raids "disproportionate policing". I guess they'll be approving quite a lot of police activity then.
They are the same group that released this statement- "The MSF has always maintained that the Police are targeting the Muslim community...Not one terror related charge has been brought as a result of discriminatory stop and searches. To date, this practice has motivated and provided justification for a right wing onslaught of violence and stigmatisation against innocent members of the Muslim community - recent evidence links the increase in hate crimes against Muslims with the Governments 'War on Terror'."
Here's a little more info on exactly who the MSF are- "The MSF is an umbrella organisation made up of national and regional Islamic organisations including: MAB, IHRC, IFE, MCB London Affairs Committee, YMO UK, Muslim College, FAIR, Amal Trust, The London Central Mosque, London Muslim Centre, Muslim Parliament, FOSIS, ISB, Muslimaat UK, Avenues School, Somali Muslim Community, UKIM, MPAC, Stop Political Terror, Muslim Directory, Ershad Centre, BanglaMedia, Iqra Trust, Association of Muslim Police, Al-Khoei Foundation, UMO, Muslim Welfare House, Women_s Relief."
MPAC, by the way, had this to say after the Forest Gate raid in London- “We can only hope the sleeping Muslims of East London will wake up and rise against the tyranny being perpetrated against our youth in the name of combating terrorism.”
Good thing they're part of the organisation being consulted about anti-terror raids then.
The MSF also protested plans by police to arrest detainees released from Gitmo-
The twenty-member Muslim Safety Forum, made up of community leaders, walked out of their monthly meeting tonight (Monday 24th) attended by Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner David Veness.
MSF chairman Azad Ali, who is also a member of the Islamic Forum Europe, told Blink the group were "seriously considering" their relationship with the police.
The advisors are angry that anti-terrorist officers plan to arrest four British detainees due to be released from US custody in Guantanamo Bay as they arrive at RAF Northolt tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon.
Unsurprisingly, the MSF are also in favour of Iran developing nuclear weapons-
Azad Ali: Well, it's... You're either fair, and you allow people... You know, what you have for yourself you allow for other people, or you're unfair and an oppressor. So, if I'm a fair person - if I have a house and a car, I'd expect my fellow man to have a house and a car as well, and I wouldn't stop them from getting. It's a simple answer.
Azad Ali: America, Israel - just to name two people that are physically involved in all this stuff. They're killing thousands upon thousands of people, innocent people, backed with the threat of nuclear... So, you know, if you... That's my point, it comes back to my point. If you're a fair and just person, then you would allow what you have for yourself for your other man. If you're an oppressor you wouldn't. So, in my eye, people who are hypocritical, are oppressors.
So the group charged with consulting police anti-terror activity considers the police to be unfairly targeting the Muslim community, is opposed to stop-and-search and anti-terror raids, supports one of the world's major sponsors of terrorism having nuclear weapons and opposed the questioning of terrorism suspects returned from Guantanamo. Oh yeah, and one of their member groups called on Muslims to rise up against the "tyranny" of combating terrorism.Sure sounds like a winning team to advise the police on their anti-terror policy. Seems to me that their advice to the police will essentially be, "don't do it".
Welcome to Londonistan.
Friday, September 22, 2006
What is just astonishing to me is how the left, and many liberals, just don't get it. They see George Bush as a greater danger than this crowd that wants women banned from learning to read; that doesn't just refuse to let homosexuals get married--it refuses to allow them to live; that makes the most traditional and conservative Christian denominations look like the ACLU with respect to the establishment clause.
It is a rather strange situation where leftists and many liberals, who should have the most to worry about from the increasing dominance of a fiercely homophobic, male chauvinist, anti-freedom of expression, and religiously intolerant worldview, are clearly more afraid of George Bush and Dick Cheney than they are of our common enemy.
I don't get it either. Can anyone explain it?
There is not a single moderate Muslim political organization, media outlet, academic institution, or government of any appreciable size, anywhere in the world.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. It will make my day.
Please, please someone prove me wrong.
Okay, there it is- any takers?
Virtually everyone in America, Europe and the Free World shares a single idea: atheists and evangelicals; Platonists, Greek Orthodox and Amish; Hispanics, blacks, and WASPS; Baptists, Catholics, and Marxists; hedonistic materialists, party girls, and comedians; Filipino postmen and Dutch engineers; gays, feminists, and High Church Anglican grandmothers. However, it is the nature of our times that this idea, shared by nearly everyone you know and nearly everyone they know, an idea our ancestors believed going back millennia, cannot be spoken in the public square.
This idea can be stated in many ways but it’s basically this: “Allah does not exist, Muhammad was not his prophet, and the Koran is not a holy book.”
Go read it all, for it's a great piece.
If Muslims cannot accept that most people do not believe Allah exists, do not believe Muhammad was a divinely inspired prophet, and do not believe the Koran is a sacred book, then we really are in a clash of civilizations. If Muslims in Pakistan cannot accept that the Catholic Pope will occasionally, without even trying, insult and deny Islam, then we are in for a long and terrible conflict.
The last two paragraphs of his [Ahmadinejad's] remarks revealed his steadfast and driving conviction, as previously reported in WND ,that a messianic figure, known as the "Mahdi" to Muslims, is poised to reveal himself after an apocalyptic holocaust on Earth that leaves most of the world's population dead.
I wonder what level the sheer outrage would be if a Western, Christian leader began giving speeches about the end times. Yet when the leader of a state supporting terrorism and striving after nuclear weapons begins to state that he will "pave the path" for the coming apocalypse...silence.
Those libs sure do have their priorities set out right, don't they?
President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said that after the September 11 attacks the United States threatened to bomb his country if it did not cooperate with America's war campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Musharraf, in an interview with CBS news magazine show "60 Minutes" that will air Sunday, said the threat came from Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and was given to Musharraf's intelligence director.
"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the Stone Age,'" Musharraf said.
Let's hope that it's a message still being broadcast to nations which harbour or support terrorists.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Perhaps something to bear in mind come election time?
And then there's the simply bizarre defence of O'Donnell which took place on Scarborough Country. First of all, Rachel Sklar of the Huffington Post tries to compare jihadi violence to the likes of Fred Phelp's and his "God hates fags" signs. So offensive language is just as bad as the brutal murder of children at Beslan, as hacking innocent men's heads off on video, as driving car bombs into markets filled with women shopping? When trying to compare the two types of extremism she even tries to contrast Muslim extremism (i.e. mass murder) with the anti-abortion and anti-condom use of some Christians. That she even tries to compare the two...well, I can't even comprehend how she can do that.
Then there's Jennifer Pozner of "Women in Media and News". When questioned on how many people had been killed in America by Christian radicals she claims to have seen the statistics for the period between '99 and 2000 (not between 99 and 2000 people as I'd originally thought)- she claims that there were 20 abortion clinic bombings and 8 attempted murders.
You find some statistics for abortion clinic attacks listed here (albeit only up to 2004) and here National Abortion Federation too. Eight attempted murders doesn't really compare to the many, many actual murders committed by Islamist terrorists. Nor is any mention made of the major difference between Muslim and Christian fundamentalists; there are no exhortations to perpetual war against unbelievers in the Bible. The Koran on the other hand has a great deal to say about how to treat infidels and how to wage war on them. The Bible also doesn't instruct Christians to chop heads off their enemies.
Pozner also seems to be completely bewildered by what's going on in the world. When the host talks about women and children being blown up she claims it's by "US bombs"; he has to explain the Sunni-Shia violence going on in Iraq.
There's also a nice Freudian slip from Pozner at the end of the interview- when asked outright if Muslim extremists pose as much of a threat as Christian extremists, she first answers, "No." That answer's quickly changed of course to a "it depends who you are".
Folks in Oklahoma are readjusting to an image not typically associated with the global war on terrorism, a 73-year old great-grandmother just back from Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Lena Haddix, a native of Lawton, has spent the last six months in full battle armor helping troops find snacks, shampoo and other American products at the Army & Air Force Exchange Service Post Exchange/Base Exchange in Camp Liberty, Iraq.
The personification of the Exchange's motto of “We Go Where You Go,” Haddix recently returned from her second voluntary deployment to the Middle East as a store manager. After previously volunteering to work in Kuwait, Haddix decided her work wasn't done and went back for a second tour of duty, this time to Baghdad, Iraq.
What a lady!
Deputy al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged a militant Algerian Islamist group to punish "crusader nation" France, even though it vehemently opposed the US-led war in Iraq, a newspaper said on Thursday.
So it seems quite clear that it's not the war in Iraq which is causing all this jihadist violence. Gee, I wonder what else it could be?
It [terrorist group GSPC- the Salafist Group For Preaching and Combat] is viewed as a major threat by the French security services and sources quoted by Le Figaro said it had switched its focus to taking part in the international jihad -- which means holy war in Arabic -- after losing influence at home.
Many French people believe their country is less of a target for Islamist-inspired attacks because of France's stance over Iraq, but officials say that cuts no ice with militants.
It's a real puzzler, isn't it?
Predictably the Religion of Taking Great Offense has condemned the Pope's remarks. Pakistan claimed that the Pope had "injured sentiments" of Muslims, in Kashmir such great offense was taken that separatist leaders were put under house arrest, the Turks claimed that he was being "hostile", the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt said that the Pope's statement expressed "wrong and distorted beliefs" and in Qatar a cleric said that Muslims "have the right to be angry and hurt" by the speech.
As Jihad Watch points out, there are even efforts to prevent the spread of the news of the Pope's speech in Kashmir-
OK, so let me get this straight: the Pope says that jihad violence is against God's nature, and officials fear that in response, Muslims enraged by this insult will commit...jihad violence.
Today, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that attorneys seeking to represent indigent clients are no longer required to sign documents swearing that they are not terrorists and have no involvement with terrorist groups.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio had challenged the provision, which is part of the Ohio Patriot Act, calling the requirement unnecessary red tape that will do nothing to prevent terrorism.“We are pleased the court recognized that attorneys should not be forced to sign these ineffective and offensive pledges,” said ACLU of Ohio Executive Director Christine Link.
I'm not at all surprised that the ACLU finds it offensive to state that they aren't involved in terrorism. This is the same group that refused to accept funds because "they objected to promising that none of the funds would be used to engage in any activity that promotes violence, terrorism, bigotry, or the destruction of any state." They had that provision scrapped too.
Why object to accepting funds with anti-terror strings? Why protest so strongly against a simple oath that they are not involved with terrorist groups?
Just why does a pro-civil liberties group find it so hard to distance themselves from civil liberties hating terrorist groups?
Clooney remember is the same genius who says, "You can't beat your enemy anymore through wars." Of course not, George, so what are we supposed to use to stop the mass slaughter in Darfur? Harsh language?
What strikes me about this is that Clooney, and people like him, who are so intent on saving lives in Darfur- an action that desperately needs to take place- are the very same ones who protest so vigorously against the American overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein. In Darfur the death toll so far is a staggering 200,000 lives lost. During his reign Hussein oversaw the deaths of well over a million.
So tell me again George- why is sending troops to Iraq wrong, but sending troops to Darfur right?
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Another thing I couldn’t help but notice was the respect, concern, and love that the 9/11 Truth Movement represented. And on the other side, the hate and anger and wickedness of the so called “ordinary” people. They could not debate one fact, they couldn’t talk without cursing or offending whoever they were talking to. To think that if it were them who died in the towers, and I had been there fighting for truth and wanting to know what happened to them, how unworthy they would be to protest for. I’m absolutely sure that there were good people that died in the towers, and not all evil hateful monsters like those there yesterday pretending to mourn. I dedicate my protest to any good person that died in the buildings, but it’s sad to say, those people I encountered yesterday in mass, are not worth protesting for. Next time they’re government kills them, I might just stay home and be quiet.
Which, I think, says a heck of a lot about this person. However, this other part of his tale is also worth hightlighting, especially when he talks of all the "respect, concern and love" of the Truthers themselves.
Then the hate began. Some Jew looking dude in a suit came up to me and asked “where are you from?” I said “PA”, and he said “you should go back to PA, asshole” and walked away. It took me by suprise, and I started laughing, I thought about saying “you should go back to Israel” but instead just shouted to him “you have a nice day too sir” and smiled.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Commentators at the site Mr. Cramer links to seem to think that preventing Christian beliefs being expoused is a good thing.
I guess they think that the groupthink must be protected at all costs, including the banning of free speech.
This is what passes for liberal thought these days?
This battle is not between al Qaeda and the U.S. This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders.
That's the big one, a message that needs to be repeated again and again to those who believe that 9/11 and the events that have followed are somehow caused by American foreign policy.
The events of Tuesday, September the 11th, in New York and Washington are great on all levels. Their repercussions are not over. Although the collapse of the twin towers is huge, but the events that followed, and I'm not just talking about the economic repercussions, those are continuing, the events that followed are dangerous and more enormous than the collapse of the towers.
The values of this Western civilization under the leadership of America have been destroyed. Those awesome symbolic towers that speak of liberty, human rights, and humanity have been destroyed. They have gone up in smoke.
We have one religion, one God, one book, one prophet, one nation. Our book teaches us to be brothers of a faith. All the Muslims are brothers. The name "al Qaeda" was established a long time ago by mere chance. The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al Qaeda [meaning "the base" in English]. And the name stayed. We speak about the conscience of the nation; we are the sons of the nation. We brothers in Islam from the Middle East, Philippines, Malaysia, India, Pakistan and as far as Mauritania.
Those men who sacrificed themselves in New York and Washington, they are the spokesmen of the nation's conscience. They are the nation's conscience that saw they have to avenge against the oppression.
The Jews and the Americans made up this call for peace in the world. The peace they're calling for is a big fairy tale. They're just drugging the Muslims as they lead them to slaughter. And the slaughter is still going on. If we defend ourselves, they call us terrorists. The prophet has said, "The end won't come before the Muslims and the Jews fight each other till the Jew hides between a tree and a stone. Then the tree and stone say, "Oh, you Muslim, this is a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him." He who claims there will be a lasting peace between us and the Jews is an infidel. He'll be denouncing the book and what's in it.
Helpfully, CNN has excised all of the passages from the Koran that Bin Laden uses to justify his reasoning.
Al-Zawahri spoke in the third and longest video, warning Americans of more attacks to come.
"We have repeatedly warned you and offered a truce with you. Now we have all the legal and rational justification to continue to fight you until your power is destroyed or you give in and surrender," he said. "The days are pregnant and giving birth to new events."
The indispensable Jihad Watch has more.
Remember that- the choice that Al Qaeda is offering us is surrender or destruction.
The author lays the blame for Bin Laden's evasion squarely on Bush and then goes on to add "there hasn't been a credible lead on the Al-Qaida cheiftain's whereabouts in more than two years." That's according to the Washington Times anyway. He decries the decision to pull out some Special Forces troops from Afghanistan that were hunting Bin Laden as if they were the only people capable of conducting the search. I think the men of units like the 10th Mountain Division might have something to say about that.
No mention is made of the 100,000 US, Afghan and Pakistani forces still searching for him. And there's no credible evidence that Bin Laden remained in Afghanistan for long after the Taliban were toppled- so if all those troops had been kept there, there's still no evidence that they would have been able to capture him. Despite the huge number in Russian troops in Afghanistan for a decade, the leaders of the Mujahideen were impossible to capture; and the Russians used a ruthless scorched earth policy to destroy whole villages. If such tactics failed them for a decade, is it really reasonable to blame Bush for removing a small cadre of Special Forces for the failure to find Bin Laden after only five years? I don't think so.
Defense Tech goes on to include criticism that the government employs no single man to oversee the hunt for Bin Laden. On the surface that seems like a valid enough point but there are Special Forces, Intelligence and Army detachments in Afghanistan who are already tasked with the job. They already know what the job is and are out there doing it - Bin Laden has apparently been reduced to using human couriers to communicate with the outside world. Will another bureaucrat and associated staff filling an office in Washington really make all that much of a difference to the effort currently being pursued? I'm not all that sure that it would.
Mistakes certainly have been made in the war we're currently engaged in- but hindsight is 20/20. Mistakes are always made in wars- and they are always easy to spot after the event. Whatever has been done is already done. There's no way to change the past and continually harping on about the difference that removing some SF guys from Afghanistan a few years ago may have made to the man-hunt is not at all helpful.
Perhaps the author would have been better served outlining his foolproof plan for capturing Bin Laden than criticising the massive manhunt still under way.
Surely one for your bookmarks. And let's hope that he returns home safe and sound to his family.
My latest knife acquisition is yet another CRKT- a Ryan Plan B. It's a little fixed and partially serrated blade. The design reminds me, at least, of a kind of karambit- and the handle is marked on the back side for either an up or down grip. Of all the knives I've bought recently this is one that might be most considered a fighter, as the name implies. Despite it's two and three quarter inch edge, it's an aggressive design- and the Zytel scales provide a superb grip.
Even though my CRKT SST is the blade that I carry most day-to-day, the Plan B is rapidly gaining my favour. And it is very easy to carry. The two-part sheath system can be worn on the belt (up or down) or on a neck chain (included). I had thought that the neck chain would be fairly obvious beneath a T-shirt but it's not as it's quite a slender set-up. The only time that carry is obvious this way is when you bend over.
As for belt carry, the right-hand design actually suits me (a southpaw) great. I simply clip it to the inside of my waistband and it not only turns the grip around the right way for me but also conceals it further. It also means that I can carry at the small of my back well too with the sheath tilted over a little. The knife is just the right size for concealed carry- it even fits nicely in the front pocket of my jeans too.
I'm very impressed by this little blade; it's a good size, offers a great grip, has a suitably aggressive design and is all too easy to carry. Yet again, CRKT have come through- and yet again, this particular item no longer appears in their online catalogue. Get one before they're all gone.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.
"The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism.The witness said that even in the thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said.
And Khalid Alaani, who was also picked up in Ramadi suspected of involvement in Sunni terrorism, said: "We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed."
I doubt though that the New York Times and their ilk will create such a fuss about this. After all, it paints American troops in Iraq in a positive light.
Think for a moment about the concerted action by Democrats, their lawyers, former White House operatives, Bill Clinton, sympathetic historians, and lefty bloggers to stop this show. Remember that this was the same crowd that was full of praise of for Fahrenheit 9/11 for crystallizing their opposition to George Bush. Accuracy and versimilitude didn't bother them then. And they weren't saying a word about 60 Minutes "fake but accurate" story on Bush's National Guard service. Now, ask yourself. If this crowd were to control the White House, how many more of these attempts to stifle any criticism of them would we be seeing? Think of how much has been aired during Bush's tenure, even a movie depicting him being assassinated and more denials of civil liberties gets made without Bush's White House unleashing its lawyers. But, for this thing, the Democrats go to the mattresses. Are they perhaps modeling for us what their response would be to further criticism if they should gain control of the White House - or even of Congress? Don't forget those not-so-veiled threats to ABC's license. Ponder that chill wind.
And the rest of her post on the subject is definitely worth reading too.
I can remember that day with extraordinary clarity- at work we downed tools and spent our time rushing between TV sets in two different buildings, checking the news coming in from the BBC and CNN. No one wanted to even change channels as we tried to get as much information as possible about what was going on. I still can't believe how much the world has changed since then- Afghanistan and Iraq liberated in the blink of an eye, while the jihadis have been forced out of the shadows to fight the freedoms given to those people. And countless people have been made aware of the doctrine of the Islamist terrorists, with no little thanks sites like Jihad Watch and Little Green Footballs. Since then we've witnessed carnage committed on a daily basis in Iraq, the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, and the horror that was Beslan. Not to mention the attacks against the people of Israel. The Religion of Peace total for Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is currently at 5,801.
So soon after 9/11 I am also struggling to deal with the fact that people who actually lived through that terrible day have begun to question the cause, preferring to believe that an arch-conspiracy committed by their own government murdered nearly 3,000 people rather than the evident truth of a terrorist atrocity. Even now after video has been shown of Bin Laden meeting with the architect of the despicable attack, somehow it's more comforting for them to believe that their own government wants to murder its own citizens than accept the fact that Islamist terrorists are prepared to carry out mass murder of innocent people going about their daily business. Even though there's ample evidence of just that behaviour from all over the globe. A generation on I could maybe understand such revisionist history, but for it to be going on right now is just astonishing.
We are still at war, a war that for most of us thankfully takes place largely far away. While mainstream moderate Muslim groups in the UK and America moan and complain that foreign policy is driving some Muslims to become extremists, the simple fact of the matter is that the brave men and women of the armed forces are fighting the jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan; not on the streets of Luton or Chicago. Fighting, killing and winning; the terrorists there are kept constantly on the back foot by the mere presence of professional soldiers and marines willing to put their lives on the line. I don't seem to recall any of those same moderate Muslim groups complaining that it is the activities of the jihadis in Iraq and Afghanistan that are forcing coalition troops to remain in those countries. Wouldn't it be something if CAIR or the MCB issued a statement calling on the jihadis to be good, peace-loving Muslims (they do tell us it's a religion of peace afterall) and lay down their arms, ensuring that there was no need for British or American troops to stay in Iraq to keep the peace?
So where are we five years on? The battle lines have been clearly delineated- a death-mongering, totalitarian, oppressive cult of extremists versus Western, liberal democracy. But there's another line too- one carved through Western society between those who would appease an enemy that wishes to see our entire culture of freedom and tolerance destroyed, and those who would fight that enemy. It's the same in America, the UK, Europe, Australia and elsewhere- a Red State-Blue State division writ large. While a relentless, merciless enemy who thinks nothing of murdering women and children in cold blood in the name of religion tries to destroy us, we're busy fighting one another too over how best to respond. 9/11 and the nearly six thousand terrorist attacks since have apparently not been enough to convince some people that we're even facing a very real threat. And that, I fear, could be our undoing.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
First up is some commentary on the article in Time magazine which imagines looking back at the war on terrorism from the year 2030. It's startlingly naive and ill-informed, exactly what you might expect by "historian" Niall Ferguson. In his dream-world the US retreated from the Middle East in 2008 and the Islamist terrorists didn't see the point of expending "their energies attacking American cities". So everything will be okay if only we do what the terrorists want us to do. It's all so simple really, isn't it?
Next up is an essay by Fjordman called, "Why we cannot rely on moderate Muslims." This one is definitely worth reading as he discusses the role of CAIR, the desire for many Muslims in the US for the Constitution to be replaced by Sharia, the concept of Al-Taqiya and hudna, and of course, an examination of the "moderate Muslim". There's certainly a great deal of food for thought there. Towards the end of the article Fjordman posits the idea of containment of Muslim populations in Western countries, a cessation of Muslim immigration and the possibility of a new set of Benes Decrees; laws which expelled significant portions of a population who had no loyalty to the state they lived in.
The war we're currently fighting went overt in 2001- almost five years ago to the day- but it can be traced all the way back to the 1983 Embassy bombing in Beirut. At least. The biggest problem seems to be a complete lack of understanding by our leaders, mainstream media and public-at-large of the nature of the enemy we're fighting. Again and again the jihadis tell us their reasons, their motivations and their desires for a Caliphate- and yet it's a message that it all too easily ignored by too many people. Some, like Ferguson, seem to think that if we merely leave the Middle East (abandoning millions of people to Islamic theocracy and despotism) then they will stop hating us. What, then, is the solution to the growing Islamic terrorism in the Far East? Allow them to establish Sharia-ruled states there? What's next? When the Islamists in Europe start clamouring for Sharia are we to simply roll over and let them take over there too? At what stage will people like Ferguson who prefer appeasement draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough"? By the time they're ready to do that, I fear it will be too late by far.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Do we really need the world's most powerful nation and last, best hope for freedom to be led by a group who seems to think that the USA is not one of the greatest nations on our planet, but one of the worst? It's bad enough having to watch Europe slowly sink in a mire of self-loathing and appeasement but do we really want the same thing to happen in America?
I can't even imagine what the next few decades might be like if the Democrats come to power right now in this phase of the war on terrorism. Scares the heck out of me.
A nurse returning from work discovered an intruder armed with a hammer in her home and strangled him with her bare hands, police said.
Susan Kuhnhausen, 51, ran to a neighbor's house after the confrontation Wednesday night. Police found the body of Edward Dalton Haffey 59, a convicted felon with a long police record.Haffey, about 5-foot-9 and 180 pounds, had convictions including conspiracy to commit aggravated murder, robbery, drug charges and possession of burglary tools. Neighbors said Kuhnhausen's size -- 5-foot-7 and 260 pounds -- may have given her an advantage.
"Everyone that I've talked to says 'Hurray for Susan,' said neighbor Annie Warnock, who called 911.
"You didn't need to calm her. She's an emergency room nurse. She's used to dealing with crisis."
UPDATE- The story has taken a rather bizarre twist- it seems that the so-called intruder was anything but; he was actually a hitman hired by Nurse Kuhnhausen's estranged husband. And she took him out with her bare hands.
Christine St-Pierre, a veteran Ottawa correspondent for French-language public broadcaster Radio-Canada, wrote an open letter to Canada's 2,300 troops telling them to ignore mounting criticism of the mission.
"We owe you all our respect and our unfailing support ... dear soldiers, your tears are not in vain, your tears are brave," St-Pierre wrote in the letter, which Montreal's La Presse newspaper published on Thursday.
She was suspended by Radio-Canada "for breaching internal regulations that stipulate employees are not allowed to express their opinions on controversial issues."
So a Canadian is not allowed to offer her support for Canadian troops in harm's way? Perhaps it was because she offered her support of the mission, by pointing out that it had been approved by the UN?
I fail to see how a Canadian citizen supporting the Canadian military is controversial in any way. Would a Canadian reporter have been suspended for supporting the Canadian military in World War 2? Amazing- that a journalist can be considered to have lost her objectivity in reporting a war because she supports her own military. We all know the bias that other journalists routinely dispay, but none of them are ever suspended. Just goes to show the danger of going against the groupthink I suppose.
What has the world come to?
Sunday, September 03, 2006
He also argues that a ghost could not walk through walls. The argument goes like this- to pass through walls a ghost would necessarily have to be "material-less", but to actually propell itself forward, or to walk on a floor, etc, it would have to possess some material form. Well, not necessarily- if we're talking about an immaterial object, it's perhaps not actually walking on the floor rather than floating on it. If it possesses no material form then it won't need to exert a force to move itself- perhaps it can move by simple virtual of wanting to go in a certain direction?
He then turns his attention to vampirism "proving" that it cannot exist because of this-
"it would take just two and a half years for vampires to wipe out the entire human race from the day the first one appeared, based on the myth that vampires turn their victims into other vampires by sucking their blood.
Using the principle of reductio ad absurdum, they conclude that vampires can't exist as their existence contradicts the existence of humans."
Might sound quite good but it completely ignores vampire lore- a vampire could feed without necessarily killing the victim and turning them into a vampire too. Or, as some legends have it, the vampire has to share some of his own blood in order to create a new vampire. So much for the rigorous scientific analysis by a professor of physics. I'd expect much more convincing arguments from a professor, particularly one who had chosen to write a paper on the topic.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Tomorrow's potential troublemakers can be identified even before they are born, Tony Blair has suggested.
Mr Blair said it was possible to spot the families whose circumstances made it likely their children would grow up to be a "menace to society".
He said teenage mums and problem families could be forced to take help to head off difficulties.
He said the government had to intervene much earlier to prevent problems developing when children were older.
There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he said.
Got that? Come from a "worrying" segment of society and Blair's cronies will have you marked down as being a potential troublemaker, even before birth. Right now the plan is to force parents to accept "advice". What, I wonder, will the next step be? And how long will it be before they demand even more control over how people raise their children and live their lives.
Big hat tip to Bag's Rants.
One of the points made is that governments in the past have conducted talks with terrorists whom they swore they would never speak to. He cites the IRA as one example. Well, let's look and see how that worked out- originally the IRA was supposed to disarm before talks began. They refused. Then they were supposed to disarm while talks were in progress. They refused. Then they were supposed to disarm when the talks were finished. They refused. Years passed and the political representatives of a murderous terrorist organisation were put into government; one of the demands that they had succeeded in passing was that, unlike the rest of the UK, the party with the most votes wouldn't get to make their own government; a certain number of seats were set aside for the other parties, ensuring that Sinn Fein/IRA would have a place. So for a time our Minister of Education in Northern Ireland was a "former" IRA commander- a man who had been arrested with explosives and ammunition and who had boasted of having informers murdered.
That's what happens when governments talk to terrorists. Today the IRA is still armed and the threat of a return to violence hangs over everything that happens here. If they don't get their way...
Back to Al Qaeda and the BBC- the entire blame for terrorism is placed squarely on US foreign policy in the Middle East- their support of apostate Arab governments, troops on Muslim soil and support for Israel. Taylor mentions the word jihad but he seems to believe that Bin Laden will go away if only America will do what he wants in the Middle East. And he appears to think that this is a reasonable plan in order to stop terrorism. He doesn't mention the Islamic terrorism elsewhere in the world- if the US lets Israel be destroyed will Islamists in the Far East start behaving themselves? He claims that Bin Laden doesn't want a Caliphate- which is an odd claim because Bin Laden has called for a Caliphate. His exact words were, "the pious Caliphate will start from Afghanistan."
Taylor is either completely unaware of his subject matter or is deliverately trying to deceive the audience. I wonder which it is?
FAS sums it up like this- "Al-Qa'ida's goal is to "unite all Muslims and to establish a government which follows the rule of the Caliphs." Bin Laden has stated that the only way to establish the Caliphate is by force. Al-Qa'ida's goal, therefore, is to overthrow nearly all Muslim governments, which are viewed as corrupt, to drive Western influence from those countries, and eventually to abolish state boundaries."
So what's Peter Taylor of the BBC talking about? And, even if Bin Laden has had a change of heart and no longer wants to establish a Caliphate, the war on terror isn't aimed simply at Al Qaeda and no one else- we're fighting Islamic terrorism all over the world. Does Taylor think we should sit down and negotiate with all of them? My guess is that he probably does think that's the way forward- the good little dhimmi is ready to accept his new Islamist overlords- and he wants to convince others to come along for the ride too.
It's interesting to note that the two "experts" who agree with Peter Taylor are a former Jordanian official and a Harvard academic. I think that says a lot about the show.
Friday, September 01, 2006
He's being accused on being an accomplice to rape for arranging marriages between young girls and older men. I have one word to say on that "Ayesha". See too, Zarqawi's child bride.
He warned a teenage girl forced into a "spiritual marriage" to submit to sex with her husband. Has he been reading the Koran? "Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will."
Now I don't for a moment condone Jeff's actions but it seems odd that his particular brand of multiple marriage and marriages between young girls and older men should be targeted but the practice by Muslims is accepted as some sort of cultural norm. And while I can't see the ACLU rushing forward to defend Jeffs (he's probably too "Christian" for them) they do seem to be oddly in favour both of multiple marriage and sex with minors- check out Clayton Cramer's blog for more on that.
Peaches Geldof is to appear in a Channel 4 reality TV show, the "precocious London party girl" living with a devout Muslim family in Morocco in a show called "A Beginner's Guide To Islam".
The BBC webpage on the story has a link to another feature called "I want to open people's minds". I'd assumed it was something to do with the Geldof story but it's actually about a wannabe Muslim actress.-
"as a practising Muslim, she faces all sorts of obstacles when she portrays a character. She does not drink or smoke, she must be careful about touching men - and obviously she cannot show anything other than her face and hands.
She contacted the BBC News website because she was frustrated by the lack of opportunity."
Gee, I wonder why she might feel there's a lack of opportunity for an actress with such "range"? There must be so many parts that she's capable of playing!
As if unaware of the world in which she wants to work the actress claims that her having to wear the hijab is just as limiting as the no-nudity clauses that some actors have in their contracts. Huh?
Anyway, expect to see her in a BBC drama soon. How many other out of work actors managed to get featured on the BBC? The clever girl even suggested a part for herself as a nurse on Casualty (think a less exciting and less glamorous ER).