Friday, December 29, 2006

Hitchens on Juan Cole, and Ahmadinejad on Israel

So I just realised that yesterday's article was yesterday's news, ie it was more than 6 months old. Still. I wonder now that Hitchens has had some 6 months to think about it -- he finally came up with the 'apology' demanded by Cole for this article at Slate?

I doubt it very much.

and, if the issue of Ahmadinejad and his true intentions toward Israel should come up, that Hitchens article at Slate is a must-read:

If you have a fast connection, this is a must-see, David Zucker's Iraq Study Group ad:

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

What did Ahmadinejad really say about Israel?

This from Juan Cole's site, where he is apparently having a tiff with Christopher Hitchens:

...I object to the characterization of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as having "threatened to wipe Israel off the map." -- Juan Cole

see also: This article in Wiki

This article from AlJazeera: says:

Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map
{I myself assume that AlJazeera would tell it like it is--J}

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Ahmadinejad addressed students at a conference

"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism.

"The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

His comments were the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official has called for Israel's eradication, even though such slogans are still regularly used at government rallies.

Call for unity

Addressing about 4000 students gathered in an Interior Ministry conference hall, Ahmadinejad also called for Palestinian unity, resistance and a point "where the annihilation of the Zionist regime will come".

Khatami was in favour of 'dialogue among civilisations'

"The Islamic umma (community) will not allow its historic enemy to live in its heartland," he said in the fiery speech that centred on a "historic war between the oppressor and the world of Islam".

The term "oppressor" is used by the clerical government to refer to the United States.

"We should not settle for a piece of land," he said of Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.

"Anyone who signs a treaty which recognises the entity of Israel means he has signed the surrender of the Muslim world," Ahmadinejad said.

"Any leaders in the Islamic umma who recognise Israel face the wrath of their own people."

Cole says: "Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government."

NABKA is the Arabs' Fault, some Pals Acknowledge

....will they be murdered soon for 'collaboration?'

Palestinian Columnist Admits Arab Leaders Responsible For The Flight Of Arabs From Israel In 1948

December 26, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Morton A. Klein, 212-481-1500

A columnist in the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) official television paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida , has admitted that it was Arab leaders who were responsible for the flight of Arabs from the new State of Israel in 1948. The columnist, Mahmud Al-Habbash, recently wrote that in 1948, Palestinian Arabs left their homes willingly under the instruction of their own Arab leaders and their false promises of a prompt return. “The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the 'Catastrophe' [the establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem] in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those 'Arkuvian' ['Arkuvian,' after Arkuv -- a figure from Arab tradition -- who was known for breaking his promises and for his lies] promises made by the leaders and the political elites. Afterwards, days passed, months, years and decades, and the promises were lost with the strain of the succession of events” ( Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 13, 2006, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch).

PA organs like Al-Hayat Al-Jadida generally demonize Israelis and are replete with viciously anti-Semitic articles. However, this is the most recent of a number of occasions in which the truth about the 1948 refugees, which is completely contrary to the official Palestinian version which holds that Israelis deliberately expelled peaceable Palestinians, has been admitted. Another recent example appeared in the newspaper, Al-Ayyam, in which Asmaa Jabir Balasimah Um Hasan, a Palestinian Arab women who fled Israel in 1948, stated, “We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the 'Catastrophe' [the establishment of Israel and the expulsion from the land in 1948]. They told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours.” ( Al-Ayyam newspaper, May 16, 2006, courtesy of Palestinian Media Watch).

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “These admissions, like others before it, indicate not only that the official Palestinian version that Israel deliberately expelled Palestinian Arabs is simply a false propaganda claim calculated to delegitimize Israel, but that at least some Palestinian Arabs know this to be the case, even if the occasions on which they admit the truth are rare. The truth of the matter is that those responsible for the Palestinian refugee problem are those Arab leaders who insisted on going to war with Israel in an effort to abort her creation, not Israel, which fought for to preserve her existence.”


Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Jimmy plays fast and loose with the truth

From a recent interview with Jimmy Carter regarding his new anti-Israel screed.

SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?

Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.

SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

Spiegel Interview with Jimmah here

Is the "10,000 prisoners" true or false ??

From WIKI:

Lebanese prisoners in Israel

There are according to Hezbollah's list (see below) currently FOUR known Lebanese citizens in Israeli prisons. Hezbollah has demanded the release of these prisoners as as condition for releasing Israeli reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, captured in the raid which sparked the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Israel admits to holding just three Lebanese prisoners.[1]

1. Samir Kuntar is serving four life sentences for murder for a 1979 attack on a civilian apartment block in Nahariya, Israel.

2. Nissim Nasser is an Israeli of Lebanese descent who was arrested in 2002 for spying for Hezbollah.[1]

3. Yehia Skaff is accused of participating in the 1978 Coastal Road massacre. Israel has not confirmed that it is holding Skaff, but according to Hezbollah, several former Lebanese detainees claim to have seen him in prison.

4.Ali Faratan is a fisherman.[1] Hezbollah gave no reason for his alleged detention. FROM WIKI

Reading on in Wiki one learns that, though the accuracy of these numbers is disputed, the Lebanese Permanent Representative to the UN claims there are 12 others, and there are a possible 12 more.

Carter's 10,000 Lebanese prisoners has been diminished to Hezbollah's 4, Lebanon's Permanent Representative's 12 and an assortment of uncatergorized 12, for a total of 28.

Jimmah was off by mere 9,972. In his assertion that Israel had no moral justification for its retaliation against Lebanon, he was forced to INVENT. I guess the truth simply does not serve the cause that Jimmah does.

Now, as nobody points out, if a simple numerical tally is beyond the peanut farmer's comprehension what about the more complex/controversial issues such as his allusion to the aparthied stain he so generously brushes Israel with?

Jimmy Carter fell into his Nobel Prize by actions precipitated by Sadat/Begin without his two peanuts' worth. It is sad that Carter is being abused by his own prejudices.

Jimmah, Jimmah, you not only lusted in your heart, but you bore false witness.

now you must bear the consequences...

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Online Book -- Kahane



Published in 1990. Rabbi Meir Kahane's last work which was published in 1990 shortly before his assassination. In this book, Rabbi Kahane outlines a blueprint of survival for Israel based on an emergency national referendum.

An important work.


Thursday, December 14, 2006

New Book Reviews

MUST-READ on Jimmy Carter's New Book --

Carter's Palestine-Israel Book: It's Even Worse Than They Say - Gidon D. Remba

Carter's top 10 misrepresentations reveal systematic anti-Israel bias and a Manichean view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict

A close reading of Carter's Palestine-Israel book leads to the inescapable conclusion: it's even worse than the critics say. The book is replete with major errors of fact, all systematically biased against Israel. Carter never makes a single factual error that works in Israel's favor, or against the Palestinians. He offers an abundance of misstatements and distortions that paint Israel black.

...Throughout the book Carter unfailingly shows deep sympathy for Palestinian perceptions, while displaying little understanding for Israeli attitudes or needs. The book suffers from a deep and uncritical pro-Palestinian bias that makes a mockery of Carter's pretensions to fair arbiter and peacemaker.

And while we are checking out the new anti-Israel books, read a review of the forthcoming Mearsheimer and Walt screed.

You've read the study, now you will get to read the book. Farrar, Straus and Giroux have paid $750,000 in advance for the book of the century, "The Israel Lobby." If you liked "Israel Lobby: The Study" you'll love "Israel Lobby: the book." It is sure to be accompanied by hundreds of interviews and write-ups in which the authors insist that nobody is allowed to criticize Israel. It will sell hundreds of thousands of copies to folks who insist that nobody is allowed to criticize Israel.

When you've read read the book, you'll get to see the movie. Mel Gibson will produce it and star in it. It promises to be a bigger blockbuster than "The Passion." Central casting at a major studio is already searching for a character who will play the nefarious representative of the "Israel Lobby" pictured below.

Go read and enjoy

The contradiction is amazing. Why did the powerful Israeli Lobby permit Farrar Strass to publish such a book?

More on the Carter screed tomorrow...

Masjid al-Aqsa cannot be the Far Mosque, can it?


958-951 BC Solomon's Temple built
587 BC Solomon's Temple destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian armies
37-34 BC Second Temple built (King Herod)
70 AD Second Temple destroyed by General Titus and his Roman soldiers
572 AD Muhammad born
622 AD Muhammad's "night journey" and mir'aj
632 AD Muhammad dies
638 AD Muslim jihadists conquer Jerusalem, taking it from the Byzantines
688-691 AD Dome of the Rock built by Amir Abd-ul-Malik
715 AD Masjid al-Aqsa built by the Ummayads

In light of these dates:-

What Temple did Muhammad visit, enter and pray at, before ascending to heaven?

Seeing that the Qur'an mentions a journey of Muhammad's to a mosque that did not exist during his lifetime, how can Surah 17:001 possibly have it, and Muhammad, In Jerusalem???

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Just to laugh a little

Breasts Not Bombs:

You have to see this

Chase put up some funny stuff here

- including

"Muslims Demand Prayer Room In Nasa Moon Base"
& a neat spoof on the imam incident

Be sure to read the Lou Dobbs Interview.


For some serious (and always straightforward) commentary from Cal Thomas, check out: The Rumsfeld Memo and Mine

Friday, December 01, 2006

Israel, Uranium, Lebanon, Fisk; Lies, Lies, and more Lies

Camera's Blog came out with this today, debunking the charge that Israel used uranium weaponry in the latest conflagration.

Anti-Israel agitator-cum-journalist Robert Fisk has a habit of fabricating stories about Israeli atrocities. Recently, he speculates that Israel has developed and used a "secret new uranium-based weapon" in Lebanon this summer "Mystery of Israel's Secret Uranium Bomb," Oct. 28, 2006, Fisk cites alleged results of tests on soil samples collected from bomb craters in Lebanon. These tests were conducted by Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk — a group of scientists who believe that internal radiation emitters, especially depleted uranium (DU), are the main cause of the world wide cancer "epidemic."

Fisk's piece reads like science fiction — and apparently it was. Experts from the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) released a statement on November 8, stating that they had found:

no evidence of penetrators or metal made of DU or other radioactive material. In addition, no DU shrapnel, or other radioactive residue was found. The analysis of all smear samples taken shows no DU, nor enriched Uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples.

I had been following this since it originally began being bantered about. Fisk's 'evidence' is all garnered from the work of a Chris Busby, presumably a physicist specialising in Uranium, and a member of the Green Party.

The following 2 web pages lay out his methodology in relation to an argument with a detractor named Dan Fahey, also apparently someone with impressive letters behind his name.

On the second page "breakingwinds2" [is he trying to tell us something?, lol], Busby explains his methodology and claims he found, NOT depleted uranium, but ! ENRICHED URANIUM.

4. Both methods showed the presence of ENRICHED URANIUM. This was unexpected. Dan Fahey has accused us of finding what we set out to find. This is untrue. We set out to look for DU on the basis of what we knew about the radiation levels reported. We actually found EU.

5..It is now suggested that the Enriched Uranium is ‘only slightly enriched’. This is untrue. We do not know what the level of enrichment is, since we are looking at a soil sample which would have had normal uranium present. If we allow for that the enrichment ratio is about 100 which is the input mix that can be used for some nuclear reactors.

Mr Busby says on the same page: "The air filter results will appear shortly. ....We still have some of this sample and are conducting further tests e.g. U-236. .....And as you will discover shortly, it is also elsewhere in the country."

We are of course waiting with bated breath for the further results, as rumours fly faster than bullets around here.

In the meantime, Fisk and others have lost no time in spreading the story, true to the old adage that a lie will get halfway around the world before the truth gets its shoes on. If you don't believe it, Google it You will even find this story! Confirmed: Israel Nuked Lebanon!

But is it true? The skeptic delves.

The first debunking article I found was this one:
Press release, Amsterdam, 12th October, 2006

Depleted Uranium (DU) munitions used in Lebanon?

In order to verify or to falsify the assertions that DU has been used, Henk van der Keur from the Laka Foundation brought a visit to Lebanon as part of a delegation from the Amsterdam based organisation Dromen, Denk, Durven, Doen (Dreaming, Thinking, to Dare, to Do), among others working on human rights issues and questions on the Middle East.


At his home Kobeissi had collected tens of samples from shrapnel and soil from more than 50 different places. None of these samples measured a higher radiation dose rate than the background radiation dose rate. The samples were measured with a calibrated geiger counter from Laka Foundation.


In short, there is no reason to believe that DU weaponry has been used by Israel during the July/August 2006 war.

So, so far we have the UN, and a human rights group using scientific methods and not being able to find this enriched uranium at all!

Then the other day this:

Lebanese Scientist: Southern Lebanon Radiation-Free
12:46 Nov 03, '06 / 12 Cheshvan 5767

( There are no signs of radiation as a result of IDF bombing the war against Hizbullah terrorists, a Lebanese scientist has told Voice of Lebanon radio. "We stick to the fact that uranium-based munitions were not used during the recent war; we have not detected any radiation proving the presence of depleted uranium," said Mouin Hamzeh, president the National Council for Scientific Research.

Hizbullah terrorists, environmental and human rights groups have claimed that samples of bombed out craters showed high radiation levels.

And finally, while I am no nuclear scientist, there is a common-sense analysis of the issue here at the shlemazl blog, along with some excellent comments on the Fisk article.

So, now we have the UN, and a human rights group, and the National Council for Scientific Research in Lebanon and none are able to find this uranium at all! Those who claim, with Busby and the world of anti-Israel bloggers, that Israel "nuked" Lebanon have not a whit more evidence to advance their 'cause'. Meanwhile we are hoping that Mr Busby will hurry with his further evidence, or in lieu of that, acknowledge his errors in the first one, so that Mr Fisk and others can correct the record.


Wednesday, September 27, 2006

The Pope, Uri Averny, & Halla

The Error of his Ways:

The Pope's words have created a lot of fuss these days, by the Jihadists, with whom it is "off with their heads!" at every available turn. The full text of the Pope's words can be found here

The latest Jihadi supporter to slam the Pope is Uri Averny, and his article Mohammed's Sword can be found here

Halla has found certain errors in the article by Averny, and here is Halla's analysis of Averny's article:

Avnery wrongly corrected the Pope on the sura and verse attributed to 2:256 by the Pope and wrongly 'corrected' by Avnery to 2:257.

The offending Avnery paragraph:

"The Pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith". "

Pickthall's translation:

[2:256] There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.


[2:257] Allah is the Protecting Guardian of those who believe. He bringeth them out of darkness into light. As for those who disbelieve, their patrons are false deities. They bring them out of light into darkness. Such are rightful owners of the Fire. They will abide therein.

For those in need of verification go here pick a translator and put 2:256 into the search:

Proof that Islam did indeed spread by the sword:

"How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith."

[2:256] There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.

[9:5] Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[9:6] And if anyone of the idolaters seeketh thy protection (O Muhammad), then protect him so that he may hear the Word of Allah, and afterward convey him to his place of safety. That is because they are a folk who know not.

Conclusion: there can be no doubt that the koran was spread by the sword.

Supporting Evidence:

(the following sura binds the world idolater to christians/jews)
"[3:67] Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.")

Supporting Argument:

now the koran as revealed text, ie the sequence in which the suras were revealed shows that sura 2 came before sura 9; and under sura [2:106] "Nothing of our revelation (even a single verse) do we abrogate or cause be forgotten, but we bring (in place) one better or the like thereof. Knowest thou not that Allah is Able to do all things ?"

All that means:

whatever is in 9 supersedes that which is in 2. so the "no compulsion" in sura 2:256 is replaced by something better in sura 9:5/9:6

Supporting evidence on the sequence of the revealed koran

(2), 8, 3, 33, 60, 4, 99, 57, 47, 13, 55, 76, 65, 98, 59, 24, 22, 63, 58, 49, 66, 64, 61, 62, 48, 5, (9), 110

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Petition: Fair play for Israel at the UN

Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN is the latest, but not the last or greatest, in the long history of persecution of Israel at the United Nations - condemnations, "Zionism is Racism" resolutions, anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic conferences. ..

The heart of the problem is the UN Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR). Please sign the petition to stop the anti-Israel circus at the UN and abolish the DPR.

Read the background and petiton below. . Sign the petition here:


The preamble of the UN Charter affirms the faith of the founders "in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small." Unfortunately, the UN has failed in its charter obligations toward one nation, Israel.

Israel is not treated as an equal at the United Nations. Israel has been the target of an endless stream of biased General Assembly resolutions, including the vicious "Zionism is Racism" resolution of 1975. Each year, the UN marks a day of solidarity with the Palestinian people on November, 29, "mourning" the anniversary of the UN Partition Plan, General Assembly Resolution 181 that partitioned Palestine in 1947 and created the State of Israel. Arab states and Palestinians refused to recognize that resolution. In a recent "solidarity" day, high ranking UN officials including UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, "mourned" the establishment of Israel and condemned Israel, while standing under a map showing "Palestine" in place of Israel.

In 2001, the UN-sponsored Durban Conference on Racism was a festival of anti-Semitic propaganda replete with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, cartoons of Jews dripping blood from their fangs and "Zionism is Racism" resolutions. To her credit, UN Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson, not a friend of Israel, condemned the conference.

At the heart of this activity, under the banner of the Question_of_ Palestine, a special Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR) wages a tireless battle against the legitimacy of the state of Israel, sponsoring anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic events.

Fair play demands that the UN abolish the DPR and take steps to ensure that Israel is treated as an equal.

Background information on persecution of Israel at the UN is given at The Question of Palestine
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Fair Play for Israel at the United Nations
To the Secretary General of the United Nations, US Ambassador to the United Nations and EU Ambassador to the United Nations:
We, the undersigned, are concerned that the UN has been subverted for decades into an instrument to persecute a member state, Israel. This violates charter guarantees of equality for all states and detracts from the ability of the UN to function as a fair and impartial mediator in the Middle East. Precious Secretariat resources for human rights are diverted into one conflict and one problem out of many.

We insist that Israel be given equal treatment with all countries at the UN.

The UN Human Rights Commission, even after reform, issues endless condemnations of Israel, supported by notorious human rights violators such as Libya, Cuba, Iran, and Syria
Israel is the only state that for decades was not part of a regional group and could not participate in UN bodies and consultations, and its membership is still restricted.

One of the seven Secretariat divisions for the entire world is a separate Division for Palestinian Rights. There is no separate division for any country or any other issue. There is no division for women's rights or basic freedoms, and no separate divisions for Tibet, Cyprus, West Sahara or other crisis areas.

Notorious examples of UN sponsored anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic NGO activities abound. They include the odious Durban conference that condemned Zionism as "Racism." A conference in Cairo supported the Hamas government and tried to torpedo efforts to force the Hamas to recognize Israel and participate in conflict resolution.

The Division for Palestinian Rights (DPR) and the committees it controls conduct an unrelenting campaign against Israel. The DPR fosters Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) that promote racism and attempts to impede peace efforts.

These activities and related anti-Israel initiatives have damaged the credibility of the UN as a force for peace and a neutral mediator.
We call on the UN to abolish the Division for Palestinian Rights and the associated Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (SCIIHRP) and the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP).
Likewise, we call on the UN to complete the reform of the UN Human Rights Commission and correct its anti-Israel bias, and to allow the integration of Israel into the UN as an equal member which can serve in all UN institutions and committees.

The Undersigned

(When signing, please make your e-mail address available to us by clicking the appropriate radio button option, if you want us to contact you about future action items. Your address information will not be used for commercial purposes or given to other groups. Thank you)
Click to Sign the Petition

This page is from

Monday, September 04, 2006

Back Again

Mea culpa on not being here. Been elsewhere. Anyway here now and these are my current thoughts:

On Human Rights Watch and Kenneth Roth and the worldwide campaign to discredit Israel.

As Maurice Osterman said in his Open Letter to Human Rights Watch Director, Kenneth Roth in the NY Sun here:

I read your article “indiscriminate bombardment” in the Jerusalem Post of August 18, with a mixture of sadness and astonishment. Sadness, because the type of biased reporting in your article, damages the credibility of your great
humanitarian organization.

Astonishment, because your methodology flatly contradicts HRW’s claim that it employs researchers to conduct fact-finding investigations into human rights abuses. The presentation of conjecture as facts in your article cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as fact-finding,. The latter requires impartial examination and evaluation of all the available evidence without regard to whether or not it may contradict preconceived opinions. Allow me to be explicit.

Which he does get -con't

HRW --
The cover of his webpage contains a discredited as 'staged' photo from Qana. A Lebanese Volunteer carries a child killed in an Israeli air raid in Qana. (specifically on this page: )
In HRW report entitled :

Fatal Strikes
Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon
the following discredited report is given:
Attacks on Fleeing Civilians
Wounding of Six Ambulance Drivers and Three Patients, July 23
On July 23, at 11:15 p.m., Israeli warplanes struck two clearly marked Red Cross ambulances in the village of Qana. The ambulances, which had Red Cross flags illuminated by a spot light mounted on the ambulance, were transferring three wounded Lebanese civilians from one ambulance to the other when the planes struck. A weapon directly hit one ambulance, and a second attack struck the second ambulance a few minutes later. All six of the Red Cross workers were injured during the attack, and the three patients they were treating suffered additional injuries. One of the patients, a middle-aged man, lost his leg in the ambulance strike, while his elderly mother was partially paralyzed. The third patient, a young boy, received multiple shrapnel wounds to the head.107

Making medical or religious personnel, medical units or medical transports the object of attack is a war crime.108
One of these stories of the ambulances has got to be false.It's all here:

As for the movies:
hizbullah shooting Missles from Kfar Qana
Do Not Launch Missiles from your Garden
Hizbollah Uses Civilians

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Reality UnDone ... Propaganda RULES the Media! does a great job putting the Reuter's photo fraud together. There are new pictures from US News and World Report -- must see is an 18 minute movie -
Pals putting up shows for the world's media to view, documentary from Gaza, part of The Road to Jenin film by Pierre Rehov.

Hezbollah supervises foreign reporters closely and gives them guided tours. Meanwhile, they are holding their passports, and threatening them. And the major media outlets have played along.




Sunday, July 30, 2006

An Exchange Between Nobody and Eric

eric i shall digest your post in bites with the necessary intellectual mastication to prevent gas.

>>Instead of posting articles can you write for yourself

i could consider that statement insulting, but not after considering the source.

>> Do you find this article to speak for your views?

there is no perfect isomorphic correspondence, but there is some (some being defined as more than one but less than all) simulacrum of similitude. since each view deserves it on venue and since no view has perfect correspondence, eric will need to particularize each.

>>And do you think Israel is doing something good in Lebanon and the Occupied Territories.

i do not ascribe to the concept of 'good'

>>the situation can in some regards be mirrored. Who is to determine terrorism as opposed to militarism and is there really any difference?

we can have a could but ones needs to as should before assuming would could be should. if the presumption of mirror is granted for argument sake, then each, with its cadre of supporters would and could say the other is a 'terrorist'.

what we need is an 'operational definition' of terrorist each ascribes to.

one example is the deliberate targeting of 'innocents' for the purpose of killing them. now let us get to qanafying this:

lots of dead civilian, women/children. was that in an of itself an act of terror?

for argument i employ this:

Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

and i employ this:

IDF: 150 rockets fired from Qana at Israeli cities
Yaakov Katz, Jpost staff, and AP, THE JERUSALEM POST Jul. 30, 2006

Speaking to reporters, Eshel added that Hizbullah rocket launchers were hidden in civilian buildings in the village. He proceeded to show video footage of rocket launchers being driven into the village following launches.

from which i input this:
so what you have is a deliberate effort by hezbollah to draw retaliation by Israel and deliberately making an effort to have Israel target civilian areas.

now some may argue that Israel should forgo retaliating because of the civilian population. but such a scenario would promote more intense use of civilian's as shields. thus creating a situation whereby hezbollah could attack Israel with impunity. how did Israel act? Israel broadcast by various media, that the civilian population should leave because Israel was targeting the area. how did hezbollah act. it did not remove the civilian population. the human shields remained. hezbollah still attacked. Israel retaliated.>>

now i will skip to this:

normally i do not answer such ignorance. but i will try. i look for internal consistency in argument. i also am of the belief that the adversarial environment is conducive to good argument.

If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many. But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

if eric read the mill's quote carefully then you will understand my position. make your argument within your limits and i will make my arguments within my limits. let the armies of ideas contest reality.

and this expression >>then I'm not really sure why you are posting anything at all>> will eventually be resolved. perhaps.

Friday, July 28, 2006

The Second Coming...

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in the sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

W.B. Yeats

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Hezbollah and its involvement in anti-Israel and international terrorism

Read about it here:

Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S)

Information Bulletins and info specifically and in general relating to the Middle east, though with information about the "Global Jihad." Background.

A must-have site:

Joe McCain: The Jews will not go quietly again

Posted: 7/12/2006
Author: Joe McCain

The Jews will not go quietly again.

Joe McCain, Senator John McCain's brother on The Jews & Israel.

There is a lot of worry popping up in the media just now — "Can Israel Survive?" Don't worry about it. It relates to something that Palestinians, the Arabs, and perhaps most Americans don't realize — the Jews are never going quietly again. Never. And if the world doesn't come to understand that, then millions of Arabs are going to die. It's as simple as that.

Throughout the history of the world, the most abused, kicked-around race of people have been the Jews. Not just during the holocaust of World War II, but for thousands of years. They have truly been "The Chosen People" in a terrible and tragic sense.

The Bible story of Egypt's enslavement of the Jews is not just a story, it is history, if festooned with theological legend and heroic epics. In 70 A.D. the Romans, which had for a long time tolerated the Jews — even admired them as 'superior' to other vassals — tired of their truculent demands for independence and decided on an early "Solution" to the Jewish problem. Jerusalem was sacked and reduced to near rubble, Jewish resistance was pursued and crushed by the implacable Roman War Machine — see 'Masada'. And thus began The Diaspora, the dispersal of Jews throughout the rest of the world.

Their homeland destroyed, their culture crushed, they looked desperately for the few niches in a hostile world where they could be safe. That safety was fragile, and often subject to the whims of moody hosts. The words 'pogrom', 'ghetto', and 'anti-Semitism' come from this treatment of the first mono-theistic people. Throughout Europe, changing times meant sometimes tolerance, sometimes even warmth for the Jews, but eventually it meant hostility, then malevolence. There is not a country in Europe or Western Asia that at one time or another has not decided to lash out against the children of Moses, sometimes by whim, sometimes by manipulation.

Winston Churchill calls Edward I one of England's very greatest kings. It was under his rule in the late 1200's that Wales and Cornwall were hammered into the British crown, and Scotland and Ireland were invaded and occupied. He was also the first European monarch to set up a really effective administrative bureaucracy, surveyed and censused his kingdom, established laws and political divisions. But he also embraced the Jews. Actually Edward didn't embrace Jews so much as he embraced their money. For the English Jews had acquired wealth — understandable, because this people that could not own land or office, could not join most of the trades and professions, soon found out that money was a very good thing to accumulate. Much harder to take away than land or a store, was a hidden sock of gold and silver coins. Ever resourceful, Edward found a way — he borrowed money from the Jews to finance imperial ambitions in Europe, especially France. The loans were almost certainly not made gladly, but how do you refuse your King? Especially when he is 'Edward the Hammer'. Then, rather than pay back the debt, Edward simply expelled the Jews. Edward was especially inventive — he did this twice. After a time, he invited the Jews back to their English homeland, borrowed more money, then expelled them again.

Most people do not know that Spain was one of the early entrants into The Renaissance. People from all over the world came to Spain in the late medieval period. All were welcome — Arabs, Jews, other Europeans. The University of Salamanca was one of the great centers of learning in the world — scholars of all nations, all fields came to Salamanca to share their knowledge and their ideas. But in 1492, Ferdinand and Isabella, having driven the last of Moors from the Spanish Shield, were persuaded by the righteous fundamentalists of the time to announce "The Act of Purification". A series of steps were taken in which all Jews and Arabs and other non-Christians were expelled from the country, or would face the tools and the torches of The Inquisition. From this 'cleansing' come the Sephardic Jews — as opposed to the Ashkenazis of Eastern Europe. In Eastern Europe, the sporadic violence and brutality against Jews are common knowledge. 'Fiddler' without the music and the folksy humor. At times of fury, no accommodation by the Jew was good enough, no profile low enough, no village poor enough or distant enough.

From these come the near-steady flow of Jews to the United States. And despite the disdain of the Jews by most 'American' Americans, they came to grab the American Dream with both hands, and contributed everything from new ideas of enterprise in retail and entertainment to becoming some of our finest physicians and lawyers. The modern United States, in spite of itself, IS The United States in part because of its Jewish blood.

Then the Nazi Holocaust — the corralling, sorting, orderly eradication of millions of the people of Moses. Not something that other realms in other times didn't try to do, by the way, the Germans were just more organized and had better murder technology.

I stood in the center of Dachau for an entire day, about 15 years ago, trying to comprehend how this could have happened. I had gone there on a side trip from Munich, vaguely curious about this Dachau. I soon became engulfed in the enormity of what had occurred there nestled in this middle and working class neighborhood.

How could human beings do this to other human beings, hear their cries, their pleas, their terror, their pain, and continue without apparently even wincing? I no longer wonder. At some times, some places, ANY sect of the human race is capable of horrors against their fellow man, whether a member of the Waffen SS, a Serbian sniper, a Turkish policeman in 1920's Armenia, a Mississippi Klansman. Because even in the United States not all was a Rose Garden. For a long time Jews had quotas in our universities and graduate schools. Only so many Jews could be in a medical or law school at one time. Jews were disparaged widely. I remember as a kid Jewish jokes told without a wince - "Why do Jews have such big noses?"

Well, now the Jews have a homeland again. A place that is theirs. And that's the point. It doesn't matter how many times the United States and European powers try to rein in Israel, if it comes down to survival of its nation, its people, they will fight like no lioness has ever fought to save her cubs. They will fight with a ferocity, a determination, and a skill, that will astound us.

And many will die, mostly their attackers, I believe. If there were a macabre historical betting parlor, my money would be on the Israelis to be standing at the end. As we killed the kamikazes and the Wehrmacht soldaten of World War II, so will the Israelis kill their suicidal attackers, until there are not enough to torment them.

The irony goes unnoticed — while we are hammering away to punish those who brought the horrors of last September here, we restrain the Israelis from the same retaliation. Not the same thing, of course — We are We, They are They. While we mourn and seethe at September 11th, we don't notice that Israel has a September 11th sometimes every day.

We may not notice, but it doesn't make any difference. And it doesn't make any difference whether you are pro-Israeli or you think Israel is the bully of the Middle East. If it comes to where a new holocaust looms — with or without the concurrence of the United States and Europe — Israel will lash out without pause or restraint at those who would try to annihilate their country.

The Jews will not go quietly again.

Joe McCain

thank you, Mr McCain, for your kind understanding.

Friday, June 09, 2006

UN Resolution 42/159

Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms and study of the underlying causes of those forms of terrorism and acts of violence which lie in misery, frustration, grievance and despair and which cause some people to sacrifice human lives, including their own, in an attempt to effect radical changes:

This quote from UN Resolution 42/159 gives tacit agreement to the use of suicide bombers with the inclusion of "including their own" vis a vis " sacrifice human lives.... to effect radical changes."


Terrorism defined by means other than the great UN always includes the deliberate targeting of innocents. It never has included the body of the killer in some exculpatory phrases in defense of killing innocents. Terrorism is defined by the fact that they target innocents. This resolution is an effort to dismiss the targeting of innocents because of some grievance. To generalize from this: any group with - what it perceives as a grievance - can target innocents if the person that does the killing is also killed.

b) Convening, under the auspices of the United Nations, of an international conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of peoples for national liberation .

in as much as it is preceded by this quote:

Measures to prevent international terrorism which endangers or
takes innocent human lives or jeopardizes fundamental freedoms and study of the underlying causes of those forms of terrorism...


It appears the united nations wants to prevent that which it has not yet a definition for.

Much of the resolution is crafted not around what is the definition of that which targets the lives of innocents, but a workaround for some that do take target the lives of innocents. It appears that under the aegis of 'struggles of peoples for national liberation,' the targeting of innocents is tolerable.

a reflection:

A reading of the Hamas Covenant reveals not a people striving for "national liberation" but a religious movement:

The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned. In the absence of Islam, strife will be rife, oppression spreads, evil prevails and schisms and wars will break out.

Given that 'Palestine' is a mixture of religions (mainly Christians and Moslems), it could be argued that the present Palestinian government is not primarily a national movement, but a religious movement. Actually it could be argued that the government under Arafat was also suffused in the Islamic religion to the exception of the Christians in as much as it was to be under Sharia law.

Middle East Report Online: The Palestinian Elections That Never ... Arafat had also finally signed the Palestinian Basic Law, long since approved by the ... So far, law in future Palestine is based on Islamic sharia law, ... - 52k - Cached -

That leaves the constitution committee, headed by Shaath. Every
day, the press carries his statements that the document is only days from completion. So far, law in future Palestine is based on Islamic sharia law, an announcement that has caused concern for the Christian minority. Unlike most other Arab women, Palestinian mothers will pass on their citizenship to their offspring.

Today's Palestinian government, Hamas, is a religious movement on a mission:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" Hamas_covenant

One may well ask, what do we have here: a national movement or Islamic imperialism??

--(The Lady or the Tiger?) ---credit to nobody

Saturday, May 20, 2006

No Badges for Iranian Jews after All

from Bloomberg:

Iran Denies It Passed Law to Force Non-Muslims to Wear Badges

May 20 (Bloomberg) -- Iran denied a report that it passed a law
that would force non-Muslims in the Islamic Republic to wear colored labels
identifying their religion.

The Canadian National Post yesterday reported Iran's parliament passed a law last week for a public dress code that would require Jews to wear a yellow strip of cloth on their clothing, Christians a red one, and Zoroastrians blue. Iran is a predominantly Muslim country.

``Such a bill was never introduced in the parliament,'' said Maurice Motammed, Iran's only Jewish deputy who represents Iran's community of 25,000 Jews, on state television today. ``Iranian minorities benefit from the same liberties and social rights as other people.''

A bill to promote ``an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women'' was passed in Iran's Parliament on May 14. However, it didn't mention religious minorities, Emad Afrough, head of the parliament's cultural committee and one of the main designers of the measure said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency IRNA. The article appeared in several newspapers around the world, drawing criticism from top Canadian and Australian officials. U.S. State department spokesman Sean McCormack said such a decision would be ``despicable'', Agence France-Presse reported yesterday.

The report was described by Iran's local state media as a failed ``campaign lead by a Zionist newspaper.'' Iran's new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has come under criticism since his election in June 2005 for questioning the existence of the Holocaust and for his statement that ``Israel should be wiped off the map.''

Wouldn't you know they can always manage to blame 'the Zionists' for everything, lol? Even if such a move could hardly be seen to be in the Zionists best interests.

WorldNet Daily writes that Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, said he believes the original reports, although acknowledges he has no independent confirmation.

"We know that the national uniform law was passed and that certain colors were selected for Jews and other minorities. If the Iranian government is going to pass such a law then they are not likely to be forthcoming about what they are doing."

To read about the history of the persecution of Persian Jews, see:

notice this:

Even under Shah Abbas, one of the more enlightened Safavi Monarchs in his treatment of religious minorities, particularly the Armenians, the jews, along with Zoroastrians and Christians became subjects of forced conversion, and evicted from Isfahan in 1656 because of their pollutant effect and religious impurity. But many forcefully converted Jews continued to practice their religion in secret and the failure of the policy gave rise to protests by the clergy and some Moslem erchants who did not consider these converts as real Moslems and hence a new edict in 1661 allowed them to revert to open practice of Judaism under state restrictions, including the wearing of a patch to identify them as Jews. The wearing of a patch to identify a non-believer was not limited to the Jews, and was also required for the Christians who wore a cross, though by a decree, the Armenians were exempted from wearing a patch. 10

It appears that the Nazis were preceded by the Iranians on this "badge" idea. Perhaps the word comes from "badger"...

New Iranian Law will require Jews to wear yellow star

According to the Jerusalem Post

A great place to read about it is at the site Western Resistance

There are some places that are suggesting that it is not true or hasn't happened yet. It is not widely reported in MSM. We shall have to wait and see.

I just wanted to add a little something about Persian Jews for the record.

An interesting and informative site regarding the Iranian Jews is here: The Jews of Persia

and this from "Kosher Delights"

"In 1986 there were an estimated 50,000 Jews in Iran, a decline from about 85,000 in 1978. The Iranian Jewish community is one of the oldest in the world, being descended from Jews who remained in the region following the Babylonian captivity, when the Achaemenid rulers of the first Iranian empire permitted Jews to return to Jerusalem. Over the centuries the Jews of Iran became physically, culturally, and linguistically indistinguishable from the non-Jewish population. The overwhelming majority of Jews speak Persian as their mother language, and a tiny minority, Kurdish. The Jews are predominantly urban and by the 1970s were concentrated in Tehran, with smaller communities in other cities, such as Shiraz, Esfahan, Hamadan, and Kashan.

Until the twentieth century the Jews were confined to their own quarters in the towns. In general the Jews were an impoverished minority, occupationally restricted to small-scale trading, moneylending, and working with precious metals. Since the 1920s, Jews have had greater opportunities for economic and social mobility. They have received assistance from a number of international Jewish organizations, including the American Joint Distribution Committee, which introduced electricity, piped water, and modern sanitation into Jewish neighborhoods. The Jews have gradually gained increased importance in the bazaars of Tehran and other cities, and after World War II some educated Jews entered the professions, particularly pharmacy, medicine, and dentistry.

The Constitution of 1979 recognized Jews as an official religious minority and accorded them the right to elect a representative to the Majlis. Like the Christians, the Jews have not been persecuted. Unlike the Christians, the Jews have been viewed with suspicion by the government, probably because of the government's intense hostility toward Israel. Iranian Jews generally have many relatives in Israel--some 45,000 Iranian Jews emigrated from Iran to Israel between 1948 and 1977--with whom they are in regular contact. Since 1979 the government has cited mail and telephone communications as evidence of "spying" in the arrest, detention, and even execution of a few prominent Jews. Although these individual cases have not affected the status of the community as a whole, they have contributed to a pervasive feeling of insecurity among Jews regarding their future in Iran and have helped to precipitate large- scale emigration. Most Jews who have left since the Revolution have settled in the United States. "

I imagine they are feeling pretty insecure right now. Apparently some people have learned nothing from the Holocaust, and it is possibly that Ahamadinejad will be responsible for a holocaust upon his own people, as he attempts one for the Jews of the middle east.

The Europeans, however, seem intent on bending over, something that has worked so well for them in the past.

Monday, May 08, 2006

Good News for American Jews

Mind you this was taken a year ago. I would be interested in seeing a more recent one.
Pew Poll

Actually the Muslims don't do as badly as one might expect considering. It would also be interesting to see a similar poll in Europe. Might not look so good for Jews there, lol!

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Internet Jihad

Recently my regular forum was hacked and went down, along with over 100 other blogs, including a few in my 'must read' list, such as Little Green Footballs. You can read about it at Michelle Malkin's blog. I was going to send you over to Aaron's cc: , but when I popped over there to check it out again it had been hacked yet again. If you want to see the hack, it is at . I think the regular blog is at but they hijacked it. Hopefully Aaron will get the situation fixed in a hurry. "They" are the Muslim Brotherhood this time, according to aarons, --they apparently left a calling card in the hack.

Little Green Footballs seems to think it was the Saudis, or did think so yesterday. A couple of years ago Malkin was hacked and she said it was the Turks that time.

So at any rate, D. and I decided to post at some different forums. As a social liberal in many ways I decided to go see what the Left was saying about Israel/Palestine in their forums so signed up for the Democratic Underground Forum . The forum requires a 24-hour waiting period if you sign up from Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail or Gmail etc. So we went in to check it out.

There were a couple of Zionists and a slew of "anti-Zionists" there. Negative things about Israel were raised and praised, Palestinians were raised and praised. Nothing bad was permitted to be said about Palestinians, yet IDF were called 'murdering racist thugs' with impunity. Arutz-Sheva was called "a right wing racist scum" newspaper and I was roundly excoriated for recommending it, along with the Jerusalem Post, as a balance to Ha'aretz. Three days in, I got a popup window saying my posting privileges were revoked! (I swear I had said not one bad word nor called anyone a name!). The form said I could write in and ask questions, and that they answered all email, so I did so, asking simply why I had been banned.

Honestly, the only reason I can figure is my point of view, which is pro-Israeli. It has been a number of days now and I have got no answer from them at all.

Meanwhile D. was still posting (for 2 more days) when! in the middle of a post he got the word! POSTING PRIVILEGES REVOKED! What made the timing of that particularly annoying was that he had just been called a "liar" by a fellow poster regarding the situation in Iraq, and he was defending his position.

It seems the Democratic Underground cannot brook any counterarguments. They have made an intellectual ghetto over there --or I should say a non-intellectual ghetto-- where all they do is stroke one another.

Oh and another thing I found interesting was that the ONLY conflict that was at that board was the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict. I brought that question up, asking why it was that when there were presumably 70 conflicts going on in the world that this forum only had that one? What about Kashmire, Afghanistan etc?

After I was banned, I noticed that my thread was gone, and a number of my posts had been deleted as well as my name. The same thing happened to D. So it appears that the Democratic Underground is not really into free speech, real debate, or pro-Israel posters. How too bad.

Jews have always been known as strong supporters of human and civil rights. They were extremely active for civil rights in this country during the MLK era, and Jewish activists were even murdered for their support of civil rights for Blacks.

Now that many (most ) American Jews support Israel's fight against the terror perpetrated by the Palestinians, many Democrats and so-called 'Progressives' shun/denounce Jews who support Israel as 'racists.'

The have become a part of the Internet Jihad, silencing the very same position that the Jihadists are attempting to silence.

I am at a loss to understand how the Jihadists are more 'progressive' than D. or I! Anyway, will keep you posted if I ever find out why either one of us got banned.

Monday, April 24, 2006

Bully Boys of the New Anti-Semitism

Great post from

Long before 1939 rolled around the Nazis had gotten well underway by drumming up a campaign of hate against Jews. Today many of the same Protestant denominations, such as the Lutherans and the Methodists, who supported Hitler then have signed on to divestment, the first stages of extending the decades old Arab boycott of Israel to America and the West. In Europe major political parties and labor unions have already proposed boycotts of Israel and even academic boycotts of scientists and engineers and graduate students whose only crime is being from Israel; regardless of their personal politics.

That divestment from Israel has gained more traction among Unitarians, Presbyterians, Methodists and Lutherans than on any academic campus strongly suggests that these denominations are either more left wing or more Anti-Semitic than even American campuses. Either possibility is extremely disturbing at best considering that these are the spirtual leaders for a large number of Americans.

In Europe while any criticism of Islam is categorized as hate speech and subject to prosecution Jewbaiting in the classical German style has become far more commonplace. Had any right wing politician taunted a politician of Jewish origin with "Show Me The Shekels," on a talk show, the righteous progressive liberals would have immediately seen it for what it was and thrown a anti-hate speech rally, when it was done by the left's favorite thug, George Galloway though, it passes as just another day in the UK.

Meanwhile the attempted censuring of London Mayor Ken Livingstone for his own round of comparing Jewish figures to Nazis backfired in a way resembling the failed legal attempts by the German Jewish community against Goebbels in the 20's. Both Galloway and Livingstone represent the ugliest side of the left that openly allies itself with extremist Muslim groups, endorses the terrorist regime of Iran and engages in open Jewbaiting.

This indeed serves a useful function. As criticism of minorities becomes increasingly verbotten, the average Englishman is encouraged to shift his bigotries to the one legally permissible target, the Jew; all the while that bully boys like Livingstone and Galloway who would have been entirely at home in a Munich beer hall egg them on taunting and abusing prominent Jewish figures and then waiting eventually for the violence, which this time will be performed by Muslim rather than German mobs.

In this way the Jews for the Europeans once again come to serve the function we have always served, as a safety valve for releasing violent anger at their living conditions while the European governments continue to hope that their Muslim minorities will accept kicking Jews as a substitute for kicking Europeans. A state of affairs they cannot expect to hold even until their Muslim minorities become Muslim majorities. But as the Czar believed that beating the Jews would be an acceptable substitute for Russians for social and economic freedom, as the Kaiser believed beating the Jews would be an acceptable substitute for a Democratic republic; Europe continues to retrace its own muddy footsteps towards a foretold conclusion.

Thursday, April 13, 2006


Posted by Picasa

Your daughter thinks you are the most beautiful person in the world, and loves you very very very much! She is the luckiest daughter in the universe.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

The "Academic Paper" that won't disappear


Paper Issued by Kennedy School Blames War on Israel Lobby
By ELI LAKE Staff Reporter of the Sun

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an “Israel lobby” is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

But the paper,“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” by the Kennedy
School’s Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, is meeting with a more critical reception from many of those it names as part of the lobby.The 83-page “working paper” claims a network of journalists, think tanks, lobbyists, and largely Jewish officials have seized the foreign policy debate and manipulated America to invade Iraq. Included in this network, the authors say, are the editors of the New YorkTimes, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, “pro-Israel” senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles” including columnist George Will.

Dershowitz is quoted : here.

of course, no analysis of any media issue on Israel is complete without a review of material by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.

APRIL 7, 2006
Updated Roundup of Coverage of the Walt/Mearsheimer "Israel Lobby" Controversy

MARCH 30, 2006
Will the real John Mearsheimer please stand up?

MARCH 22, 2006
Harvard Backs Away from "Israel Lobby" Professors; Removes Logo from Controversial Paper

MARCH 20, 2006
Study Decrying “Israel Lobby” Marred by Numerous Errors

And then we have this update from Taranto, showing that this story has 'legs' on both sides of the aisle, ie, friends and enemies alike, lol.

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Anne Bayefsky @ National Review Online

Iran Wins One at the U.N.

Unserious nonbinding nonsense.

It has been three weeks since the Security Council was undeniably seized of the case of Iran's nuclear ambitions. At the end of it, the Council could only manage to produce a non-binding presidential statement. They could not agree to adopt a Security Council resolution. They could not agree to state clearly that Iran was in violation of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They could not agree that Iranian behavior constituted a threat to international peace and security. They could not agree on any actions to take against Iran at all. They could not even agree that the ball was squarely in the Security Council's court, and not in the hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA,) where the issue has languished for the past three years.

What could they agree on in their nonbinding statement? They had "serious concerns…that the IAEA is unable to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran." Well that's one way of putting the threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of a genocidal maniac. Evidently, they did not have serious concerns arising from the fact that the IAEA has already concluded Iran violated its legal obligations. They also had a "serious concern" about "Iran’s decision to resume enrichment-related activities...and to suspend cooperation with the IAEA..." Translation: “naughty, naughty.” And the punch line? The Council "calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors...which are essential to build confidence."

How about confidence in the Security Council? The Council did not adopt a single penalty for noncompliance with Iran’s treaty obligations. The only concrete action the Council took was to ask the IAEA to produce another report in 30 days. And even then, there was no consensus that the report should go only to the Security Council, so they sent it both to the IAEA board of governors and the Council.

The Russian and the Chinese, however, are not the only ones to blame for the Council's inability to fulfill its very raison d'etre of protecting international peace and security. In the heat of negotiations, with Ambassador John Bolton pressing a strong case for serious Council action, the U.S. administration introduced Iranian-American bilateral talks — ostensibly on Iraq. Bilateral discussions — especially between these normally nonconversant parties — at the very moment that America was trying to build a multilateral coalition against its interlocutor, was sure to rattle feckless European allies and embolden the Russian and Chinese to hang tough. And so it did.

Security Council first round: Iran 1; nuclear-war opponents 0.

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College Law Center. She is also editor of

article can be found here.

Leave it to the UN to do nothing when something is called for, and something only when it is not! grrr...

Also see How Corrupt Is the United Nations? by Claudia Rosett at Commentary Magazine

Answer? Pretty damned corrupt....

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Need Some Free Software Utilities?

This site has analyzed and reviewed the best of the best free software. I have tried most of them and can agree with his/her assessment of those I have tried. Some of these programs do their job simply and lightly and others are more complicated. Do check them out before buying expensive software. These programs do what they say they do and they cost nothing. One can donate if one is happy with a particular program. There are programs which are duplicates of Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop. Unless one is a professional somethingorother, these programs are all that you will need. Check here:

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Investor's Business Daily asks

Religion Of Peace?

Investor's Business Daily

War On Terror:

In the wake of the cartoon jihad and mosque-on-mosque violence in Iraq, most Americans now think Islam has more violent believers than any other faith. Yet many still view it as a "peaceful religion."

Psychologists might call this cognitive dissonance — a state of mind where rational people essentially lie to themselves. But in this case, it's understandable. In our politically correct culture, criticizing any religion, even one that plots our destruction, is still taboo. And no one wants to suggest the terrorists are driven by their holy text.

Which explains a Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that Americans are becoming more aware of the broader threat (58% associate terrorists with Islam), but are still convinced terrorists are radicalizing Islam and not the other way around (54% don't think Islam itself encourages violence).

The new poll, however, still doesn't sit well with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group dedicated to improving public perceptions of Islam. It has denounced increasingly negative views as "Islamophobic" and vowed to redouble its "education" efforts.

Good. What better time for CAIR and other Muslim leaders to step up, cut through the politically correct fog and provide factual answers to the questions that give so many non-Muslims pause?

Generally speaking, those questions focus on whether the Quran does indeed promote violence against non-Muslims, and how many of the terrorists' ideas — about the violent jihad, the self-immolation, the kidnappings, even the beheadings — come right out of the text? But even more specifically:

Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?

Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to "instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever" and to "smite above their necks" (8:12)?

Is the "test" of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?

Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?

And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 5:76; 56:22)?

Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give "asylum and aid" to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?

Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?

Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?

There are other questions, but these should do for a start. If the answers are "yes," then at least Americans will know there's no such thing as moderate Islam, even as they trust that there are moderate Muslims who do not act out on its violent commands.

posted by Mladen @

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Recommended Reading Mizgin over at Rastibini ,
from a three part section entitled:

Prospects of Terror: An Inquiry into Jihadi Alternatives

Islamism: Dirty little secrets

I thought this rather provides a clarity to the idea of 'Islamism'. A good read, and extremely provoking to most Muslims at forums around the 'net.

Islamism: Dirty little secrets
From: The Toronto Sun

In the latter half of the 20th century, the struggle for Islam's soul turned most bloody and relentlessly continues that way. The seeds for this were sown in the first half of the last century, when most Arab-Muslim lands were under European rule. It was then that many Muslim enthusiasts for reconciling traditional Islam with the scientific and democratic values of the modern world embraced the doctrines of nationalism in their most reactionary form, as found in post-1914 Germany.

The result reduced Islam into a nationalist identity for Arabs and Muslims. Many Muslim fundamentalists later incorporated this reactionary nationalism for their own purpose of constructing totalitarian states. The pernicious effect of such a fusion of nationalism with religion was to empty Islam of its transcendent message of faith in a supreme God as the common ground of unity among all people.

In India, for instance, Islamic nationalism generated the whirlwind of communal carnage in the 1947 partition of the subcontinent. Wounds of that bloody division remain today. But it was in the Middle East where nationalism fused with Islam into a political ideology - Islamism - whose effects have brought ruin to the region - and beyond.

The dirty secret apologists for this tragedy in North America and elsewhere refuse to address is how Muslims have suffered as a result of Islamism, have been driven from their homes, tortured and killed across the Arab-Muslim world. There has been no systematic collection of this horrible data over the past five decades, but the numbers run into millions.

It matters little within the larger context of the struggle for Islam's soul whether Muslims have been primarily the victims of tyrannical authority in Muslim majority states, or of Islamists waging battles against corrupt power elites. No one in the Arab-Muslim world during this period exceeded the bloody-mindedness of Iraq's fallen despot, Saddam Hussein, who blended a Nazi-type nationalism with his version of Islamism into a sheer hell for Iraqis.

The world also witnessed many Islamists and Muslim apologists rallying to Saddam's defence with contorted arguments of anti-imperialism in all of its variations. The other dirty secret is the continuing victimization of Palestinians by many of their fellow Arabs, and of their being used as pawns in the war of Islamists against Jews and Israel.

Neither Islam, nor Muslims, have any quarrel with Jews and Israel. The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Israelis was, and remains, a nationalist contest over land. This contest could have been avoided, or settled at any time since the full reality of the Holocaust became known, if Arab Muslims in a position to lead had chosen to live by the principles of Islam.

Instead, they opted for the German model of nationalism in opposing Jewish demands for a homeland in historic Palestine. Amin al-Husayni, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was the leader of the Palestinians during the years between the world wars of the last century. His embrace of the German fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, during World War II was not a whimsical choice.

Islamists deliberately incorporated the racist doctrine of the Nazis into their thinking and politics, and brazenly propagated anti-Semitic literature as a tool in their war against the Jews and Israel. Consequently, the damage Islamists have done to the very legitimate grievances of Palestinians is immense.

Moreover, many Muslims, in supporting Palestinian rights without repudiating the rabid anti-Semitism of the Islamists, have contributed to the undermining of Islam as a religion of peace and coexistence and sabotaged their moral authority to speak of justice in Palestine, or elsewhere.

This internal conflict raging among Muslims during the past 50 years was bound to spill over into the outside world with devastating effects on 9/11.

Now America has become involved in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world as never before. Ironically, or by providential design, the future of Islam and of Muslims if they are to be free of the fanaticism of the Islamists, is bound to America's success in this war on terrorism.

(Salim Mansur is a professor of political science at the University of Western Ontario. )

I noticed that the people at Jihad Watch picked it up as well.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

More on the Death of Slobodan Milosevic

from Mary Mostert, who has been investigating the ICTY and this trial from the beginning, comes this article entitled:

The convenient death of Slobodan Milosevic

Slobodan Milosevic, the last communist head of state for the former Yugoslavia, after four years of a trial conducted by the ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia), died in his cell at the Hague, unattended and after much debate with his captors over his health problems. His trial for his alleged crimes has been going on for four years and was supposed to be coming to an end in a matter of weeks.

see also my article on this issue here