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

Thoughts on the upcoming Israeli elections

Aaron Lerner says simply what seems so simple that it shouldn't even need to be said; and yet, Olmert is poised to win in the coming elections.

Weekly Commentary: Thinking through retreat

Aaron Lerner Date: 23 March 2006

What happens if Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert succeeds next week in getting enough votes to put together a stable "retreat coalition"?

According to Olmert, once Israel determines that the absence of a Palestinian partner renders the Roadmap irrelevant (a determination that can be made in 60 seconds) his team would negotiate and implement an Israeli retreat from most of the West Bank.

These talks would take place both within Israeli society and with various foreign countries out of an interest in imbuing the retreat line international recognition.

Mr. Olmert has been careful not to specify where the retreat lines will be but has indicated that some major settlement blocs would be retained by Israel.

This is not the first time that the Israeli public has been assured that the reward for retreat would be international recognition of the "settlement blocs."

The Sharon team claimed that the major pay back for retreat from the Gaza Strip was American recognition of Israel's right to retain the "settlement blocs" when in fact the "reward" was only the suggestion by the United States that, contrary to the Palestinian position, those blocs were legitimate negotiating chips that could be expected to have some value in final status talks.

As a legitimate negotiating chip, for example, the United States might expect Israel to be able to trade them, for Ramat Eshkol, French Hill and other Jewish neighborhood beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.

But, as America made clear repeatedly, they made these observations as kibitzers on the sideline - not negotiators.

To repeat: the "reward" for retreating from Gaza was not an American commitment to support Israel's retention of the major settlement blocs but instead only the remark from the sidelines that America thinks Israel might be able to get something in return for relinquishing them to the Palestinians - but that it is ultimately up to the Palestinians to decide.

While the Sharon team insisted that this wasn't the case, the route of the separation fence serves as a clear indication that they were well aware of the true meaning of the American remarks.

Here was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon at the very apogee of world support thanks to his retreat plan and he couldn't put the Ariel bloc within the fence.

What then can be expected to be the dynamics of the "retreat talks"?

Internally, the Olmert team would negotiate with either official or unofficial representatives of the Israeli West Bank communities (there are some who joined the Kadima Party in the expectation that this would somehow put them in a more effective negotiating position) to reach ostensibly "consensus" retreat lines.

The area within these retreat lines would then be whittled down as the Olmert team sought foreign recognition of the retreat with each interlocutor seeking to take credit for inducing Israel to deepen its retreat even further both geographically and functionally.

Some retreat proponents claim that Israel would bulldoze the communities beyond the fence but still retain its military presence but the issue of military presence is exactly the kind of functional question that Israel would be pressed to yield on as it seeks foreign support for the retreat.

By the same token, one can expect considerable pressure on Israel to yield on such issues as the establishment of some kind of land link between the West Bank and Jordan (following the Rafah model that stripped Israel of control) and even possibly an air corridor.

But would this then ultimately mean retreating to internationally recognized final borders?


At best it means retreating to lines that would ultimately serve as the opening point for Arab-Israeli final status talks.

There is, of course, another element in the picture. The Hamas dominated PA.

The goal of the Olmert retreat is ostensibly to reduce Israeli casualties by retreating from areas where there is considerable "friction".

And since the contours of the Olmert retreat would also be driven by "friction avoidance" it follows that the Palestinians would do everything in their power to apply "friction" to induce greater withdrawals.

Put simply: the Olmert team would reward Palestinian terror with ever deeper retreats.

A vote for Kadima isn't a vote over nuance. It isn't a vote over personalities. A vote for Kadima is a vote for retreat to temporary lines that will only invite Palestinian terror to induce further retreats.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Monday, March 20, 2006

Duke 1, Harvard 0

This is an great article recommended by CAMERA, who called it 'an excellent analysis of the Walt-Mearsheimer report' ("The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy") by Best of the Web's James Taranto. I liked it particularly because the paragraph that Taranto analyzes so clearly epitomises contemporary "anti-Zionist" so-called "thinking", and because Taranto takes them to the cleaners in just a few sentences, lol.

Duke 1, Harvard 0

With Yale struggling to control the damage owing to its admission of an unrepentant onetime Talib as a student (John Fund has the latest), Harvard now finds itself in a similarly embarrassing situation. It's the sort of Ivy League rivalry that causes "prominent alumni" of third-tier Western universities to break into a slightly guilty smile. The New York Sun reports on the latest trouble in Cambridge:

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 York Times, the scholars at the Brookings Institution, students at Columbia, "pro-Israel" senior officials in the executive branch, and "neoconservative gentiles" including columnist George Will.

Duke, a former Louisiana state legislator and one-time Ku Klux Klan leader, called the paper "a great step forward," but he said he was "surprised" that the Kennedy School would publish the report.

Now of course, just because Duke endorses Walt and Mearsheimer doesn't mean they endorse him. Indeed, we suspect they're as mortified by this praise as Yale is by the criticism it has received over Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi. Yet without ascribing to them any invidious motives, it seems fair to say that their views dovetail disturbingly with those of unquestioned anti-Semites.

Walt and Mearsheimer argue that "neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel," and therefore the only possible explanation is "the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby." The premise is plainly false; the "Israel Lobby" in fact makes many strategic and moral arguments in its own favor. Walt and Mearsheimer merely disagree with them, and they spend the opening paragraphs of the paper explaining why.

We'll pass over their strategic arguments. We find them wrongheaded, but we will stipulate that one can in good faith take the position that the costs to the U.S. of supporting Israel outweigh the benefits.

Their rejection of the moral arguments, however, is highly problematic. They write:

[Israel's] backers . . . argue that it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel's conduct has been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection, none of these arguments is persuasive.

Let's take these points one by one:

*Israel is weak and surrounded by enemies. To the contrary, they say, Israel is by far the strongest regional power. Further, "Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so." This gives the Saudis far too much credit. True, as we noted in 2002, then Crown Prince Abdullah (now king) told the New York Times' Thomas Friedman that he was amenable to establishing full diplomatic relations, conditioned on Israeli withdrawal from the disputed territories (occupied by Egypt and Jordan before 1967 and Israel since). But Riyadh quickly made clear that it was unwilling even to talk to Jerusalem until after such a withdrawal. As we wrote then, "The Saudi position, in other words, amounts to: Give us land now, and maybe we'll give you peace later." It is true that Israel is the regional superpower, and that Cairo and Amman have signed peace treaties with the Jewish state, but it seems undeniable--and Walt and Mearsheimer do not deny it--that none of this would be true absent U.S. support for Israel. Thus their reasoning is circular: Israel doesn't deserve U.S. support because it has received U.S. support.

*Israel is a democracy. This they concede, but they also claim that "some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values." In particular, they claim that Arab citizens of Israel "are treated as second-class citizens" and note that "a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a 'neglectful and discriminatory' manner towards them." Yet even acknowledging that Israeli democracy is flawed, its political system is still vastly superior to those of its adversaries. Israeli Arabs enjoy more political and civil liberties than citizens of just about any Arab country; and the only Arab lands that come anywhere close to being democracies are Lebanon, Iraq and the disputed Palestinian territories--the last two only because of American intervention. That the Israeli government criticizes its own treatment of Arabs is a testament to its democracy; can anyone imagine, say, the Saudi regime offering similar criticisms of its treatment of Shiites, non-Muslims or women? American democracy, too, is not without its flaws. During World War II, for instance, black Americans were still disfranchised, and innocent Japanese-Americans were rounded up and put in camps. It does not follow that America was no better than Nazi Germany.

*Jews deserve a homeland because of their past oppression. Walt and Mearsheimer go so far as to allow that Israel's creation "was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long record of crimes against Jews." But, they say, "it also brought about fresh crimes against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians." They lay the plight of the Palestinians entirely at Israel's door, failing to acknowledge the Arab states' vast culpability. The Arabs rejected the 1947 U.N. partition of Palestine, which would have created a Palestinian Arab state including territories beyond the present-day West Bank and Gaza strip. The Arabs immediately declared war on the nascent Jewish state--a war in which Israel gained more territory--and they waged war again in 1967 and 1973. All Arab states except Jordan refuse to allow Palestinians to become citizens, preferring to let them linger as stateless refugees. Nor do the authors acknowledge that since the creation of Israel many Jews who settled there were fleeing persecution in Arab lands and (since 1979) Iran. Whereas Israel has 1.3 million Arab citizens, no Arab country except Morocco has more than a handful of Jewish ones.

*Israel is morally superior to its adversaries. Here they cite various alleged abuses by Israel during its war of independence and claim that "Israel's subsequent conduct has often been brutal, belying any claim to moral superiority." Even if we concede all the criticisms of Israel, they do not belie "any claim to moral superiority," only to moral perfection. Evaluating which side is morally superior would require a comparative analysis; the only thing Walt and Mearsheimer say about Arab misconduct is that "the Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions." No such excuses are offered for Israel's purported misdeeds.

Walt and Mearsheimer's method of analysis presumes Israel's guilt. Every past or present Israeli transgression is evidence of its wickedness, whereas Arab ones, if they are acknowledged at all, are "understandable." This approach paints a highly misleading picture. It is anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent.

Which brings us back to David Duke. His endorsement no doubt is anathema to Walt and Mearsheimer, but it is telling that he finds their ideas congenial.

Their brand of anti-Israel prejudice is much more common and respectable in Europe than in America (indeed, their paper was published in the London Review of Books), a fact that they would no doubt attribute to the mighty "Israel Lobby." But here is another difference between Europe and America: In many European countries, David Duke would not be allowed to speak because of postwar prohibitions on Nazi propaganda. Passing these laws surely was an act of prudence, and it may be that they are still necessary for the protection of European democracy.

By contrast, America's ability to tolerate the likes of Duke demonstrates the health of our body politic. It may be that Duke's presence even enhances that health. Think of him as a sort of vaccine that helps immunize us against more insidious forms of bigotry.

Best of the Web

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Always doubting Israel

by Robert Fulford
from National Post (Toronto)

By well-established tradition, most journalism in Europe and North America considers Israel guilty until proven innocent.

On Wednesday the headline over a front-page Globe and Mail story from Jericho said, “Israeli siege of prison ignites violence,” conveying in just six words a universe of misunderstanding. It implied that Israel had caused grief and chaos by destroying a Palestinian prison and seizing certain prisoners. As a result, Palestinians were setting fires, vandalizing offices, and briefly kidnapping foreigners chosen at random. They seized a Korean journalist, for instance — an eccentric way to punish Israel but well within the inscrutable mindset of enraged Palestinians.On Thursday the Globe had another story, under another one-sided heading, with a text written almost entirely from the Palestinian side. The BBC reported that the Israeli raid “brings a dangerous new tension to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” leaving the impression that the region would be peaceful if only the Israelis had left the prison alone. Reuters and Agence France-Presse picked up comments from European politicians: Josep Borrell of Spain, President of the European parliament, said storming the prison was useless and unfair, and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, leader of the Greens, said Israel had sacrificed “the future of this region.”

Why in the world would Israel do such a thing? insisted it was to help Kadima win the March 28 election, which is what we would expect from It was a little more surprising to see the New York Times editorial on Thursday speculating that the motive was “election-season muscle-flexing.”

That charge can’t be proven either way, but there’s a serious case to be made that the raid was an understandable, even inevitable response to circumstances. Since 2001, Israel has wanted to try Ahmed Saadat for planning the assassination of the Israeli tourism minister, Rehavam Zeevi — a not unreasonable desire, considering that the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility and Saadat heads the Popular Front.

Before the Israelis could arrest him, Yasir Arafat’s Palestinian Authority took Sadaat into protective custody. He and his confederates were kept safe in Arafat’s Ramallah compound, which Israel then blockaded. (The Palestinians put four men on trial for the assassination, not including Saadat; they were convicted and given mild sentences.)

In May, 2002, the Americans and the British brokered a deal: Israel would lift the siege of Ramallah if Saadat and the others were imprisoned under American and British supervision. Sent to the Jericho prison, they remained there, apparently in exceptional comfort, until Hamas won the Palestinian election in January. Hamas, the terrorist party dedicated to Israel’s destruction, now promises to release Saadat and friends. In a moment of madness, the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, endorsed that idea.

Inside the prison, the atmosphere was poisoned. The soon-to-be-freed prisoners took charge and the British and American monitors no longer felt safe. They several times threatened to leave, and this week they did. Since their departure voided the 2002 agreement, Israel sent the army.

It’s hard to see what other course Israel could have followed, given that the principal killer of a Cabinet minister was about to be given his liberty. Meanwhile, the news services have quietly upgraded Saadat. For years no one questioned his guilt, but this week Reuters, the BBC, etc. began calling him merely “accused”; CNN says he “allegedly” ordered the killing.

The journalistic handling of these events demonstrated once more the bitter anti-Israel feeling that colours most coverage in the West. When a controversial issue arises, Israel never gets the benefit of the doubt. Israel’s enemies, who are often also the West’s enemies, are offered much more tolerance. Hamas (with help from Abbas) created this week’s current mess but much of the world now probably believes otherwise.

On Wednesday newspapers and TV carried pictures of Palestinian prisoners surrendering in their underwear. Immediately, this became another Israeli crime. As the New York Times said, “Israeli Army officials ordered inmates to strip to their underwear, which many did, marching out with clothing on their heads, an embarrassing and completely unnecessary provocation that trampled the dignity of any Palestinian watching that spectacle.”

That could only have been written by a journalist who perversely chose to ignore the dangerous life of Israelis. Many of the prisoners were terrorists and having them take off their clothes ensured that they couldn’t explode a bomb in the midst of Israeli soldiers. The soldiers would have been foolish to handle it any other way, But their ordinary common sense made them, once more, a target for the wilfully uninformed.

© National Post 2006

Shamelessly lifted from Israpundit

Thursday, March 16, 2006


I wonder how many people know what Halabja or the Anfal campaign is? This is one of the reasons to feel good about having helped to overthrow Saddam. I hear people complaining that since there were no WMDs in Iraq that we were wrong to have 'regime change'. And then I remember GWB and all his talk about Saddam's 'gassing his own people' as justification and I remember Halabja.

''On 16 March, 1988, the Saddam Ba'ath regime began chemical bombing of the town of Halabja, south and east of Silêmanî, close to the border with Iranian-occupied Kurdistan. Halabja has become the symbol of the Anfal campaign to genocide the Kurdish people, although it was not only Halabja that was attacked during the following 72 hours, but the entire area around Halabja was attacked in the same way. The immediate deaths were estimated at 5,000 men, women, children. The animals died.

Those who could, fled, trying to make it through the mountains and across the Iran border. Many died on the way and were later buried in the Zagros. There are a lot of mass graves in and around Halabja. ''

It really wasn't reported that much at the time, and leftists often point their fingers that the US did not agree to a UN motion to censure Saddam at the time, and while we may not have done the right thing at the time, though God knows that UN censure is ridiculous anyway, usually they get the wrong guy. But we did go in a few years later... and we provided a no-fly zone for the Kurds... and also bypassed Saddam with respect to the sanction money.

But unsurprisingly, if one thinks about it... the effects of that gas went well beyond the immediate deaths of 5000 innocent humans. In fact, the survivors in the area around Halabja are today suffering effects that could easily have been expected from poison gas exposure -- congenital malformations, cancers of all sorts, blindness -- young children dying of leukemias and lymphomas. This has been known at least since 1998, along with the fact that absolutely nothing was done or is being done, to help these people medically, either before the article was written or since!

Saddam should be on trial for this, for what is happening, or not happening, today in Halabja, and we should be giving our tax dollars toward helping these people, the Kurdish, our friends, who have suffered so at the hands of a Hitler-like murderer! -- rather than to the murderers and terrorists that make up the Palestinian terror-tories!

I point you here to read: HALABJA, 18 YEARS ON

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Reflections on the Death of Milosevic

The death of Slobadan Milosevic reminded me of a long story I read a while back in The Emperor's New Clothes which was a huge story which was extremely plausible, but I recognized it as a "conspiracy theory." Thus because I heard nothing more about it, I dismissed it "with prejudice." But with the death of Milosevic; my friend rodders put up several posts at MEIC, one of which include this link. I missed it when it came out a year ago. It seems the 'conspiracy theory' may well be the God's honest TRUTH.

A Jewish Albatross: The Serbs:

"A Jewish Albatross: The Serbs
By Julia Gorin March 16, 2005

Imagine that a country is fighting domestic terrorism by Muslim militants who are carrying out attacks against police, government officials and citizens in a bid to carve out their own state, hoping to provoke a response from the government that will alarm the international community. Imagine that the world duly intervenes, and a peacekeeping force is sent in, paralyzing the nation’s ability to defend itself, and effectively doing the militants’ bidding even as attacks against the non-Muslim population continue. Finally, imagine the intervening internationals severing this nation’s Jerusalem from it and handing it to the provocateurs.

It sounds like a worst-case scenario for the Israeli people, but it is a fate that actually befell the Serbian people, who this year may lose Kosovo as the deadline approaches for determining the status of the province, where Christian churches, monasteries and homes were burned to the ground in pogroms in March of last year. They will lose Kosovo to Albanian Muslims, whose fates are now entirely in the hands of the international Islamist factions with whom they, and we, cast their lot. As a reprisal of last March looms on the horizon (Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj stepped down when he was indicted for war crimes last week, and the UN Mission in Kosovo was promptly bombed), the reticence about butchered Serbian octogenarians, children and other civilians--alternating with dismissal of these atrocities, even six years later, as “revenge killings”--intimates that terrorized Serbs are an even bigger yawn than terrorized Israelis. That’s why I am calling upon my fellow Jews to break their own conspicuous silence."

Highly recommended reading.

Saturday, March 11, 2006

Understanding the Arabs

This article is

Understanding the Arabs: Cross Cultural Communications With the Arab World:
"Learning to Think like an Arab Muslim:
a Short Guide to Understanding the Arab Mentality"

Dealing with terrorism, especially Islamic Fundamentalists, requires an intimate knowledge of terrorism, terrorist operations, and especially the key cultural features that makes up the Arab psyche. An understanding and detailed background knowledge of the Arab mentality is critical to performing accurate threat analysis. Understanding Arab culture can provide valuable insights into the changing nature of Post 9-11 terrorism, and how to rank and prioritize potential threats. To outsmart our clever and elusive Islamic terrorist foes, one must first understand what makes him tick. This paper is based on years of experience in the Middle East, and is dedicated to helping the reader understand the Arab mentality."

Read this to get a better understanding of the Arab Psyche. (Thanks again to Mîzgin from Rastîbini)

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Do We Have a Problem Here?

"North Carolina Tar Heel Terror "

Here is a longer version of the article that appears in FrontPage today by Joe Kaufman on the Chapel Hill jihad:

Saturday night, the University of North Carolina (UNC) was abuzz with joy, as its Tar Heels men’s basketball team defeated its arch-rival and number one-ranked Duke. But this huge win only temporarily masked the pain of an event that happened just a day earlier. On Friday, Iranian-born Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a 22 year-old UNC graduate, tore through a lunchtime crowd at one of the university’s popular gathering spots with a Jeep Grand Cherokee, hitting nine people, of whom six were hospitalized with injuries.

Taheri-azar was arrested and charged with nine counts each of attempted first-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon. According to Derek Poarch, the chief of the university police department, the attacker told investigators that he wanted to
“avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world.” A paperback copy of the Quran was found in Taheri-azar’s room, along with a book calling for the United States to “confront state sponsors of terrorism.” He was shown, on news video footage, handcuffed and being led into a car sporting a giant grin.

At the court hearing on Monday, that same smile was ingrained on his face. Like Zacarias Moussaoui, whose trial coincided with Taheri-azar’s hearing, Taheri-azar stated that he wanted to represent himself. And like Moussaoui, who proudly proclaimed,
“I’m Al-Qaeda,” Taheri-azar used the courtroom forum to voice his Islamist ideology. Clad in orange jumpsuit and leg shackles, he stated, “I am thankful you are going to hear this trial to learn more about the will of Allah, the creator.” And in response to a reporter’s question, he confirmed that, “Yes,” it was his intention to murder those he hit with the SUV he had just rented. In the 9-1-1 call he had made after the attack, he told the operator that he did this “to punish the government of the United States.”

Continue reading "North Carolina Tar Heel Terror", at Jihad Watch. ... via JihadWatch.

Are our Universities a problem? Ask this professor from Columbia:

"All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists."

Columbia University professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History Joseph Massad interpreting Arab Holocaust denial as a form of Zionism, December 15, 2004. (link to source)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, call home!

Check Out Rastî

to read :


Lots of interesting news is coming out of the Evil Empire these days. No, I don't mean Russia; I mean the Islamic Republic of Iran.

First of all, the Evil Empire finally admits to duping the West. I suppose that this will only be of interest to Europeans, since they appear to be the ones who have been duped. Indeed, they are stupid enough to be duped, particularly the Three Stooges: France, Germany and Britain. Former Head Liar for the Evil Empire's nuclear negotiating team, Hassan Rowhani, admits that he did what Iranians do best--lied--to the Three Stooges.

As usual Mizgin's cool satirical analysis tells it like it is...
read it all

Friday, March 03, 2006


Commentary to be found here:

On Hamas

Should Israel Worry? What is Hamas, really?

This link following reprints the 'Covenant' written in 1988: link -which originally came from the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, which is a marvelous piece of work. To really understand what Hamas is all about one has to read the Covenant. Then read the following, in case you thought that they have changed their tune since then:

Hamas election video calls for armed struggle till Israel's annihilation --
Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, December 15, 2005
with permission of Palestinian Media Watch.

Hamas women by a "map" of Islamified Israel (AP file)

In a new Hamas pre-election video, the terror organization again declares that it will not give up its armed struggle until Israel is destroyed.

The Hamas message likewise celebrates its love of death as superior to the Israeli love of life. It also expresses support for those Israeli Arabs that wish to destroy Israel "from the interior." Hamas looks forward to a day when its flag will fly over not only Jerusalem, but over all Israeli cities, including Acre and Haifa.

The release of the new video on the Hamas website, reiterating its goal of destroying Israel, coincides with two polls this week showing Hamas turning into a major political force, with between 32% and 45% of Palestinians saying they will vote for Hamas in January's parliamentary elections. What are the implications for peace, should nearly 50% of the Palestinian Authority parliament be open supporters of Israel's destruction?

It will be interesting to see if the continuing Hamas election campaign calling for Israel's destruction will prompt a change in United States or European Union policy. The US State Department has made clear that while it continues to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars of support to the PA, it will make no demands on it to prevent the Hamas from participating in the upcoming elections. The EU and United Nations have also agreed that Hamas can participate in the elections.

The following are the words on the new Hamas video:

"We succeeded, with Allah's grace, to raise an ideological generation that loves death like our enemies love life. We will not abandon the way of Jihad and Shahada [Martyrdom] as long as one inch of our holy land is in the hands of the Jews.

"Congratulations to our people of 1948 [Israeli Arabs] on the liberation of Gaza. You wish to destroy them [the Israelis] from the interior. We will never forget you, and never leave you. A day will come when our flag will fly above all the quarters of our land. Our flag will fly on the minarets of Jerusalem, and the walls of Acre, and the quarters of Haifa."

[Hamas website, December 12, 2005] Source

But, they are working on a better version:

Hamas working on 'new charter'

Feb. 16, 2006
At closed meetings in hotel suites in Beirut and Damascus, Hamas has been developing a new charter that is designed to showcase a more moderate and non anti-Semitic face, one of those advising on its content has told The Jerusalem Post.

Appearances are everything. Read all about it at the Jerusalem Post.

Here is the real Hamas:

The Hamas Brand of 'Armed Resistance' -- Jerusalem, 2003
from: Mediacrity

....and finally, a little extra background for perspective.

Hamas was founded by Islamic militant extremists in the Gaza Strip in 1988, shortly after the first intifada broke out. The word Hamas is an acronym for the Arabic words for "Islamic Resistance Movement." The organization is devoted chiefly to the obliteration of Israel. Its charter states, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." The charter further states, "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

Hamas is responsible for 24 murders before the Oslo Accords, 156 more before the Oslo War began in September 2000, and at least another 377 since then - a total of at least 557.

The organization's first mass attack was a car bomb that blew up at a bus stop in Afula in April 1994, murdering 8 and wounding 51. Among the most horrific Hamas attacks were the following:

22 people murdered and 56 wounded in a suicide bombing attack on the No. 5 bus on Dizengoff Street in Tel Aviv in October of 1994.

26 murdered by suicide bomber on a #18 bus near the Jerusalem Central Bus Station in February of 1996.

16 murdered in the Machane Yehuda open market in Jerusalem in a double suicide attack in July of 1997.

23 dead and 115 wounded when a Hamas suicide bomber blew himself up on a No. 2 bus line coming from the Western Wall in Jerusalem in August of 2003.

45 murdered within the space of five days in March 2002: a suicide Hamas terrorist blew himself up in a Haifa resturant, killing 15, and another one did the same in the Park Hotel in Netanya during a Passover Seder, murdering some 30 and wounding 144.

The ten worst Oslo War Hamas attacks, in which a total of 186 were murdered, also included the following:

June 1, 2001 - Dolpinarium in Tel Aviv, 21 murdered - mostly new-immigrant teenagers from the Soviet Union.

August 9, 2001 - Sbarro's Pizzeria in Jerusalem, 15 murdered

December 2, 2001 - Haifa bus, 15 murdered

May 7, 2002 - Rishon Letzion hall, 16 murdered

June 18, 2002 - #32 bus from Gilo, Jerusalem 19 murdered

March 5, 2003 - #37 bus in Haifa, 15 murdered

June 11, 2003 - #14 bus, Jerusalem, 17 murdered

And the list goes on.


and on, and on...