Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 06:07:45 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83383 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 234 235 [236] 237 238 ... 243
11751  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 21, 2007, 11:45:03 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/an_apology_for_koranic_antisem.html

April 20, 2007
An Apology for Koranic Antisemitism?

By Andrew G. Bostom
Two months after the mass murdering  acts of jihad terrorism on 9/11/01, Dr. Walid Fataihi, director of "outreach" for the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), who still serves on the ISB Board of Directors, boasted that this carnage engendered two related "successes" -enhanced Muslim proselytization efforts, and damage to Christian-Jewish relations in the U.S.

Fitaihi crowed,

"...the Muslim community in the U.S. in general, and in Boston in particular, has begun to trouble the Zionist lobby."
He continued triumphantly, quoting the Koran (3:112/ 2:61 (see also this).

The words of the Koran on this matter are true: "They [the Jews] will be humiliated wherever they are found, unless they are protected under a covenant with Allah, or a covenant with another people. They [the Jews] have incurred Allah's wrath and they have been afflicted with misery. That is because they continuously rejected the Signs of Allah and were after slaying the Prophets without just cause, and this resulted from their disobedience and their habit of transgression." The great Allah spoke words of truth. Their covenant with America is the strongest possible in the U.S., but it is weaker than they think, and one day their covenant with the [American] people will be cut off.
During a private meeting with some 25 lay and religious leaders convened at the Workmen's Circle in Brookline, Massachusetts on April 6, 2007-nearly 5 ½ years later-Fitaihi was reported to have offered a belated apology for his November 11, 2001 remarks. The dubious sincerity of this putative act of contrition aside-it occurred as the ISB is embroiled in a bitter and debilitating legal dispute with members of the local Jewish community-did Fitaihi actually apologize for invoking Koran 3:112/2:61, and their virulently antisemitic contents?

As a central anti-Jewish motif, the Koran decrees an eternal curse upon the Jews (Koran 2:61/ 3:112) for slaying the prophets and transgressing against the will of Allah. This motif is coupled to Koranic verses 5:60 and 5:78 which describe the Jews transformation into apes and swine (5:60), having been "...cursed by the tongue of David, and Jesus, Mary's son" (5:78). The related verse, 5:64, accuses the Jews-as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas did in a January 2007 speech, citing Koran 5:64-of being "spreaders of war and corruption", a sort of ancient Koranic antecedent of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

From the advent of Islam, dehumanizing Jews as apes (Koran 2:65/7:166), or apes and pigs (Koran 5:60) transcended any mere application to "Sabbath breakers." Muhammad himself, in both the sira (early, sacralized Muslim biographies) of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Sa‘d, referred to the Medinan Jews of the Banu Qurayza as "apes" just before orchestrating the slaughter of all their post-pubertal men.

This sacralized massacre is the prototype. Large scale massacres of Jews by Muslims occurred in Granada (circa 1066;  4000 killed, and Jewish society destroyed; more Jews killed in this one pogrom than in the Crusaders' much more infamous ravages through the Rhineland 30 years later); Baghdad (1290/91; hundreds killed with pogroms extending throughout Iraq, and into Persia); and the southern Moroccan oasis town of Touat (~ 1490; many Jews killed, and their Temple destroyed).

Each of these massacres was incited and/or celebrated by depictions of Jews as apes in verses by popular clerics-in the case of Touat, the "composer" of such a verse al-Maghili (d. 1505), an important Muslim theologian whose writings influenced Moroccan religious attitudes towards Jews into the 20th century-led the pogrom himself. Maghili also declared in verse, "Love of the Prophet, requires hatred of the Jews."

The centrality of the Jews' permanent "abasement and humiliation," and being "laden with God's anger" in the corpus of Muslim exegetic literature on Koran 2:61 (including the hadith and Koranic commentaries), is clear. By nature deceitful and treacherous, the Jews rejected Allah's signs and prophets, including Isa, the Muslim Jesus. Classical Koranic commentators such as Tabari (d. 923), Zamakshari (d. 1143), Baydawi (d. 1316), and Ibn Kathir (d. 1373), when discussing Koran 5:82 ("Thou wilt surely find the most hostile of men to the believers are the Jews and the idolaters; and thou wilt surely find the nearest of them in love to the believers are those who say 'We are Christians'; that, because some of them are priests and monks, and they wax not proud."), concur on the unique animus of the Jews towards the Muslims, which is repeatedly linked to the curse of  Koran 2:61. For example, in his commentary on 5:82, Tabari writes,

In my opinion, [the Christians] are not like the Jews who always scheme in order to murder the emissaries and the prophets, and who oppose God in his positive and negative commandments, and who corrupt His scripture which He revealed in His books.
Tabari's  classical interpretations of Koran 5:82 and 2:61,  as well as his discussion of the related verse 9:29 mandating the Jews payment of the jizya (Koranic poll-tax), represent both Antisemitic and more general anti-dhimmi views that became, and remain, intrinsic to Islam to this day. Here is Tabari's discussion of 2:61 and its relationship to verse 9:29, which emphasizes the purposely debasing nature of the Koranic poll tax:

..."abasement and poverty were imposed and laid down upon them", as when someone says "the imam imposed the poll tax (jizya)on free non-Muslim subjects", or "The man imposed land tax on his slave", meaning thereby that he obliged him [to pay ] it, or, "The commander imposed a sortie on his troops", meaning he made it their duty....God commanded His believing servants not to give them [i.e., the non-Muslim people of the scripture] security-as long as they continued to disbelieve in Him and his Messenger-unless they paid the poll tax to them; God said: "Fight those who believe not in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden-such men as practice not the religion of truth [Islam], being of those who have been given the Book [Bible]-until they pay the poll tax, being humble" (Koran 9:29).. The dhimmis [non-Muslim tributary's] posture during the collection of the jizya- "[lowering themselves] by walking on their hand, ...reluctantly

...Ibn Zaid said about His words "and abasement and poverty were imposed upon them", ‘These are the Jews of the Children of Israel'. I said: ‘Are they the Copts of Egypt?' He said: "What have the Copts of Egypt to do with this? No, by God, they are not; but they are the Jews, the Children of Israel....By "and slain the prophets unrightfully" He means that they used to kill the Messengers of God without God's leave, denying their messages and rejecting their prophethood.

Indeed the Koran's overall discussion of the Jews is marked by a litany of their sins and punishments, as if part of a divine indictment and conviction process. The Jews wronged themselves (16:118) by losing faith (7:168) and breaking their covenant (5:13). The Jews (echoing an ante-Nicaean, Marcionite polemic) are a nation that has passed away (2:134; repeated in 2:141). Twice Allah sent his instruments (the Assyrians/or Babylonians, and Romans) to punish this perverse people (17:4-5)-their dispersal over the earth is proof of Allah's rejection (7:168).

The Jews are further warned about both their arrogant claim that they remain Allah's chosen people (62:6), and continued disobedience and "corruption" (5:32-33) Other sins, some repeated, are enumerated: abuse, even killing of prophets (4:155; 2:91), including Isa [Jesus] (3:55; 4:157), is a consistent theme. The Jews ridiculed Muhammad as Ra'ina (the evil one, in 2:104; 4:46), and  they are also accused of lack of faith, taking words out of context, disobedience, and distortion (4:46). Precious few of them are believers (also 4:46). These "perverse" creatures also claim that Ezra is the messiah and they worship rabbis who defraud men of their possessions (9:30).

Additional sins are described: the Jews are typified as an "envious" people (2:109), whose hearts are as hardened as rocks (2:74). They are further accused of confounding the truth (2:42), deliberately perverting scripture (2:75), and being liars (2:78). Ill-informed people of little faith (2:89), they pursue vague and wishful fancies (2:111). Other sins have contributed to their being stamped (see 2:61/ 3:112 above) with "wretchedness/abasement and humiliation," including-usury (2:275), sorcery (2:102), hedonism (2:96), and idol worship (2:53).

More (and repeat) sins, are described still: the Jews' idol worship is again mentioned (4:51), then linked and followed by charges of other (often repeat) iniquities-the "tremendous calumny" against Mary (4:156), as well as usury and cheating (4:161). Most Jews are accused of being "evil-livers" /"transgressors" /"ungodly" (3:110), who, deceived by their own lies (3:24), try to turn Muslims from Islam (3:99). Jews are blind and deaf to the truth (5:71), and what they have not forgotten they have perverted-they mislead (3:69), confound the truth (3:71), twist tongues (3:79), and cheat Gentiles without remorse (3:75).

Muslims are advised not to take the Jews as friends (5:51), and to beware of the inveterate hatred that Jews bear towards them (5:82). The Jews' ultimate sin and punishment are made clear: they are the devil's minions (4:60) cursed by Allah, their faces will be obliterated (4:47), and if they do not accept the true faith of Islam-the Jews who understand their faith become Muslims (3:113)-they will be made into apes (2:65/ 7:166), or apes and swine (5:60), and burn in the Hellfires (4:55, 5:29, 98:6, and 58:14-19).

The essential nature of the Koranic "revelation", as understood by Muslims, was elaborated in 1891 by Theodore Nöldeke (whose seminal 1860 Geschichte des Qorans remains a vital tool for Koranic research):

To the faith of the Muslims...the Koran is the word of God, and such also is the claim which the book itself advances...

And to this day, for the Muslim masses, as Ibn Warraq notes,

...the Koran remains the infallible word of God, the immediate word of God sent down, through the intermediary of a "spirit" or "holy spirit" or Gabriel, to Muhammad in perfect, pure Arabic; and every thing contained therein is eternal and uncreated. The original text is in heaven...The angel dictated the revelation to the Prophet, who repeated it after him, and then revealed it to the world. Modern Muslims also claim that these revelations have been preserved exactly as revealed to Muhammad, without any change, addition, or loss whatsoever...the Koran remains for all Muslims, and not just "fundamentalists" the uncreated word of God Himself. It is valid for all times and places; its ideals are, according to all Muslims, absolutely true and beyond any criticism. [emphasis added]
Thus it strains credibility to assume that Dr. Fitaihi-a pious Muslim actively engaged in politicized da'wa-would have apologized for his invocation of antisemitic motifs from the Koran, the Jews' traits as characterized therein being deemed both infallible and timeless. Equally important and related concerns were raised by Boston area blogger Solomonia, who observed,

We don't have any wording from the "apology," nor do we know who, exactly, was at the meeting. How do we measure this? Fitaihi jetted into town, then just as quickly jetted out after facing what looks like a friendly audience and no serious or skeptical questioning-a group who then...surprise...pronounce him absolved.
The Fitaihi affair-a depressing web of deceit, denial, and delusion-epitomizes the sorry state of public understanding of Islamic antisemitism, most ominously, by its victims.

Andrew G. Bostom is the author of The Legacy of Jihad (2005), and the forthcoming The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism (2007), which can be previewed here.

11752  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 21, 2007, 01:12:14 AM
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=25199_Kos...h_Mass_Murderer&only

Note: The Daily Kos is one of the most popular lefty blogs.
11753  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Afghanistan-Pakistan on: April 21, 2007, 01:03:45 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_child_executioner_1
11754  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: April 21, 2007, 12:41:07 AM
This actually the time for the Israelification of America. We need to adopt the ethic that every citizen is a frontline soldier for freedom.
11755  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 20, 2007, 09:12:14 PM
http://memritv.org/

http://memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1426


4/13/2007   Clip No. 1426

Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council Sheik Ahmad Bahr from Hamas, Declared during a Friday Sermon at a Sudan Mosque that America and Israel Will Be Annihilated and Called upon Allah to Kill the Jews and the Americans "to the Very Last One"

Following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, which aired on Sudan TV on April 13, 2007.

Ahmad Bahr: "You will be victorious" on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] "you will be victorious," but only "if you are believers." Allah willing, "you will be victorious," while America and Israel will be annihilated, Allah willing. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, as is said in the Book of Allah: "You shall find them the people most eager to protect their lives." They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why America's nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere.

[...]

America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain. The Muslims "will be victorious, if you are believers." Oh Muslims, I guarantee you that the power of Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today. Some people are blinded by the power of America. We say to them that with the might of Allah, with the might of His Messenger, and with the power of Allah, we are stronger than America and Israel.

[...]

I tell you that we will protect the enterprise of the resistance, because the Zionist enemy understands on the language of force. It does not recognize peace or the agreements. It does not recognize anything, and it understands only the language of force. Our Jihad-fighting Palestinian people salutes its brother, Sudan.

[...]

The Palestinian woman bids her son farewell, and says to him: "Son, go and don't be a coward. Go, and fight the Jews." He bids her farewell and carries out a martyrdom operation. What did this Palestinian woman say when she was asked for her opinion, after the martyrdom of her son? She said: "My son is my own flesh and blood. I love my son, but my love for Allah and His Messenger is greater than my love for my son." Yes, this is the message of the Palestinian woman, who was over seventy years old – Fatima Al-Najjar. She was over seventy years old, but she blew herself up for the sake of Allah, bringing down many criminal Zionists.

[...]

Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, vanquish the Americans and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet – defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.

11756  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: April 20, 2007, 07:37:30 PM
****And now the spineless coward....I mean anti-gun point of view****


Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms
POSTED: 3:31 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

By Tom Plate
Special to CNN
Adjust font size:


Editor's note: Tom Plate, former editor of the editorial pages of the Los Angeles Times, is a professor of communication and policy studies at UCLA. He is author of a new book, "Confessions of an American Media Man."

Read an opposing take on gun control from Ted Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Most days, it is not at all hard to feel proud to be an American. But on days such as this, it is very difficult.

The pain that the parents of the slain students feel hits deep into everyone's hearts. At the University of California, Los Angeles, students are talking about little else. It is not that they feel especially vulnerable because they are students at a major university, as is Virginia Tech, but because they are (to be blunt) citizens of High Noon America.

"High Noon" is a famous film. The 1952 Western told the story of a town marshal (played by the superstar actor Gary Cooper) who is forced to eliminate a gang of killers by himself. They are eventually gunned down.

The use of guns is often the American technique of choice for all kinds of conflict resolution. Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

Let me explain. Some misguided people will focus on the fact that the 23-year-old student who killed his classmates and others at Virginia Tech was ethnically Korean. This is one of those observations that's 99.99 percent irrelevant. What are we to make of the fact that he is Korean? Ban Ki-moon is also Korean! Our brilliant new United Nations secretary general has not only never fired a gun, it looks like he may have just put together a peace formula for civil war-wracked Sudan -- a formula that escaped his predecessor.

So let's just disregard all the hoopla about the race of the student responsible for the slayings. These students were not killed by a Korean, they were killed by a 9 mm handgun and a .22-caliber handgun.

In the nineties, the Los Angeles Times courageously endorsed an all-but-complete ban on privately owned guns, in an effort to greatly reduce their availability. By the time the series of editorials had concluded, the newspaper had received more angry letters and fiery faxes from the well-armed U.S. gun lobby than on any other issue during my privileged six-year tenure as the newspaper's editorial page editor.

But the paper, by the way, also received more supportive letters than on any other issue about which it editorialized during that era. The common sense of ordinary citizens told them that whatever Americans were and are good for, carrying around guns like costume jewelry was not on our Mature List of Notable Cultural Accomplishments.

"Guns don't kill people," goes the gun lobby's absurd mantra. Far fewer guns in America would logically result in far fewer deaths from people pulling the trigger. The probability of the Virginia Tech gun massacre happening would have been greatly reduced if guns weren't so easily available to ordinary citizens.

Foreigners sometimes believe that celebrities in America are more often the targets of gun violence than the rest of us. Not true. Celebrity shootings just make better news stories, so perhaps they seem common. They're not. All of us are targets because with so many guns swishing around our culture, no one is immune -- not even us non-celebrities.

When the great pop composer and legendary member of the Beatles John Lennon was shot in 1980 in New York, many in the foreign press tabbed it a war on celebrities. Now, some in the media will declare a war on students or some-such. This is all misplaced. The correct target of our concern needs to be guns. America has more than it can possibly handle. How many can our society handle? My opinion is: as close to zero as possible.

Last month, I was robbed at 10 in the evening in the alley behind my home. As I was carrying groceries inside, a man with a gun approached me where my car was parked. The gun he carried featured one of those red-dot laser beams, which he pointed right at my head.

Because I'm anything but a James Bond type, I quickly complied with all of his requests. Perhaps because of my rapid response (it is called surrender), he chose not to shoot me; but he just as easily could have. What was to stop him?

This occurred in Beverly Hills, a low-crime area dotted with upscale boutiques, restaurants and businesses -- a city best known perhaps for its glamour and celebrity sightings.

Oh, and police tell me the armed robber definitely was not Korean. Not that I would have known one way or the other: Basically the only thing I saw or can remember was the gun, with the red dot, pointed right at my head.

A near-death experience does focus the mind. We need to get rid of our guns.

11757  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: April 20, 2007, 07:31:00 PM
Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
POSTED: 5:26 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

More on CNN TV: Ted Nugent participates in a roundtable discussion on gun control tonight on "Glenn Beck," Headline Prime, 7 p.m. ET.
By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN
Adjust font size:


Editor's note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He's also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, "Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild," can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

Read an opposing take on gun control from journalist Tom Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

11758  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 20, 2007, 06:12:23 PM
http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/february/presence.htm

A Lesson In Hate

How an Egyptian student came to study 1950s America and left determined to wage holy war
By David Von Drehle

Before Sayyid Qutb became a leading theorist of violent jihad, he was a little-known Egyptian writer sojourning in the United States, where he attended a small teachers college on the Great Plains. Greeley, Colorado, circa 1950 was the last place one might think to look for signs of American decadence. Its wide streets were dotted with churches, and there wasn’t a bar in the whole temperate town. But the courtly Qutb (COO-tub) saw things that others did not. He seethed at the brutishness of the people around him: the way they salted their watermelon and drank their tea unsweetened and watered their lawns. He found the muscular football players appalling and despaired of finding a barber who could give a proper haircut. As for the music: “The American’s enjoyment of jazz does not fully begin until he couples it with singing like crude screaming,” Qutb wrote when he returned to Egypt. “It is this music that the savage bushmen created to satisfy their primitive desires.”

Such grumbling by an unhappy crank would be almost comical but for one fact: a direct line of influence runs from Sayyid Qutb to Osama bin Laden, and to bin Laden’s Egyptian partner in terror, Ayman al-Zawahiri. From them, the line continues to another quietly seething Egyptian sojourning in the United States—the 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. Qutb’s gripes about America require serious attention because they cast light on a question that has been nagging since the fall of the World Trade Center: Why do they hate us?

Born in 1906 in the northern Egyptian village of Musha and raised in a devout Muslim home, Qutb memorized the Koran as a boy. Later he moved to Cairo and found work as a teacher and writer. His novels made no great impression, but he earned a reputation as an astute literary critic. Qutb was among the first champions of Naguib Mahfouz, a young, modern novelist who, in 1988, would win the Nobel Prize in Literature. As Qutb matured, his mind took on a more political cast. Even by the standards of Egypt, those were chaotic, corrupt times: World War I had completed the destruction of the Ottoman Empire, and the Western powers were creating, with absolute colonial confidence, new maps and governments for the Middle East. For a proud man like Sayyid Qutb, the humiliation of his country at the hands of secular leaders and Western puppets was galling. His writing drew unfavorable attention from the Egyptian government, and by 1948, Mahfouz has said, Qutb’s friends in the Ministry of Education were sufficiently worried about his situation that they contrived to send him abroad to the safety of the United States.

Some biographical sketches suggest that Qutb arrived with a benign view of America, but if that’s true it didn’t last long. During a short stay in Washington, D.C., he witnessed the commotion surrounding an elevator accident and was stunned to hear other onlookers making a joke of the victim’s appearance. From this and a few offhand remarks in other settings, Qutb concluded that Americans suffered from “a drought of sentimental sympathy” and that “Americans intentionally deride what people in the Old World hold sacred.”

This became the lens through which Qutb read nearly every American encounter—a clash of New World versus Old. Qutb easily satisfied the requirements at the graduate school of the Colorado State College of Education (now known as the University of Northern Colorado) and devoted the rest of his time to his true interest—the American soul, if such a thing existed. “This great America: What is its worth in the scale of human values?” Qutb wondered. “And what does it add to the moral account of humanity?” His answer: nothing.

[pullquote]

Still, Qutb’s contempt for America was not as simple as some people might now imagine. He did not recoil from political freedom and democracy, as, say, President Bush might expect from a jihadi theorist, nor did he complain about shades of imperial ambition in American foreign policy, as writers on the left might suppose. Regarding the excesses of American culture—vulgarity, materialism and promiscuity—Qutb expressed shock, but it rang a bit hollow. “The American girl is well acquainted with her body’s seductive capacity,” he wrote. “She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and she shows all this and does not hide it.” These curvy jezebels pursued boys with “wide, strapping chest” and “ox muscles,” Qutb added with disgust. Yet no matter how lascivious his adjectives, the fastidious, unmarried Egyptian could not convincingly portray the church dances and Look magazines he encountered in sleepy Greeley as constituting a genuine sexual “jungle.”

The core problem with the United States, for Qutb, was not something Americans did, but simply what America was—“the New World...is spellbinding.” It was more than a land of pleasures without limit. In America, unlike in Egypt, dreams could come true. Qutb understood the danger this posed: America’s dazzle had the power to blind people to the real zenith of civilization, which for Qutb began with Muhammad in the seventh century and reached its apex in the Middle Ages, carried triumphantly by Muslim armies.

Qutb rejected the idea that “new” was also “improved.” The Enlightenment, the Industrial Age—modernity itself—were not progress. “The true value of every civilization...lies not in the tools man has invented or in how much power he wields,” Qutb wrote. “The value of civilizations lay in what universal truths and worldviews they have attained.” The modern obsession with science and invention was a moral regression to the primitive condition of the first toolmakers. Qutb’s America was bursting with raw energy and appetite, but utterly without higher virtues. In his eyes, its “interminable, incalculable expanses of virgin land” were settled by “groups of adventurers and groups of criminals” who lacked the time and reflection required for a civilized life. Qutb’s Americans “faced the uncharted forests, the tortuous mountain mazes, the fields of ice, the thundering hurricanes, and the beasts, serpents and vermin of the forest” in a struggle that left them numb to “faith in religion, faith in art and faith in spiritual values altogether.”

This portrait likely would have surprised the people of mid-century Greeley, had they somehow become aware of the unspoken opinions of their somewhat frosty neighbor. Theirs was a friendly town best known for the unpretentious college and for the cattle feedlots sprawling pungently on its outskirts. The founding of Greeley in the 1870s involved no ice fields, hurricanes or serpents. Instead, it began with a simple newspaper column written by Nathan Meeker, agricultural editor of the New York Tribune. On December 14, 1869, Meeker appealed to literate readers of high moral character to join him in building a utopian community by the South Platte River near the foot of the Rocky Mountains. More than 3,000 readers applied; from this list Meeker selected the 700 best qualified to realize his vision of a sober, godly, cooperative community. The town was dubbed Greeley in honor of Meeker’s boss at the Tribune, the quixotic publisher Horace Greeley, who died within weeks of his failed run for president in 1872, just as the project was gathering steam.

[pullquote]

Poet and journalist Sara Lippincott was an early visitor to the frontier outpost, and later wrote about it under her pen name, Grace Greenwood. “You’ll die of dullness in less than five hours,” another traveler had warned her about Greeley. “There is nothing there but irrigation. Your host will invite you out to see him irrigate his potato-patch...there is not a billiard-saloon in the whole camp, nor a drink of whiskey to be had for love or money.” None of that made any difference to Qutb, who saw only what he already believed, and wrote not facts, but his own truth, in his 1951 essay, “The America I Have Seen.”

Sayyid Qutb cut short his stay in America and returned to Egypt in 1951 after the assassination of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the nationalist, religious and militant movement known as the Muslim Brotherhood. Over the next decade and a half, often writing from prison, Qutb refined a violent political theology from the raw anti-modernism of his American interlude. Virtually the entire modern world, Qutb theorized, is jahiliyya, that barbarous state that existed before Muhammad. Only the strict, unchanging law of the prophet can redeem this uncivilized condition. Nearly a millennium of history became, to the radicalized Qutb, an offense wrought by the violence of jahili “Crusaders” and the supposed perfidy of the Jews. And Muslim leaders allied with the West were no better than the Crusaders themselves. Therefore, Qutb called all true Muslims to jihad, or Holy War, against jahiliyya—which is to say, against modernity, which America so powerfully represents.

This philosophy led to Qutb’s execution in 1966. Proud to the end, he refused to accept the secular Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser’s offer of mercy in exchange for Qutb’s repudiation of his jihad. Nasser may have silenced a critic, but the martyrdom of Sayyid Qutb accelerated his movement. The same year the philosopher was hanged, according to journalist Lawrence Wright, the teenage al-Zawahiri formed his first violent cell, dedicated to the overthrow of the Egyptian government and the creation of an Islamist state. Meanwhile, Qutb’s brother Muhammad went into exile in Saudi Arabia, where he taught at King Abdul Aziz University. One of his students, an heir to the country’s largest construction fortune, was Osama bin Laden.

Others have taken Qutb’s ideas in less apocalyptic directions, so that M.A. Muqtedar Khan of the Brookings Institution can rank him alongside the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran as “one of the major architects and ‘strategists’ of contemporary Islamic revival.” But the last paragraphs of Qutb’s American memoir suggest just how far outside normal discourse his mind was wont to stray. After noting the stupidity of his Greeley neighbors, who failed to understand his dry and cutting jokes, Qutb writes: “In summary, anything that requires a touch of elegance is not for the American, even haircuts! For there was not one instance in which I had a haircut there when I did not return home to even with my own hands what the barber had wrought.” This culminating example of inescapable barbarism led directly to his conclusion. “Humanity makes the gravest of errors and risks losing its account of morals, if it makes America its example.”

Turning a haircut into a matter of grave moral significance is the work of a fanatic. That’s the light ultimately cast by Qutb’s American experience on the question of why his disciples might hate us. Hating America for its haircuts cannot be distinguished from hating for no sane reason at all.

11759  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The party of Hate on: April 20, 2007, 05:50:01 PM
The MSM has anointed him and the "Reverend"  rolleyes Jackson the leaders of black Americans, as laughable as that may be. He's a media construct. Watching him being interviewed by the MSM about "Imus", he got a total deferential, kid-glove treatment. They live in fear of being called the "R" word. In addition, he's entertaining while Jackson appears to have suffered a stroke. I could barely understand his hypocritical, self-rightious mumbling.
11760  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The party of Hate on: April 20, 2007, 08:55:23 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/20/the-party-of-hate/

Michelle Malkin is right, as usual.
11761  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: We the Well-armed People on: April 20, 2007, 08:53:45 AM
I think that's a good idea. Ensure state level psych commitments get into the federal database and pre-empt stupid legislation.
11762  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 02:54:48 PM
SELLING RAPPER TELLS '60 MINUTES': WOULDN'T HELP POLICE CATCH EVEN A SERIAL KILLER BECAUSE IT WOULD HURT HIS BUSINESS AND VIOLATE HIS 'CODE OF ETHICS'
Thu Apr 19 2007 12:47:1 ET

Rap star Cam'ron says there's no situation -- including a serial killer living next door -- that would cause him to help police in any way, because to do so would hurt his music sales and violate his "code of ethics." Cam'ron, whose real name is Cameron Giles, talks to Anderson Cooper for a report on how the hip-hop culture's message to shun the police has undermined efforts to solve murders across the country. Cooper's report will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday, April 22 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

"If I knew the serial killer was living next door to me?" Giles responds to a hypothetical question posed by Cooper. "I wouldn't call and tell anybody on him -- but I'd probably move," says Giles. "But I'm not going to call and be like, ÔThe serial killer's in 4E.' " ( For an excerpt of Giles' interview, click here

Giles' "code of ethics" also extends to crimes committed against him. After being shot and wounded by gunmen, Giles refused to cooperate with police. Why? "Because...it would definitely hurt my business, and the way I was raised, I just don't do that," says Giles. Pressed by Cooper, who says had he been the victim, he would want his attacker to be caught, Giles explains further: "But then again, you're not going to be on the stage tonight in the middle of, say, Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, with people with gold and platinum teeth and dreadlocks jumping up and down singing your songs, either," says Giles. "We're in two different lines of business."

"So for you, it's really about business?" Cooper asks.

"It's about business," Giles says, "but it's still also a code of ethics."

Rappers appear to be concerned about damaging what's known as their "street credibility," says Geoffrey Canada, an anti-violence advocate and educator from New York City's Harlem neighborhood. "It's one of those things that sells music and no one really quite understands why," says Canada. Their fans look up to artists if they come from the "meanest streets of the urban ghetto," he tells Cooper. For that reason, Canada says, they do not cooperate with the police.

Canada says in the poor New York City neighborhood he grew up in, only the criminals didn't talk to the police, but within today's hip-hop culture, that's changed. "It is now a cultural norm that is being preached in poor communities....It's like you can't be a black person if you have a set of values that say ÔI will not watch a crime happen in my community without getting involved to stop it,'" Canada tells Cooper.

Young people from some of New York's toughest neighborhoods echo Canada's assessment, calling the message not to help police "the rules" and helping the police "a crime" in their neighborhoods. These "rules" are contributing to a much lower percentage of arrests in homicide cases -- a statistic known as the "clearance rate" -- in largely poor, minority neighborhoods throughout the country, according to Prof. David Kennedy of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. "I work in communities where the clearance rate for homicides has gone into the single digits," says Kennedy. The national rate for homicide clearance is 60 percent. "In these neighborhoods, we are on the verge of -- or maybe we have already lost -- the rule of law," he tells Cooper.

Says Canada, "It's like we're saying to the criminals, ÔYou can have our community....Do anything you want and we will either deal with it ourselves or we'll simply ignore it.' "
11763  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 02:51:43 PM
City Journal
Time for the Truth About Black Crime Rates
The lessons of the Sean Bell case
Heather Mac Donald
2 April 2007

Mayor Mike Bloomberg has the chance to transform not just New York, but all American cities, by breaking the taboo on talking about the connection between race and crime. Doing so would take courage that no politician has yet mustered. But after the manslaughter and assault indictments of three New York police officers for fatally shooting Sean Bell last November, Bloomberg has an opening: acknowledge that police officers may react too precipitously to perceived threats in charged urban settings, in exchange for a wide-open discussion about the sky-high black crime rates that encourage that reaction. Crime, not police racism, drives negative police-community relations in black neighborhoods. And until the crime rate comes down, tragedies like the Sean Bell shooting may reoccur.

After the Bell shooting, which occurred outside a Queens strip joint, critics of the NYPD followed the usual script: increasingly ugly charges of police bigotry (despite the fact that several of the officers involved were black); deployment of the threat-of-black-riots weapon; calls for convictions of the officers on the most severe murder charges; and the transformation of the highly aberrant Bell shooting into the very symbol of the NYPD. To his discredit, Mayor Bloomberg joined the rush to prejudge the officers. The day after the shooting, he declared: “It sounds to me like excessive force was used.” Even more irresponsibly, he deemed the incident “inexplicable,” thus fueling the belief that the officers could not possibly have perceived a deadly threat and all but guaranteeing that any acquittal of them would be viewed as proof that the criminal-justice system was antiblack.

Carefully omitted from the swirl of media coverage and the denunciations of the NYPD was any discussion of black crime rates. The New York Times did its usual best to shroud the issue. A March article, for instance, devoted itself to charges that the police were preying on the black community. After noting that more than half the people whom cops stop and frisk are black, Times reporter Diane Cardwell added: “City officials maintained that those stopped and searched roughly parallel the race of people mentioned in reports from crime victims.” No, actually, there is no “rough parallel” between the proportion of stops and the proportion of alleged assailants: blacks aren’t stopped enough, considering the rate at which they commit crimes. Though blacks, 24 percent of New York City’s population, committed 68.5 percent of all murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults in the city last year, according to victims and witnesses, they were only 55 percent of all stop-and-frisks. Of course, the Times didn’t give the actual crime figures. Even a spate of vicious assaults on police officers in the week before the indictments didn’t change the predominant story line that officers were trigger-happy racists.

But the context of the Bell shooting suggests a different picture. The undercover officers and detectives involved had been deployed to Club Kahlua in Jamaica, Queens, because of the club’s history of lawlessness. Club patrons and neighbors had made dozens of calls to the NYPD, reporting guns, drug sales, and prostitution, and the police had recently made eight arrests there.

The night of November 24, undercover officer Gescard Isnora, who fired the first shots at Bell, had observed a man put a stripper’s hand on his belt to reassure her that he had a gun and would protect her from an aggressive customer. Outside the club, Isnora (who is African-American) and his colleagues witnessed a heated exchange between Bell’s entourage and an apparent pimp over the services of a prostitute, during which the pimp kept his hand inside his jacket, as if holding a gun. After the hooker refused to have sex with more than two of the group’s eight members, Bell—presumably referring to the pimp—said, “Let’s fuck him up,” and Bell’s companion, Joseph Guzman, said, “Yo, get my gun, get my gun.” Isnora reported these exchanges over his cell phone to his colleagues in the area.

Feeling the danger level mounting, Isnora retrieved his gun from his unmarked car. When he returned to the scene, Bell and his two companions had gotten into their car, ready to drive away. Isnora thought that a drive-by shooting of the pimp could be imminent, and so moved to question the car’s occupants. He held out his badge (by his account), identified himself as a police officer, and told the car to stop. Instead, Bell drove forward and hit Isnora and a police minivan, backed up, and then slammed into the minivan again, nearly hitting Isnora a second time.

Isnora, who was standing on the passenger side of Bell’s car, claims that he saw Guzman reach for his waistband. Believing that he faced a deadly threat, Isnora opened fire. The four other undercovers and detectives at the scene also started shooting, killing Bell and wounding Guzman and Bell’s other companion in the car, Trent Benefield. No gun turned up in Bell’s car. (Benefield alleges that Isnora began shooting before the car started moving, which is absurd. The barrage of 50 bullets was so fast that no witness at the scene remembers hearing more than eight rounds fired off. Bell was undoubtedly killed as soon as the shooting started, and so wouldn’t have been able to move the car forward and back and forward again, as he did. None of the officers had ever used their guns before, moreover, despite making hundreds of arrests, including for gun possession. These were not trigger-happy cops.)

Without question, the results of this episode are horrific. And the tactics stank—Isnora should never have left himself as exposed as he was. But was the officers’ perception of a deadly threat so unreasonable as to make their shooting a criminal homicide? If a judge or jury finds that they did not reasonably believe that they faced an imminent use of deadly force, then, according to the woefully inappropriate criminal code, their actions fall within the literal definition of manslaughter. (Showing what appears to be arbitrariness, the grand jury indicted two of the officers for manslaughter and assault—even though one of them, Isnora, did not even hit Bell—and a third for reckless endangerment, but didn’t indict the remaining two officers, even though all had fired their guns.)

Isnora and his colleagues knew the following, when they saw a car racing toward them whose occupants they believed could have guns: shootings at after-hours joints like Club Kahlua are by no means uncommon. Just the previous month, a patron had been fatally gunned down outside another Queens club, the third lethal shooting there in three years. This March, a club customer in Brooklyn tried to blast an off-duty cop’s head off after the two had unintentionally bumped into each other on a crowded dance floor.

Isnora and his colleagues did not know the following, but it’s a further indication of the reality of crime in New York: Bell, Benefield, and Guzman had all been arrested for gun possession in the past, according to the New York Times. Further, Guzman had a long prison record, including a sentence for an armed robbery during which he shot at his victim. And Bell and his entourage were dealing drugs, an activity highly correlated with violence.

These specific facts about the Bell shooting are just a few of the hundreds of thousands of data points that reveal a hard truth: any given violent crime in New York is 13 times more likely to have a black than a white perpetrator. While most black residents are law-abiding and desperately deserve police protection, the incidence of criminal activity among young black males is off the charts. “A black kid between the ages of 18 and 24 is the scariest thing to cops,” says a police attorney, “because they know how crazy it can get.” And this is true whatever the officer’s race.

The “public doesn’t get how frightened cops are,” says a former NYPD commanding officer. “Cops are reluctant to articulate everything that goes into a shooting incident,” says another former officer, retired assistant chief Jim McShane. “They’re afraid to say: ‘Are you kidding me? I was terrified. The guy was drinking; I told him to stop; I was afraid that someone was going to get shot.’ ” When an officer thinks that he is under deadly threat, he knows that any hesitation could cost him his life. NYPD officer Steven McDonald was staring down the barrel of a small gun in Central Park in the summer of 1986, held by a 15-year-old whom he had stopped to question about a stolen bicycle. Rather than immediately responding with deadly force, he paused—and was shot twice in the head and once in the arm, paralyzing him from the neck down.

Because of these realities, it’s possible that officers are quicker to perceive—and react to—a deadly threat when dealing with young black men than they would be with other demographic groups. (Even so, fatal shootings by the NYPD are extremely rare; fatal shootings of unarmed civilians, even rarer.) And it’s undeniably true that the much greater incidence of crime in black neighborhoods means that the police activity there will be higher, leading to a greater risk of the use of force.

The NYPD’s goal at this point—understandably and rightly—is to do everything it can to prevent the death of another Sean Bell. The department’s recently announced tactical review is more than justified. But the police can only go so far in ensuring that tragic errors, when they inevitably happen, do not happen to black males. Mayor Bloomberg has already pandered enough to antipolice activists. He should now cash in his political chips and speak the truth: the black crime rate is the most important determinant of how the police interact with the black community. Unless black leaders—real or media-created—muster the will to address the crime epidemic among black youth (most of it inflicted on other blacks), the ongoing carnage will almost inevitably include an infinitesimal number of accidental police shootings of unarmed men. Criminal activity among young African-Americans is the poison of cities and of race relations; if Bloomberg can force a conversation about it, he could help reclaim urban America.

11764  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The 2008 Presidential Race on: April 19, 2007, 02:48:06 PM
McCain was the MSM's darling and main source of support. Now they've decided to unmake him.
11765  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 02:46:15 PM
City Journal
Blair Breaks the Black Crime Taboo
Gangsta culture, not an unjust society, drives it, says the outgoing British prime minister.
Heather Mac Donald
12 April 2007

British prime minister Tony Blair has just broken one of the biggest taboos in Western politics: talking frankly about black crime. Give the man a medal for courage. And then ask why American pols are unable to summon such backbone in addressing the biggest impediment holding back poor black Americans: out-of-control crime rates and the gangsta culture that gives rise to criminality, problems that will be with us long after Don Imus is sent into belated retirement.

A wave of teen black-on-black murders has struck London over the last two months. Most recently, a horde of 12 black boys attacked a 14-year-old aspiring rapper with baseball bats and knives in an apartment lobby on Good Friday, killing the boy, Paul Erhahon, and seriously wounding his 15-year-old friend. Officials have charged a 13-year-old and 14-year-old with murder; the mother of the younger suspect laughed and joked during a recent court proceeding. The family of the surviving victim has received threats since the stabbing, which appears to be gang-related. Since February, nine teenagers have been shot or stabbed to death in London and other British cities.

Politicians and “community leaders” have two usual responses to such crime: ignoring it or blaming poverty and racism. Silence is eminently safe; changing the subject to poverty wins you political sensitivity points from media and cultural elites. But Tony Blair has undergone what he calls a “lurching into total frankness” in the final weeks of his premiership. And so he’s thrown out the usual politician’s playbook and spoken the truth: The violence will not end “by pretending it is not young black kids doing it,” he said yesterday in a lecture in Cardiff, Wales. The spate of killings isn’t part of a generalized crime wave, Blair said, but results from the behavior of black youth. Even more astounding than his willingness to name the violent-crime phenomenon was his rejection of the acceptable explanations for it. “We need to stop thinking of this as a society that has gone wrong—it has not—but of specific groups that for specific reasons have gone outside of the proper lines of respect and good conduct towards others and need by specific measures to be brought back into the fold,” he observed.

In the past, Blair has also fingered the real “root cause” of so much underclass criminality: the breakdown in marriage. Without fathers in their lives, he has said, boys will be more at risk for antisocial behavior. He made the same point yesterday: the crime epidemic has “to do with the fact that particular youngsters are being brought up in a setting that has no rules, no discipline, no proper framework around them.” And in case his audience still didn’t get the point, he rejected the usual excuse for black crime. “Economic inequality is a factor and we should deal with that,” Blair noted, “but I don’t think it’s the thing that is producing the most violent expression of this social alienation.”

The problem with the crime taboo is that it leaves untouched a culture that puts law-abiding black citizens—the majority of blacks—at risk. The crime taboo allows a subset of that population to destroy the hopes and lives of others. Blair called on the many upstanding black leaders and parents to take on the gang culture: “The black community—the vast majority of whom in these communities are decent, law-abiding people horrified at what is happening—need to be mobilized in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids.”

Blair also recognized in his speech that stronger policing is the best solution to violent crime. The police and prosecutors need to focus intensively on the youths behind the recent gun and knife attacks, he said, and take the leaders “out of circulation.”

The victim lobby of course struck back hard, denouncing Blair’s call for more assertive policing and demanding more antipoverty funding. Yet in a sign that Britain may contain pockets of sanity still unthinkable in the U.S., the ordinarily PC Commission for Racial Equality stood by Blair’s remarks, saying that people “shouldn’t be afraid to talk about this issue for fear of sounding prejudiced.”

America contains its share of lame-duck politicians at the moment—the mayor of New York City and the president of the United States come to mind. If they want to leave a legacy of leadership, they could do worse than following Tony Blair’s lead in tackling the most pressing urban problem.

11766  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 02:33:25 PM
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007344.htm?print=1

Michelle Malkin takes on the conduct of one of today's most popular HipHop performers.
11767  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 02:25:41 PM
I do believe that media, including video games and especially "gangsta" rap has an effect. The key element is it's effect on vulnerable populations of urban minority children and predominantly white suburban children that to a degree are living a "Lord of the Flies" existence in the midst of our country. Media, especially that which glorifies violent anti-social behavior fills the void too often left by parents and our now "value-neutral" society.

Hedonism, illegitimacy, crass displays of material wealth and criminality are destroying black communities today. Ironic, given that a strong sense of family and Christianity sustained black Americans through slavery and Jim Crow oppression.
11768  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 01:32:22 PM
The mass killers are the abberant and thus media intensive form of killer in the US. The subculture of gangsterism in urban minority centers fuels most of our violent crime statistics. When it is safer for a young black male to be in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan than a civilian in Washington D.C. it's a sign that something has gone very wrong.
11769  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 19, 2007, 12:48:30 AM
Wanted: A culture of self-defense
By Michelle Malkin   ·   April 18, 2007 11:24 AM
My column this week:

There's no polite way or time to say it: American college and universities have become coddle industries. Big Nanny administrators oversee speech codes, segregrated dorms, politically correct academic departments, and designated "safe spaces" to protect students selectively from hurtful (conservative) opinions—while allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions (textbook case: Columbia University's anti-Minuteman Project protesters).

Instead of teaching students to defend their beliefs, American educators shield them from vigorous intellectual debate. Instead of encouraging autonomy, our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance.

And as the erosion of intellectual self-defense goes, so goes the erosion of physical self-defense.

As news was breaking about the carnage at Virginia Tech, a reader e-mailed me a news story from last January. State legislators in Virginia had attempted to pass a bill that would have eased handgun restrictions on college campuses. Opposed by outspoken, anti-gun activists and Virginia Tech administrators, that bill failed.

Is it too early to ask: "What if?" What if that bill had passed? What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?

If it wasn't too early for Keystone Katie Couric to be jumping all over campus security yesterday for what they woulda/coulda/shoulda done in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, and if it isn't too early for the New York Times editorial board to be publishing its knee-jerk call for more gun control, it darned well isn't too early for me to raise questions about how the unrepentant anti-gun lobbying of college officials may have put students at risk.

The back story: Virginia Tech had punished a student for bringing a handgun to class last spring—despite the fact that the student had a valid concealed handgun permit. The bill would have barred public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun." After the proposal died in subcommittee, the school's governing board reiterated its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus buildings.

Late last summer, a shooting near campus prompted students to clamor again for loosening campus rules against armed self-defense. Virginia Tech officials turned up their noses. In response to student Bradford Wiles's campus newspaper op-ed piece in support of concealed carry on campus, Virginia Tech associate vice president Larry Hincker scoffed:

"t is absolutely mind-boggling to see the opinions of Bradford Wiles…The editors of this page must have printed this commentary if for no other reason than malicious compliance. Surely, they scratched their heads saying, 'I can't believe he really wants to say that.' Wiles tells us that he didn't feel safe with the hundreds of highly trained officers armed with high powered rifles encircling the building and protecting him. He even implies that he needed his sidearm to protect himself."

The nerve!

Hincker continued: "The writer would have us believe that a university campus, with tens of thousands of young people, is safer with everyone packing heat. Imagine the continual fear of students in that scenario. We've seen that fear here, and we don't want to see it again…Guns don't belong in classrooms. They never will. Virginia Tech has a very sound policy preventing same."

Who's scratching his head now, Mr. Hincker?

Some high-handed commentators insist it's premature or unseemly to examine the impact of school rules discouraging students from carrying arms on campus. Pundit Andrew Sullivan complained that it was "creepy" to highlight reader e-mails calling attention to the Virginia Tech's restrictions on student self-defense—even as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence rushed to capitalize on the massacre to sign up new members and gather e-mail addresses for Million Mom March chapters. "We are outraged by the increase in gun violence in America, especially the recent shooting at Virginia Tech," reads the online petition. "Add your name to the growing list of people who are saying 'Enough Is Enough!'"

Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense—mind, spirit, and body. It begins with two words: Fight back.

11770  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 09:53:16 PM




April 18, 2007, 0:44 p.m.

A Culture of Passivity
"Protecting" our "children" at Virginia Tech.

By Mark Steyn

I haven’t weighed in yet on Virginia Tech — mainly because, in a saner world, it would not be the kind of incident one needed to have a partisan opinion on. But I was giving a couple of speeches in Minnesota yesterday and I was asked about it and found myself more and more disturbed by the tone of the coverage. I’m not sure I’m ready to go the full Derb but I think he’s closer to the reality of the situation than most. On Monday night, Geraldo was all over Fox News saying we have to accept that, in this horrible world we live in, our “children” need to be “protected.”

Point one: They’re not “children.” The students at Virginia Tech were grown women and — if you’ll forgive the expression — men. They would be regarded as adults by any other society in the history of our planet. Granted, we live in a selectively infantilized culture where twentysomethings are “children” if they’re serving in the Third Infantry Division in Ramadi but grown-ups making rational choices if they drop to the broadloom in President Clinton’s Oval Office. Nonetheless, it’s deeply damaging to portray fit fully formed adults as children who need to be protected. We should be raising them to understand that there will be moments in life when you need to protect yourself — and, in a “horrible” world, there may come moments when you have to choose between protecting yourself or others. It is a poor reflection on us that, in those first critical seconds where one has to make a decision, only an elderly Holocaust survivor, Professor Librescu, understood instinctively the obligation to act.

Point two: The cost of a “protected” society of eternal “children” is too high. Every December 6th, my own unmanned Dominion lowers its flags to half-mast and tries to saddle Canadian manhood in general with the blame for the “Montreal massacre,”  the 14 female students of the Ecole Polytechnique murdered by Marc Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi, the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, though you’d never know that from the press coverage). As I wrote up north a few years ago:

Yet the defining image of contemporary Canadian maleness is not M Lepine/Gharbi but the professors and the men in that classroom, who, ordered to leave by the lone gunman, meekly did so, and abandoned their female classmates to their fate — an act of abdication that would have been unthinkable in almost any other culture throughout human history. The “men” stood outside in the corridor and, even as they heard the first shots, they did nothing. And, when it was over and Gharbi walked out of the room and past them, they still did nothing. Whatever its other defects, Canadian manhood does not suffer from an excess of testosterone.

I have always believed America is different. Certainly on September 11th we understood. The only good news of the day came from the passengers who didn’t meekly follow the obsolescent 1970s hijack procedures but who used their wits and acted as free-born individuals. And a few months later as Richard Reid bent down and tried to light his shoe in that critical split-second even the French guys leapt up and pounded the bejasus out of him.

We do our children a disservice to raise them to entrust all to officialdom’s security blanket. Geraldo-like “protection” is a delusion: when something goes awry — whether on a September morning flight out of Logan or on a peaceful college campus — the state won’t be there to protect you. You’ll be the fellow on the scene who has to make the decision. As my distinguished compatriot Kathy Shaidle says:

When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.

I’d prefer to say that the default position is a terrible enervating passivity. Murderous misfit loners are mercifully rare. But this awful corrosive passivity is far more pervasive, and, unlike the psycho killer, is an existential threat to a functioning society.

 — Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of America Alone.

National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzEzYzQ0Y2MyZjNlNjY1ZTEzMTA0MGRmM2EyMTQ0NjY=
11771  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Open Letter to Muslims, Liberals, Democrats, et al on: April 18, 2007, 09:14:31 PM
Probably. I'm sure believing in reincarnation helps as well. At least it would keep Richard Gere away from him for a while.... ; )
11772  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 08:57:47 PM
Other viable options are an FMA practitioner leaping on him and stabbing him until the threat is ended, or a group of students rushing him and stomping him into jelly rather than being slaughtered like sheep.
11773  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 07:02:52 PM
The thought of an armed citizen might not deter him, but an armed citizen shooting him until he no longer presents a threat would work.

11774  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 05:59:34 PM
Crafty,

No worries. As usual, my sense of humor is funny to...me.
11775  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 05:14:13 PM
Crafty,

You need a smiley pulling it's hair out.  angry

....Grumble.....It's like moving furniture for my wife.....grumble......
11776  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 04:37:52 PM
Hi GM,

You're American Indian?  Then I'm really confused.  How can you not identify with the Palestinians?

****Because the Jews were the original "native peoples" of Israel, as well as other parts of the middle east. Once thriving jewish communities in places like Cairo and Baghdad have been forced to flee to the tiny speck of land of what is Eretz Yisrael. Think of it as the last Jewish/Christian reservation after the Islamic conquest of the middle east. I do. My tribe in paticular has had a bad experience with trading "land for peace".****

And you pose an excellent question, one that I was expecting to ask you in a follow up post yet in the reverse direction.

I don't blame you in the least for asking when the white/black/asian folks will leave your homeland.  It's not likely to happen but that does not mean it is morally right for your homeland to be invaded and a whole people to be displaced.

**** I think it would be a wonderful act of good faith for you to sign the title of your home over to me before you book a one way flight to Berlin. Maybe you could start a movement by living up to the standard you demand of the Israelis. Actions speak much louder than words. Let me know when and where we can meet so we can do this transaction before you catch your Lufthansa flight. (I am of course saying this with tongue firmly planted in cheek, you and I both know that you and everyone else aren't going anywhere.)****

Frankly, I wonder sometimes why American Indians have not become domestic terrorists.  The US has been horrible to you guys.  I wonder frequently why the Palestinians have decided to fight back (and at such horrible expense) and other groups in history, including Jews during the Nazi times, have not fought back so long or so hard or so desparately.  I'd like to know what the difference is.

****AIM kind of got into domestic terrorism in the 60's/70's, but most Indian people reject terrorism as immoral and contrary to Indian values and are patriotic Americans. Despite the horrors the various tribes suffered at the time of "manifest destiny", as conquered people we were treated better than the Turks treated the Armenians or the Spanish and later Mexicans treated the "Indios" or any people the muslim jihad has overrun. As a tribal elder once explained on this subject "We signed the treaties and kept our side because we gave our word". Indians were given their little chunks of land and allowed to survive, despite the the US military's ability to utter wipe us off the planet. In time, America evolved. Now those of european ancestry, such as yourself feel regret over the part wrongs against native peoples. If you'll look at Turkey, you'll see no such thing about the Armenian genocide. Muslims celebrate the genocidal acts of Muhammad against various Jewish tribes.****

I do not consider terrorism valid or good, for the record, under any circumstances.  I am not pleased about my bro-in-law still having nightmares of heads on stakes in his home village or my wife instinctively ducking when a car backfires or being good a certain surgical proceedures because she's had to repair certain wounds (sometimes on kids) before.

I'm not endorsing it.  I am trying to get really clear on how it comes about and I do not like my taxes going to support fascist countries who woudl be forced to compromise and behave more honorably if they did not have my money and my weapons aiding them.  If we want to figure out why soap is flying across the bathroom and knocking us in the head, it makes sense to look at who is wetting and squeezing it and why.

****Again, why the double standard. If sucide/homicide bombing is ok for the "Palestinians", why isn't it ok here?****

I do think that Islamist terrorism comes from the defeat of the Turks in 1918, re-drawing of the middle east by France and England, creation of Israel and its policies toward the Palistinians, modern high-tech which has changed the game (reference Thomas Freedman's concept of super-empowered individuals or groups competing with nation-states as actors), plus a bit of class-warfare that is a function of globalism.  That means that we play a role in creating it and we therefore have some responsibility for it AND, importantly, an opportunity to make changes in our collective behavior that may just solve the problems with less violence and less avoidance of self-accountability than otherwise.  I think that's a good thing.

****Muhammad was the original islamist terrorist. The problem is, when it comes to a theological debate between moderate muslims and the jihadists, the jihadists hold the theological upper hand.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).

Qu'ran verse 8, 12: "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."****


I think what I just described is the mechanism by which such violence is made and I think it's important for people to understand this for the reasons you and I agreed upon earlier, namely that we've got to understand the problem well in order to solve it.

And, as agreed earlier, this mennace of Islamist terrorism is a real danger and must be understood if we're goign to solve it, maybe even in order for us to survive.  It could get pretty bad in the next 50 years.

-E
11777  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 01:58:12 PM
****For those of you who don't know him, Massad Ayoob, the son of a Syrian immigrant is one of the top names in law enforcement/self defense firearms writing/training in the US. Reading his stuff as a teen inspired my career in law enforcement.****


Armed civilians can
help fight terrorism

By Massad Ayoob   

This article was written before terrorists seized a school in Beslan, a town in North Ossetia, one of the small republics that make up the modern Russian Federation. The terrorists took more than 1200 hostages and, by the time the ensuing siege ended, at least 335 of them, mostly children, were dead. As Mr. Ayoob points out, terrorists care not a bit for the lives of innocents, including children. But he also points out, in this article, that one of the most effective counters to terrorism is when the innocents themselves are armed. — Editor


It will happen like this. The story, by the way, is true and has already happened.

“At 7:50 a.m., near the highway’s third traffic light and by a row of shops called the White House Plaza, the Toyota minivan was waiting for the light to change when a yellow-painted taxicab overtook the consulate car and stopped at a sharp angle in front of it. Two men, both carrying Chinese-made AK-47 7.62mm assault rifles, calmly emerged from the cab, raised their weapons, and unleashed a point-blank, furious fusillade at the minibus and its passengers. One of the gunmen fired into the front of the vehicle, peppering the windshield with nearly twenty 7.62mm holes. The second man, who eyewitnesses reported as bearing down on the sliding door of the minibus in text-book assault position, unleashed a banana-clip magazine’s worth of ammunition straight into the van, killing Mrs. Van Landingham and Mr. Durell.”

That incident did not happen in the United States. It took place in Karachi, Pakistan, on Wednesday, March 8, 1995. The account comes from Relentless Pursuit, the 2002 book about the hunt for Al-Qaeda terrorists written by Samuel M. Katz. Notes Katz, “It was the kind of operation the Mujahadeen had carried out so many times in Afghanistan, ambushing Soviet officers in Kabul.”

They don’t need airplanes to crash into skyscrapers. Many in the world intelligence community have been predicting that the next wave of Al-Qaeda attacks in the USA will take place on a much smaller scale, and in the heartland: the rural areas and small towns so cherished by the readers of Backwoods Home Magazine.


The next major terrorist target in the United States might be in “the heartland” instead of New York City.

Perhaps afflicted with the attention span of a fish, some pundits have implied that it’s paranoid to worry about further attacks. They say there is no evidence that terrorists are here.

The clueless should not talk about evidence. Mohammad Atta and the rest of the September 11, 2001 skyjacker team had long dwelt among us in this country as a sleeper cell. It was a carefully crafted operation of significant size. Believing that it cannot happen again is a manifestation of wishful thinking.

The fact is, there is strong reason to believe that it most certainly is going to happen again. The Israeli intelligence-gathering group DEBKA reported on May 26 of 2004: “Several sleeper cells are also known to have infiltrated the United States in ship’s containers in 2003 and early this year. Some of these containers were spotted at important US ports with signs of occupation by men with weapons and explosives who were never caught. They may have been decoys to distract attention from landings of large parties of armed terrorists on American shores, whom intelligence sources believed headed undetected for safe houses inland to await orders to strike.”

DEBKA noted in the same bulletin: “Our sources add that American and foreign counter-terror and intelligence agencies are also hunting for Midaat Mursi, known as Abu Khabab, prominent member of al Qaeda’s operational partner, the Egyptian Jihad Islami, who is considered the organization’s top expert on radiological bombs. Mursi heads a number of terrorist rings who may have been instructed to infiltrate the United States through Canada for a dirty bomb attack. They may have made the crossing already.”

As to the “dirty bomb” thing, the tidbit has been going around through the intelligence community for years now that Osama bin Laden is in possession of multiple “suitcase nukes” acquired through rogue elements of the former Soviet Union military. These would be more likely to be employed near large population centers.

The face of the enemy

We have seen the patterns of terrorist attack in other countries, with Israel being the paradigm. Suicide bombings, car bombings, and mass murder attempts in public places with firearms, such as the Karachi incident recounted at the beginning of this article.

The deaths of unarmed men, women, and children do not concern the perpetrators. Naive observers feel that this is not going to happen because their reading of the Moslem faith is that such killings are strictly forbidden. That is my understanding also. The problem is, we are not dealing with strict Moslems. We are dealing with fanatics and radicals whose faith has been cruelly misinterpreted by their leaders and twisted against them as well as against us.


Even the humble .22 can save the day if a shot is coolly placed in the right spot. This is the Smith & Wesson .22 Kit Gun, a favorite of backwoods people since before WWII.

In the wake of the brutal murder of American hostage Paul Johnson, Jr. in June of 2004, King Abdullah II of Jordan was quoted by Beth Gardiner of Associated Press from an address he delivered over Jordan Radio. Said the king, “These evil acts are not only aimed against the United States and the West, but also against Islam and humanity.”

Researchers David Benjamin and Steven Simon were able to access the deposition of a captured member of Al-Qaeda. In the following passage, he talks about his training and what he was told by the spiritual leader who was in charge of his terrorist cell:

“He said that our time now is similar like in that time, and he say ibn al Tamiyeh, when a tartar come to Arabic war, Arabic countries that time, he say some Muslims, they help him. And he says ibn al Tamiyeh, he make a fatwah. He said anybody around the tartar, he buy something from them and he sell them something, you should kill him. And also, if when you attack the tartar, if anybody around them, anything, or he’s not military or that—if you kill him, you don’t have to worry about that. If he’s a good person, he go to paradise and if he’s a bad person, he go to hell.”

What this individual is expressing, literally, is an ethos of “kill them all and let God sort them out.”

There is, really, only one answer. The threat must be interdicted. The Israelis figured out long ago that there’s no point in taking at gunpoint a subject who considers himself to be on a “martyrdom operation,” as Osama bin Laden has called his trademark type of merciless attack against the helpless. When a criminal suspect is taken at gunpoint by a police officer, a security professional, or a law-abiding armed citizen, what is happening is essentially a kind of negotiation.

In negotiation, as we all know, a form of bargaining is taking place. We give something we can afford to give, to gain something that we genuinely need. At gunpoint, we are implicitly saying to the criminal, “If you cease what you are doing which endangers us, we will let you live.” We can afford to lodge him at society’s expense in a penitentiary (or, if we are not police, to let him escape) in return to his obedience to the command to cease hostility. On his side of the deal, he is allowed to live unharmed in return for ceasing his dangerous behavior, which forced us to point deadly weapons at him.

This particular negotiation breaks down, however, when what we offer in return for what we need is something the other party doesn’t particularly want. The fanatics of Al-Qaeda and their sympathizers have repeatedly said that where our culture loves life, theirs loves death. The volunteers call themselves martyrs, and expect to sit at the side of their god and be rewarded with a few dozen virgins in the afterlife as a result of their actions. Therefore, they do not fear death, and cannot be bargained with like a criminal who wants to live.

Only one type of “negotiation” is possible. If what we need is the safety of the innocent, and what the terrorists want is death, suddenly the trade seems feasible after all.

This is why the Israelis have learned to shoot first and discuss the matter later when the explosives or the guns come out in the hands of the other side. Not long ago, a woman in a market in Israel saw a man attempting to activate an explosive device strapped to his body. She drew a concealed pistol and shot him dead before he could trigger the suicide bomb, and in so doing she saved countless innocent people from being killed or mutilated. American newspapers referred to her as a “security” person, but the word I get is that she was simply an ordinary lady…with a gun, and the will to use it, and the foresight to have learned to use it properly and effectively.

Many years before, a clutch of terrorists opened fire in a public place in Israel. Guns bloomed everywhere from the concealing garments of honest Israeli citizens. In moments, the terrorists were on the ground bleeding from their gunshot wounds, all dead but one. The wounded survivor said indignantly afterward that no one had told them that their victims might be armed and capable of shooting back.

After the massacre at the Maalot school decades ago, the Israelis developed the policy of having plainclothes volunteer guards in the schools, armed with concealed handguns. They were not hired gun security specialists, but parents and grandparents who had signed up to help protect their children and those of the community. They were trained with their firearms by the civil guard. Since that time, there was no wholesale murder of children in an Israeli school. The one such incident happened on a field trip outside the country, where it would have been known to the murderers that the adult chaperones were not allowed to take the weapons they carried in Israel. Last year, a terrorist gunman opened fire in an Israeli school, and was cut down by civilian volunteer gunfire before he could accumulate a significant death toll.


A little “snub-nose .38” like this ended the depredations, and the life, of urban terrorist Twymon Myers. This one is the ubiquitous Smith & Wesson Chiefs Special, in production since 1950 and weighing some 19 ounces with five-shot capacity.

The June 2004 issue of the Gottlieb-Tartaro Report carried the following item under the headline Armed Israeli Citizens Help Curb Terrorists: “Israel’s police spokesman Gil Kleiman says that citizens who carry their own guns are helping to curb the damage terrorists can inflict by being able to stop a terrorist situation. ‘We’ve seen it time and time again,’ said Kleiman. ‘Armed civilians who are well trained can save people’s lives. If there isn’t a policeman, civilians can deal immediately with a terrorist.’” Emphasis is Gottlieb’s and Tartaro’s.

We need to remember, too, that all terrorism is not political. Two psychopathic teens inflicted a huge toll of death and tragedy at Columbine High School, acting out a sick agenda that was personal rather than political or religious. In Pearl, Mississippi, a young man in a similar state of mind murdered his mother with a knife to gain control of his estranged father’s deer rifle, which he then took to school. He shot several students, and was in the act of driving toward a nearby junior high school with the gun and a quantity of ammunition when he was interdicted at gunpoint by a courageous assistant principal who had retrieved a Colt .45 semiautomatic from his pickup truck in the parking lot.

NACOP, the National Association of Chiefs of Police, came up with some figures that are on point to this issue in their recent 16th Annual Survey of Police Chiefs and Sheriffs, which was posted June 15, 2004. Jim Kouri, identified as Vice President and Public Affairs Specialist for NACOP, noted that the survey results differed from the public’s perception that most police executives in this country frown upon the idea of citizens fighting back. “When police chiefs and sheriffs are allowed to respond to poll questions anonymously, the politics may be removed from their answers,” Kouri explained.

Some extracts from the results of that survey:

“When asked if the United States would be attacked by terrorists within the next year, 88.2 percent said yes. Meanwhile 64 percent of police commanders said they received training and other resources from the federal government to combat terrorism, while only 42 percent said their departments participated in terrorism-response simulations.”

Also, “With regard to private citizens owning firearms for sport or self-defense, 94 percent of the respondents supported civilian gun-ownership rights. Ninety-six percent of the police chiefs and sheriffs believe criminals obtain firearms from illegal sources and 91 percent revealed they hadn’t arrested anyone for violation of the so-called ‘waiting period’ laws. When asked if they opposed citizens obtaining concealed-weapons permits, only 34 percent said yes.”

We’ve seen the future

We are a nation of hundreds of million of citizens, equipped with only a few hundred thousand police officers. Clearly, the cops can’t be everywhere at once.

Obviously, any citizen should report suspicious behavior. That’s not paranoia or fascism; under the circumstances, it’s just common sense.

No, citizens won’t spot a guy in a kafiyeh setting the timer on a small nuclear device. However, citizens do spot smaller things that can have a bearing. 9/11 suicide squad leader Mohammed Atta allegedly got into a road rage incident en route to the original airport from which he flew to Boston to transfer onto the fateful flight that terminated at the Twin Towers. If a cell phone call to police had summoned authorities in time, the course of history might have been changed.


The 1911 style .45 caliber semiautomatic is the classic American fighting pistol. This one is a Kimber CDP.

Now, if a man carrying a boxcutter and intending to slash throats, commit mass murder, and die himself that day should find himself embroiled in a shouting match with an angry motorist who appears about to call people who can “come and take him away,” he is not likely to just drive off. This is yet another reason for competent, responsible people to consider going armed.

More states than ever now authorize concealed carry of handguns. Vermont, the one state that has traditionally allowed that practice without any requirement for a permit or license, has recently been joined in that by an enlightened state of Alaska. More states than ever have reciprocity in this regard, that is, will accept concealed carry authorization issued by other states. Your best constantly-current source on the national concealed carry gun law situation is the web-site www.packing.org.

Choice of equipment

The citizens of Israel have proven that you don’t need exotic counter-terrorist equipment to deal with scumbags who open fire on the innocent. The typical gun used there successfully by armed citizens is the ordinary 9mm semiautomatic pistol, of any of several makes. The key thing is that it be reliable. Be sure to load it with jacketed hollow point ammunition. It is designed to open up inside an offender’s body and lodge there, instead of tearing out the other side and homing in on an unseen bystander located behind the attacker and out of the shooter’s line of sight. The hollow point is also a more decisive “manstopper.” In shooting after shooting in Israel, terrorists have had to be shot again and again and again before they ceased their hostile actions, because the typical full metal jacket ammunition used there just punches a narrow wound profile like an ice-pick and does not deliver as much energy to surrounding tissues as does the American style bullet with the hollow cavity.

.45 caliber is a traditional American choice, and it’s no trick to teach even a small person to use one effectively. This powerful round has a good reputation for one-shot stops on violent human aggressors. Again, hollow points should be the choice of ammunition. The .45 kicks harder than the 9mm and so, for some, will warrant more training and practice time to gain competency. The US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is partial to the .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol.

Frankly, the good old-fashioned six-shooter will probably do well enough. Back in the 1970s, a task force of NYPD detectives and Federal agents shot it out with one Twymon Myers, a domestic terrorist believed at the time to have been the last surviving member of the Black Liberation Army, whose signature attack was the ambush murder of uniformed police officers. Myers had wounded multiple lawmen in the firefight with his 14-shot Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistol, and was trying to get to heavier firepower in his attaché case, and a hail of gunfire from cops armed with everything from 9mm automatics to Magnum revolvers had failed to put him down. Police lore has it that, before Myers could dump his empty pistol and get into his case, a grizzled New York City detective leaned out from cover and carefully squeezed off a single shot from his 1950-style .38 Special revolver. The 158-grain non-hollow point bullet punched through Myers’ heart and dropped him like a rock. Inside the case the terrorist had with him were a Colt .357 Magnum revolver and a 9mm German Schmeisser submachine gun, both fully loaded.

Indeed, even a .22 is better than nothing at all. The .22 caliber Beretta pistol issued by Mossad has gotten many an Israeli intelligence agent out of dangerous circumstances.

Self-reliant people prepare for storms even if there haven’t been any for a while. There hasn’t been a real storm on these shores since 9/11 at this writing, but the storm warnings are clear and urgent.

The Federal government is preparing for the next wave of attacks. So is local law enforcement.

This means that the rest of America needs to prepare for it, too.

11778  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:41:07 PM
Erik,

Given your acceptance of the "palestinian paradigm", I as an American Indian (I am an enrolled member of a federally recognized tribe, vote in tribal elections, fall under tribal jurisdiction when on a reservation, am eligible for treatment at Indian Health Service clinics and so on....) am curious when you will be leaving the Illegally Occupied North American continent.

On that same point, what sort of violence is justified against the invaders of my native soil? Given your validation of "palestinian" terrorism, i'm assuming that you'd understand if the native peoples of North America engaged in the same conduct as we don't have a standing army or an air force.....

Of course once that done, I guess it's between us and those guys that insists this is "Aztlan".
11779  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:25:35 PM
Erik,

You live in the US, right?
11780  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:12:26 PM
http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/show_print.php?id=36975&page=foa&issue=0231&printcde=MzUzMDY2Mjc3MA==&refpage=L25ld3MvaW5kZXgucGhwP2lzc3VlPTAyMzEmcGFnZT1mb2EmaWQ9MzY5NzU=

****Yes, this is from that right-wing paper from that right-wing part of Manhattan.   ****


Letter From Israel
Palestine 101
A Short Take on a Long History
by Sylvana Foa
July 31 - August 6, 2002


JAFFA—Have you heard the one about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat finally sitting down to negotiate? Sharon opened with a "biblical" tale.
"Before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. One day, miraculously, a stream appeared. They drank and then decided to bathe. When Moses came out of the water, he found all his clothes missing.

" 'Who took my clothes?' Moses asked. 'It was the Palestinians,' replied the Israelites."

"Wait a minute," interrupted Arafat. "There were no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"

"All right," smirked Sharon, "now that we've got that settled, let's start talking."

"If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed," Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels once said. What worked for Goebbels evidently is also working for Arafat.

The blatant lies and vicious propaganda emanating from the Arab world have gotten out of hand. Anti-Semitism is out of the closet. Jews are murdered in Canada, their graves are desecrated in Italy. It's time to sort through the spiteful drivel.

No, Charlie, despite what you read on a zillion Arab Web sites, Jews do not use the blood of Arab children to bake their holiday bread.

Yes, Harriet, the Jewish Temple did exist in Jerusalem. I know Arafat insists it didn't and his excavators are busy destroying all archaeological record of it. But next time you visit Rome, go check out the Forum and you'll find its story carved in the ancient stone of Titus's arch. Let's start at the beginning.

First, who really owns the land encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority? The answer is so well documented it could be the subject of future UN resolutions—the Canaanites. They established the Land of Canaan here around 2000 B.C., so they have first dibs. Unfortunately for them, there isn't a single Canaanite left on earth.

Abraham, the Father of the Jews and a figure revered by Islam, led a band of Hebrews from Mesopotamia and began the conquest of Canaan in 1741 B.C.—that's 3743 years ago. Those first Israelites were joined in about 1290 B.C. by the Jewish slaves led out of Egypt by Moses.

After many years and a lot of help from Joshua, the Israelites finally defeated the Canaanites and old King Saul united the country in 1100 B.C. King David added Jerusalem in 1000 B.C., and King Solomon built the First Temple around 956 B.C. The land was plagued by raiders like those guys dubbed the Philistines, "Sea Invaders," who came out of the Aegean and snatched a nice chunk of the coast. Remember Goliath? He was a Philistine and King David made mincemeat of him, but the Philistines were a nuisance for many years.

Big trouble loomed in 586 B.C. when the Babylonians (nasty ancestors of the nasty Iraqis) invaded under King Nebuchadnezzar II. They sacked the lavish city Solomon had built in Jerusalem and tore down the First Temple. The Babylonians rounded up all the Jews they could catch and deported them to Babylonia as slaves. That "Babylonian Exile" lasted a mere 50 years and the Jews returned to build the Second Temple.

For the next 1000 years, everyone and his brother grabbed a piece of the territory—Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The Roman reign was particularly benevolent. They destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and killed an estimated 1.1 million disobedient Jews, including one named Jesus. The Romans also maliciously renamed the area Palaestina, after the Jews' old enemy, the Philistines. The Christian Byzantine Empire took over in 300 A.D. and held on for more than 300 years. During that era, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 A.D.

Muhammad's followers believed in conversion, big time, and swarmed around the Middle East giving everyone a fair choice—become a Muslim or die. These Arabs stormed Palestine in 638 A.D. Do the math. The Arabs got to the region 2379 years after the Jews. So, who is occupying whom??

The Arabs considered Palestine unimportant and ruled from Damascus and Baghdad. You could call them benign except for the massacres and the fact that they were uncomfortable with trees . . . so they cut them all down, turning the once fertile region into a more familiar desert.

With all the hoopla about Jerusalem, check out the Muslim holy book, the Koran. The Koran mentions Mecca and Medina countless times but never once speaks of Jerusalem. On the other hand, there are 811 references to Jerusalem in the Bible.

Christian Crusaders arrived from Europe in 1099 and ousted the Arabs. In subsequent years, the land switched back and forth between invaders, and in the turmoil Jews began filtering back from their scattered exile. Many came from Spain, whence they were expelled in 1492.

In 1516, the non-Arab Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine and held sway until after World War I, when the British took over.

We really have no idea how many Jews and how many Arabs there were at the time—mainly because both groups hid from the Ottoman census takers to avoid taxes.

But we do know that there were probably fewer than 350,000 people, the majority Arab, in the whole region (including what is now Jordan) when Mark Twain made a pilgrimage in 1867.

In his travelogue, Innocents Abroad, Twain wrote, "One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings."

"Nazareth is forlorn . . . Jericho the accursed lies a moldering ruin today," Twain said, adding, "There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere."

But the population was growing. More Jews arrived from Eastern Europe and Russia in the 1880s, either fleeing oppression or following the Zionist dream. And Arabs from neighboring countries flocked to jobs created by Jewish immigrants.

Take a deep breath, because now the plot thickens.

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration and promised "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People."

The British then turned around and gave over 77 percent of Palestine to the Arab Hashemites, for what later became Jordan. The remaining 23 percent, west of the River Jordan, was supposedly for the Jews.

But in 1947, the UN voted to partition that 23 percent of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Israelis accepted the plan and in 1948 proclaimed the establishment of their state. Neighboring Arab nations, however, rejected both the partition and the idea of a Jewish state and launched a massive invasion of Israel.

They were defeated, and at the end of the 1948 war Israel held all of Western Palestine except the West Bank, which was captured by Jordan, and Gaza, which was seized by Egypt.

In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel again defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, gaining control not only of Gaza and the West Bank, but also of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights.

The big question is: Where were the calls for a Palestinian state during the 19 years Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza?

A 1978 peace accord signed with Egypt returned the Sinai to Cairo, but the Egyptians seemed relieved to leave Gaza with Israel. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan officially renounced all claims to the West Bank.

As far as Israelis were concerned, the land, won in a defensive war, belonged to them.

But even after all the nauseating terror of the last 23 months, the majority of Israelis are willing to give Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza, and half of Jerusalem for their state. We just wonder if they are willing to let us keep ours.

11781  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:10:06 PM
****Continued from above.****

Three months later I was granted political asylum by the United States, and Romania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. A quarter of a century later, however, Arafat remains in place as the PLO chairman and seems to still be on track with the Kremlin’s game of deception. In 1994, Arafat was granted the Nobel Peace Prize because he agreed to transform his terrorist organization into a kind of government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority) and pretended, over and over, that he would abolish the articles in the 1964 PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of the state of Israel and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism. At the end of the 1998-99 Palestinian school year, however, all one hundred and fifty new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority described Israel as the “Zionist enemy” and equated Zionism with Nazism. Two years after the Oslo Accords were signed, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists rose by 73% compared to the two year period preceding the agreement.
 
FP: There simply can’t be any kind of peace in the Middle East with Arafat at the helm. What advice would you give to American and Israeli diplomats now?
 
Pacepa: To expose Arafat’s lies and condemn his bloody terrorism, but to avoid being implicated in physical reprisals against him—that would certainly make him a hero with the Palestinians. I strongly suggest the Ceausescu solution. In November 1989, when he was loudly reelected president of Romania, Ceausescu was as popular there as Arafat is now with the Palestinians. A month later, however, Ceausescu was tried for genocide by his own people and executed by his own people. From one day to the next Ceausescu became the symbol of tyranny. Romania turned into a free country, and twelve years later it was invited to join NATO.
 
FP: Tell us a bit about what you think about the state of the KGB in Russia today. Some say it is experiencing a resurrection. Is this true?
 
Pacepa: It certainly is. In the last dozen years, Russia has been transformed for the better in unprecedented ways. Nevertheless, that country has a long way to go until it will tear down the legacy of Soviet Communism. As of June 2003, some 6,000 former KGB officers were reportedly holding important positions in Russia’s central and regional governments. Three months later, nearly half of the top governmental positions were also held by former KGB. It is like putting the old, supposedly defeated Gestapo in charge of rebuilding Germany.
 
Since the fall of Communism the Russians have been faced with an indigenous form of capitalism run by old Communist bureaucrats, speculators and ruthless mafiosi that has widened social inequities and created a decline in industrial production. Therefore, after a period of upheaval, the Russians have gradually—and perhaps thankfully—slipped back into their historical form of government, the traditional Russian samoderzhaviye (autocracy) traceable to the 14th century’s Ivan the Terrible, in which a feudal lord ruled the country with the help of his personal political police. Good or bad, the historically Russian political police may appear to most people in that country as their only defense against the rapacity of the new capitalists at home and the greediness of grasping foreign neighbors.
 
Russia will never return to Communism—too many Russians perished at the hands of that heresy. But it seems that Russia will not truly turn westward either, at least not under this generation. If history—including that of the last 14 years—is any guide, the Russians, who are now enjoying their regained nationalism, will struggle to rebuild a kind of an Old Russian Empire by inspiring themselves from old Russian traditions and by using old Russian ways and means.
FP: So is Russia a friend or a foe of the United States in the present international environment?

Pacepa: After the Berlin Wall was torn down, I hurried over there to have a look around. The dreaded East German political police was abolished from one day to the next, and its archives were opened to the public. One year later, the Stasi’s outrageous activity was laid bare in a large, impressive museum of freedom. A member of the Berlin parliament told me that the Germans wanted to provide the world with the certitude that the past would never be repeated. To be on the safe side, the German government sold off all the Stasi’s buildings to private companies.


After the Soviet Union collapsed, the new rulers in the Kremlin did not open the archives of the Soviet Union’s political police, but in 1992 they did create their own kind of KGB museum in Moscow, in a dreary gray building behind the Lubyanka. The upper floors remain KGB offices, but the rooms on the ground floor are used for conferences and as a club for retired KGB officers—complete with disco.

On September 11, 2002, numerous former KGB officers gathered at the KGB museum. They had not congregated in order to sympathize with us on the date of our national tragedy, but to celebrate the 125th birthday of Feliks Dzerzhinsky—the man who created one of the most criminal institutions in contemporary history. A few days later, Moscow’s mayor, Yury Lushkov, one of Russia’s most influential politicians, reversed his previous opposition and now said he wanted to restore Dzerzhinsky’s bronze statue to its former place of honor on Lubyanka Square. Just before that, the new Russian president ordered that the statue of Yury Andropov be reinstated at the Lubyanka, from where it had been removed after the KGB coup in 1991. Andropov is indeed the only other KGB officer to have been enthroned in the Kremlin, and it was therefore normal for Putin to pay homage to him. For all his life, Andropov indoctrinated his subordinates to believe that American Imperialism was the main enemy of their country. Now these subordinates are running Russia. It may take another generation until the visceral hatred for the US cultivated by Andropov disappears.

FP: How does Russia fit in the War on Terror? Isn’t there at least a common interest in fighting Islamic terrorism?

Pacepa: September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow's prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style "imperial-Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion" (the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.

In the late 1960s, a new element was added to the Soviet/PLO war against Israel and American imperial-Zionism: international terrorism. Before 1969 came to an end, the KGB's Thirteenth Department-known in our intelligence jargon as the Department for Wet Affairs, wet being a euphemism for bloody-invented airplane hijacking. The KGB constantly lectured at us that no one within the

American/Zionist sphere of influence should feel safe anymore. The hijacked airplane became an instrument of Soviet foreign policy-and eventually the weapon of choice for September 11, 2001.

During those years of intensive airplane hijackings, I became amazed at the almost identical pride both Arafat and KGB General Sakharovsky exhibited over their prowess as terrorists. “I invented the hijacking of [passenger] airplanes,” Arafat bragged to me in the early 1970s, when I first met him. A few months later I met with Sakharovsky at his Lubyanka office. He pointed to the red flags pinned onto a world map hanging on his wall. “Look at that,” he said. Each flag represented a plane that had been downed. “Airplane hijacking is my own invention,” he boasted.

Sakharovsky’s subordinates are now reigning in the Kremlin. Until they fully disclose their involvement in creating anti-American terrorism and condemn Arafat’s terrorism, there is no reason to believe they have changed.

FP: Mr. Pacepa. thank you. We are out of time. It was a great honor to speak with you. I hope you will return and join us again.

Pacepa: It was a great pleasure to be with you, and I would be delighted to return.

*
 
I welcome all of our readers to get in touch with me if they have a good idea/contact for a guest for Frontpage Interview. Email me at jglazov@rogers.com.
11782  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:08:18 PM
From Russia With Terror   
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 1, 2004

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service. In 1987 he published Red Horizons (Regnery Gateway), reprinted in 24 countries. In 1999 Mr. Pacepa authored The Black Book of the Securitate, reportedly an all time bestseller in Romania. He is now finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.

Frontpage Magazine: Welcome to Frontpage Interview, Mr. Pacepa. Let’s begin. As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take direct orders from the Soviet KGB, you are obviously armed with a wealth of information. You have written about how the Soviets armed Hussein with WMDs, and also taught him how to eliminate any trace of them. Can you talk a bit about this and tell us its connection to the “missing WMDs” in Iraq today?

Pacepa: Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddam’s WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find “more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes” containing documentation “dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear.” He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made “Sãrindar” plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a “spontaneous administration of tribal justice.” Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.

FP: So was any Sãrindar plan activated?
Pacepa: Certainly. The minimal version of the Sãrindar plan I made for Libya’s Gaddafi. Soon after I was granted political asylum in the US, Gaddafi staged a fire at the secret chemical weapons facility I knew about (the cellar underneath the Rabta chemical complex). To be sure the CIA satellites would notice that fire and cross that target off its list, he created a huge cloud of black smoke by burning truckloads of tires and painting scorch marks on the facility. That was written in the Sãrindar plan. To be on the safe side, Gaddafi also built a second production facility, this time placed some 100 feet underground in the hollowed-out Tarhunah Mountain, south of Tripoli. That was not in the Sãrindar plan.
FP: It is undeniable, therefore, that Saddam had WMDs, right?

Pacepa: In the early 1970s, the Kremlin established a “socialist division of labor” for persuading the governments of Iraq and Libya to join the terrorist war against the US. KGB chairman Yury Andropov (who would later become the leader of the Soviet Union), told me that either of those two countries could inflict more damage on the Americans than could the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group and all other terrorist organizations taken together. The governments of those Arab countries, Andropov explained, not only had inexhaustible financial resources (read: oil), but they also had huge intelligence services that were being run by “our razvedka advisers” and could extend their tentacles to every corner of the earth. There was one major danger, though: by raising terrorism to the state level we risked American reprisal. Washington would never dispatch its airplanes and rockets to exterminate the Baader-Meinhof, but it might well deploy them to destroy a terrorist state. We therefore were also tasked to provide those countries secretly with weapons of mass destruction, because Andropov concluded that the Yankees would never attack a country that could retaliate with such deadly weapons.

Libya was Romania’s main client in that socialist division of labor, because of Ceausescu’s close association with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Moscow kept Iraq. Andropov told me that, if our Iraq and Libyan experiment proved successful, the same strategy would be extended to Syria. Recently, Libya’s Gaddafi admitted to having WMD, and the CIA inspectors found them. Why should we believe that the almighty Soviet Union, which had proliferated WMD all over the world, was not able to do the same thing in Iraq? Every piece of armament Iraq had came from the former Soviet Union—from the Katyusha launchers to the T72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes. In the spring of 2002, just a couple of weeks after Russia took its place at the NATO table, President Putin and his ex-KGB officers who are now running Russia concluded another $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime in Iraq. That was not for grain or beans—Russia has to import them from elsewhere.

FP: Tell us about the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime. 

Pacepa: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.

In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman. (During the Six-Day War he escaped from Jerusalem disguised as a woman, thereafter becoming such a symbol within the bloc intelligence community that one of its later influence operations—aimed at making the West consider Arafat a moderate—was given the codename “Shuqairy.”) This new PLO was headed by a Soviet-style Executive Committee made up of 15 members who, like their comrades in Moscow, also headed departments. As in Moscow—and Bucharest—the chairman of the Executive Committee became the general commander of the armed forces as well. The new PLO also had a General Assembly, which was the Soviet-inspired name given to all East European parliaments after World War II.

Based on another “socialist division of labor,” the Romanian espionage service (DIE) was responsible for providing the PLO with logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the KGB and the East German Stasi, everything else came from Bucharest. Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in Romania free of charge, as a “comradely help.” During those years, two Romanian cargo planes filled with goodies for the PLO landed in Beirut every week, and were unloaded by Arafat’s men.

FP: You have discussed your personal knowledge of how Arafat was created and cultivated by the KGB and how the Soviets actually designed him to be the future leader of the PLO. Illuminate this picture for us please.
Pacepa: “Tovarishch Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar,” was built into a Palestinian leader by the KGB in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. In that war Israel humiliated two of the Soviet Union’s most important allies in the Arab world of that time, Egypt and Syria, and the Kremlin thought that Arafat could help repair the Soviet prestige. Arafat had begun his political career as leader of the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah, whose fedayeen were being secretly trained in the Soviet Union. In 1969, the KGB managed to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO executive committee. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a Soviet puppet, publicly proposed the appointment.
Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB. Arafat claimed to have coined the word “imperial-Zionism,” but in fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier, combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new Marxist anti-Americanism.
FP: Why has the American and Israeli leadership been deceived so long about Arafat’s criminal and terrorist activities?
Pacepa: Because Arafat is a master of deceit—and I unfortunately contributed to that. In March 1978, for instance, I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev believed that newly elected US president Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait. Therefore, he told the Romanian dictator that conditions were ripe for introducing Arafat into the White House. Moscow gave Ceausescu the job because by 1978 my boss had become Washington’s most favored tyrant. “The only thing people in the West care about is our leaders,” the KGB chairman said, when he enrolled me in the effort of making Arafat popular in Washington. “The more they come to love them, the better they will like us.”

“But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, after Ceausescu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. “We were born as a revolution, and we should remain an unfettered revolution.” Arafat expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline to become a formal state. That statehood was only something for a future generation. That all governments, even Communist ones, were limited by laws and international agreements, and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel.

My former boss was able to persuade Arafat into tricking President Carter only by resorting to dialectical materialism, for both were fanatical Stalinists who knew their Marxism by heart. Ceausescu sympathetically agreed that “a war of terror is your only realistic weapon,” but he also told his guest that, if he would transform the PLO into a government-in-exile and would pretend to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with money and glory. “But you have to keep on pretending, over and over,” my boss emphasized.

Ceausescu pointed out that political influence, like dialectical materialism, was built upon the same basic tenet that quantitative accumulation generates qualitative transformation. Both work like cocaine, let’s say. If you sniff it once or twice, it may not change your life. If you use it day after day, though, it will make you into an addict, a different man. That’s the qualitative transformation. And in the shadow of your government-in-exile you can keep as many terrorist groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name.

In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he convinced President Jimmy Carter that he could persuade Arafat to transform his PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile, if the United States would establish official relations with him. Thereupon, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader” who had “taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community.”
11783  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:06:13 PM
****Here are some muslim websites on the topic of sharia and the requirement of it.****

http://www.al-islami.com/islam/common_mistakes.php?p=11

Common Mistakes Muslims Fall Into



15. Not believing fully in the Shariah.

The Islamic Shariah represents the will of Allah (swt) and His messenger Mohammad (pbuh). As Muslims, we must go about all matters according to the will of Allah (swt). In the holy Qur'an, Allah (swt) has revealed to humanity many verdicts and solutions to many of the problems faced by us. In order to be a true believer in Allah (swt), and in order to worship Allah (swt) only, we must follow the guidance of Allah (swt).

The holy Qur'an also instructs us to follow the messenger of Allah (swt), prophet Mohammad (pbuh). There are many ayat to this effect, which are discussed under a separate article. Therefore, the will of Allah (swt) is for us to worship Him by following His guidance as revealed in the holy Qur'an and in the Sunnah of prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

All Muslims should live their lives according to the Islamic Shariah. Muslim nations should strive to implement the Islamic Shariah in all matters. All laws, legislation, trade, politics and all other matters should be conducted according to the Shariah.

Many nations today rely in their so called "constitutions" on foreign systems of law. Many nations where the majority of inhabitants are Muslims derive their law from western systems of law, such as French or British law. This includes all matters including criminal law and even family law!

How can we continue to abandon the law of Allah (swt) and rely on the man made law?

Some evidence that Muslims must fully believe in and implement the Shariah is shown below:

"And whoever does not judge by what Allah revealed, then they are Kafirun." (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 44).

"And this (He commands): ‘Judge thou between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires but beware of them lest they beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allah has sent down to you.’ And if they turn away be assured that for some of their crimes it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious." (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 49).

"Do they then seek after a judgment of (the Days of) Ignorance? But who for a people whose faith is assured can give better judgment than Allah?" (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 50).

There is a lot more evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah, but for the Muslim these three ayat should be sufficient to make them implement the Shariah in their life. The first ayah mentioned describes those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed as unbelievers. How can the Muslim not implement Shariah fully after hearing this verse?
________________________________________________________________

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543762

Question and Answer Details
   

   
Name of Questioner
Jody   - Canada
Title
Separating Islam and Politics
Question
Is it true that there is no politics in Islam? Should politics be separated from religion?
Date
12/Mar/2003
Name of Counsellor
`Atiyyah Saqr
Topic
Imamate & Political Systems


   
Answer
   

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we commend your keenness on getting your self well-acquainted with Islam and its teachings, which is the way Allah has chosen for the welfare of His servants.

Answering the question in point, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Religion is a divine system set for people’s benefit in this life and the Hereafter. The Islamic teachings, actually, enables man to attain happiness here, in this life, and later, in the Hereafter. On the other hand, politics is originally the technique of administration and management. So, it is commonly used as a term for a ruler's regime, with the different organizations and laws that regulate it.

Islam sheds light on all aspects of politics. The books of jurisprudence (Fiqh) contain chapters and sections on all such aspects, including the various textual evidences and personal judgments on them. There are also whole books written on politics, the oldest of these specialized books are Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah by al-Mawardi and As-Siyasah ash-Shar`iyyah fi ahwal ar-Ra`i war-Ra`iyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Islamic state was established on the basis of the Islamic system, which covers all aspects of life, religious and worldly. We also see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a conductor of the Divine Revelation, a legislator, a leader in prayer, a judge, and the commander of the army, and so were the Caliphs after him. With such integrity the Islamic nation was the greatest of all nations.

So, the notion of separating politics from religion and vice versa does not belong to Islam. It is taken from non-Muslim sources, i.e. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God’s”, as the famous quote goes."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.islamicity.com/qa/action.lasso.asp?PageCurrent=7&PageCurrent=6&PageCurrent=5&PageCurrent=4&PageCurrent=3&PageCurrent=2&-db=Services&-lay=Ask&-error=error.shtml&-max=25&-format=result.asp&-op=bw&Topic=P&-op=eq&Answer_flag=X&-op=eq&Adminfilter=2&-Sortfield=Topic&-find

Question#:
470
Question Date:
1/16/1997
Topic :
Politics, non-Muslims in Islamic States
Question:
I'm a political science major at georgia state university and I'm very interested in learning about islam and the middle east. Is it possible to be an islamist secularist? Also how would non-muslims be effected in an islamic state governed by islamic law. thank you
Answer:
Dear K. Greetings. Regarding your questions, depending what you mean by Islamist secularist. If you mean that a non-Muslim becomes an expert about Islam but still believes in the secular approach on her own, then the answer is yes, it is possible. If you mean that it is a Muslim person who believes in secularism, then it is not possible, because Islam is a complete system. It doesn't separate State and Religion. The purpose of the an Islamic State is to establish and apply God's Legislation on earth, and the purpose of a Muslim, is to implement such a system. Therefore, a Muslim cannot believe in one part of the religion and disregard the other responsibility. Regarding the other portion of your question, non-Muslims have the choice of either reverting to Islam or staying on their own religion. (We use reverting not converting because Muslims believe that a human being by instinct, is born as a believer in one God, and it is his/her parents or society that changes the natural aspiration and tendency in him/her.) To continue the answer, if the non-Muslims choose not to revert to Islam, then they have to pay a certain tax, called in Arabic the Jizya, for protection, but they are at the same time exempt from other taxes and duties that Muslim have to pay, like the Zakat tax. In addition, they exempt from serving in the army. There are many other regulations, and if you need to know about a specific topic, please don't hesitate to write us back. Thank you for asking, and we hope to be able to serve you more efficiently in the future.
11784  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:04:26 PM
Ah, GM, I just found your reply in there.  Sorry - didn't notice it at first.

I disagree about the Palestinians.  They were invaded by foreigners who set up their own country with their own laws, own language, and pushed out at gunpoint (or worse) the locals (many of whom are descended from the old old old pre-diaspora Jews) who had been living there for literally millenia.  What's so hard to understand about that?  These guys came from concentration camps and were equipped by the Brits and French who were trying to figure out something to do with them.

****Jews lived in Israel since it was Israel and Judea. Jews and Christians have been forced from their homelands all over the muslim world and yet do not sink to the level of conduct that the so-called "Palestinians" live and die by. There has never been a nation called "Palestine". There has been a region, or province of various empires but not a nation-state. The "palestinian" identity is a psy-op from the 60's, probably done by the KGB.****

I feel sorry for the Jews who faced the Nazi holocaust, but they inflicted their own holocaust on the locals.

****No, it's frankly a disgusting use of language to compare the holocaust to the self-inflicted misery and depravity of the "palestinians" and their self constructed culture of death.****


 The USA backs Israel to the tune of $5 BILLION per year.  We sell them F15s, F16s, Apaches, spy gear, and other weapons that they use on the Palestinians they kicked out of their homes.  They pay for this with money we give them.

****We provide BILLIONS more to the arab nations surrounding Israel and military aid. However Israel has the intellectual ability to have a very compitent and creative domestic arms industry while the Arab nations sorrounding Israel produce new and exciting forms of terrorism. Second, most of the Arabs that ABANDONED their homes did so that they would return after the Jews had been driven into the sea. No such luck. A decent people would move forward, not teach their children it is glorious to be a suicide bomber.****

While I don't like it or want it, I don't blame the Palestinians for fighting back the only way they can.  It's sick and wrong, but they were painted into a corner by Israel, the UK, France, and the US.

****Utter garbage. Frankly they can only do what they do because Israel isn't willing to engage them in the total war they deserve.****
...

During most of the good years of Islam, they were waaaay more generous and civil to Christians and Jews than the other way around.  People of the Book had strong civil rights and were integrated within society.  This got tense during the crusades and inquisition, but Christendom never accorded them such rights.

****Although Jews certainly were better treated under some Islamic rulers than they were in Medival europe, it isn't because the muslims were equitable, but that the medival christians were so much more oppressive and brutal. Your assertion that Dhimmis "had strong civil rights" is to assert that blacks in the south in the 1950's "had strong civil rights. That is, if you accept your status and as a lesser human being and "know your place" otherwise face officially mandated violence.****

Also, Christians have been killing each other since Rome split.  Eastern vs. Catholic church (the Crusades were also against the Eastern church in Byzantium in effect, if not declared openly), Catholic vs. Protestant (remember the Three Musketeers?  Remember who they were fighting?  Protestants), Church of England vs. Catholic, and so on. 

True, Islam split almost immediately, but the only difference is the timing, not the fratricide.

****The difference is Christianity evolved and reformed. Islam is as raw and savage as when Muhammad was robbing caravans and killing those who angered him with mocking poems.****

...

As for growing into this monster, and "it" (however that's defined) is certainly a monster, I'd say stems directly from the Sykes-Picot Treaty at the end of WWI and was fueled by decades of petrol-dollars.  That explains the zit forming. 

Now, said zit is erupting (sorry for the gross metaphor) and I think that comes from globalism, which is its own topic.

Iraq is a perfect example - pieces of three nations who were formerly only united under religion are squished into one secular state (like Neopolitan ice cream).

A weak king is installed by foreigners who is a total sell out to the west (UK in this example - you can see a movie with Alec Guinness as Feisal, I forget the name but it's explains a lot).

The west sucks out oil. ****And pumps in dollars.****

They rebel in the form of the Bath party who tries to re-unite Arabia (Syria was the first), having recent memories of 1200 years of unity), and they are tolerated so long as the oil flows and so long as they keep Iran, the other regional power who is exporting religious fundamentalism (and perversion of Islam), revolution and terrorism, at bay.

That phase ends, China grows, Venusuela is being extremely difficult, South America is nationalizing some of its energy, Globalism is on the rise and oil is looking like it will be sought after by China and India (and drying up, too), so the US invades to set up OUR pet companies.

****Iraq has given it's oil contracts to non-US companies. So much for the conspiracy theories.****

This pops that zit and now Pandora's Box has been opened.

****My view is the global interconnectivity has shown the "umma" how primitive they are compared to the west, which rather than question why islam retards development, project their rage outward the kafir, especially the Jews. Islam teaches islamic supremacy and they cannot question that, so every failure of islam is projected outwards as a conspiracy, especially a jewish conspiracy.****

Anyway, that's how I see it.
11785  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:02:35 PM
Ah, GM, I just found your reply in there.  Sorry - didn't notice it at first.

I disagree about the Palestinians.  They were invaded by foreigners who set up their own country with their own laws, own language, and pushed out at gunpoint (or worse) the locals (many of whom are descended from the old old old pre-diaspora Jews) who had been living there for literally millenia.  What's so hard to understand about that?  These guys came from concentration camps and were equipped by the Brits and French who were trying to figure out something to do with them.

I feel sorry for the Jews who faced the Nazi holocaust, but they inflicted their own holocaust on the locals.  The USA backs Israel to the tune of $5 BILLION per year.  We sell them F15s, F16s, Apaches, spy gear, and other weapons that they use on the Palestinians they kicked out of their homes.  They pay for this with money we give them.

While I don't like it or want it, I don't blame the Palestinians for fighting back the only way they can.  It's sick and wrong, but they were painted into a corner by Israel, the UK, France, and the US.

...

During most of the good years of Islam, they were waaaay more generous and civil to Christians and Jews than the other way around.  People of the Book had strong civil rights and were integrated within society.  This got tense during the crusades and inquisition, but Christendom never accorded them such rights.

Also, Christians have been killing each other since Rome split.  Eastern vs. Catholic church (the Crusades were also against the Eastern church in Byzantium in effect, if not declared openly), Catholic vs. Protestant (remember the Three Musketeers?  Remember who they were fighting?  Protestants), Church of England vs. Catholic, and so on. 

True, Islam split almost immediately, but the only difference is the timing, not the fratricide.

...

As for growing into this monster, and "it" (however that's defined) is certainly a monster, I'd say stems directly from the Sykes-Picot Treaty at the end of WWI and was fueled by decades of petrol-dollars.  That explains the zit forming. 

Now, said zit is erupting (sorry for the gross metaphor) and I think that comes from globalism, which is its own topic.

Iraq is a perfect example - pieces of three nations who were formerly only united under religion are squished into one secular state (like Neopolitan ice cream).

A weak king is installed by foreigners who is a total sell out to the west (UK in this example - you can see a movie with Alec Guinness as Feisal, I forget the name but it's explains a lot).

The west sucks out oil.

They rebel in the form of the Bath party who tries to re-unite Arabia (Syria was the first), having recent memories of 1200 years of unity), and they are tolerated so long as the oil flows and so long as they keep Iran, the other regional power who is exporting religious fundamentalism (and perversion of Islam), revolution and terrorism, at bay.

That phase ends, China grows, Venusuela is being extremely difficult, South America is nationalizing some of its energy, Globalism is on the rise and oil is looking like it will be sought after by China and India (and drying up, too), so the US invades to set up OUR pet companies.

This pops that zit and now Pandora's Box has been opened.

Anyway, that's how I see it.
11786  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam the religion on: April 18, 2007, 01:01:09 PM
*****Transplanted from the OZ thread*****


 
   Re: Islam in Australia
« Reply #14 on: April 17, 2007, 10:31:56 PM »

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2007, 09:59:35 PM
As it says on the Rules of the Road WE SEEK TRUTH.  It sounds like you belong here as part of this search.  The conversation may be vigorous, because Truth matters and its discernment in these troubled times can be as elusive as it is important.
Okay, good, so I'm not out of line.  Just wanted to make sure.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2007, 09:59:35 PM
a) I sense a "good cop bad cop" routines between "good" and "bad" muslims-- and like good cop/bad cop, ultimately that they are two faces of the same coin.
Most, if not all Muslims I've met (grew up with some Iranians, married N. African, work with some Pakistanis and Palistinians) are just people trying to get by and they enjoy living in the USA.  Some have problems with our post-cold war foreign policy but heck, so do most college students and many intellectuals.  In this climate, they seem to avoid talking about politics but readily invest in getting families together for some bonding.  Very, very good cooking in these circles, by the way, which does not help me stay skinny. 

They hate the bad ones as much or more than we do, having personally experienced them.

Think of the bad ones as the Muslim world's KKK.  The terrorists are as genuinely Muslim as the KKK is Christian.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2007, 09:59:35 PM
b) I sense that "good muslims" have a very strong aversion to standing with "good infidels" against "bad muslims".
They're often trapped between a rock and a hard place.  Nobody idealizes the USA like many did after WWII.  Those days are over yet we don't realize it.  We're not so cool anymore - kinda like the French.

We're not horrible, but we are a scary superpower who is not very worldly and has no problem attack countries who have not attacked us.  That's pretty clear around the planet and scares the daylights out of people.  We are also seen as an oil-greedy nation who will do anything we want to create, corrupt, and suck dry whole countries for their oil.

True or not, and I don't think we're as bad as we're seen these days, this makes us look like not such a good friend to ally with.  So in the interest of self-preservation, many Muslims are staying out of it if they can and not standing with us as we don't offer anything credible and we don't look like we're going to succeed.

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2007, 09:59:35 PM
c) This is shown by the tremendous scarcity of translators and interpretors coming forward from the millions of Arab, Persian and Pakistani immigrants and their children in America.
As above.

But do you mean translators abroad or within the USA?

Quote from: Crafty_Dog on April 17, 2007, 09:59:35 PM
d) To be Muslim, my understanding is that one must seek Sharia.  Sharia is not only a religious idea, it seeks to be the law-- a political idea.  And the political idea of Sharia is contrary to Freedom of Choice, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion and Separation of Church and State-- all core American inalienable rights derived from our Creator.  In other words, I do not seeing a way around raising the question that in America Sharia, hence Islam, is per se seditious.
Nah, this isn't correct, though it's a good point.

To be Muslim you have to do five things and THAT'S IT.
1) Declare there's no god but God and that Mohammed is his prophet.
2) Fast for Ramadan.
3) Give money to the poor.
4) Make a pilgrimage to Mecca once in your life if and only if you can afford it.
5) Pray 5 times per day.

The desire to have religious law is a cultural one.  But think of it like this - it's more natural to have religious laws than specifically non-religious laws.  If morality comes from God (in theory) and God decides what's good or bad (murder, adultry, theft, paying taxes, etc.) then it follows that the details would be "clarified" (or interpreted) by God's ministers (priests) who would, logically, claim that their legitimacy comes from God himself, right?

So a separation between church and state (which I wholeheartedly believe in) is a big step, one that the West only learned after centuries of corruption.

What are our laws based upon?  "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." It works for us because it makes sense to us, but we're the exception, not the rule in the grand scheme of history.

So, imagine that the US were split up by, say, China or India or pre-1918 Turkey (pick a once or future big power), our resources sucked out of the country and the common US citizen wasn't making a dime on it, the state gov'ts were corrupt and controlled by foreign money, the KKK took an anti-foreigner as well as racist ideology and was the most organized group out there as hate makes sense under such circumstances, had characters like Pat Robinson and other extremists who were totally corrupting Christianity yet the church was the only hope and/or explanation of why God was treating us like we were being treated, Catholics and Protestants were fighting like they did during the Hugonaught time (sorry for the spelling), and somehow people whose lives and minds were warped by this life figured out a way to lash out.

That's as close of a parallel as I can can muster right before bed.  I hope it makes a little sense.
11787  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 12:31:57 PM
'Happyland' Arson
Eighty-seven people die in dance club fire

(CBS) The Bronx After working hard all week for modest wages, many Latino immigrants in the East Tremont section of The Bronx would forget their troubles on the crowded dance floor of the Happyland Social Club.

Happyland was located on two floors above a row of stores. It was a tight space with just a single staircase leading in and out. It also was an illegal establishment; ordered closed by the city for building and fire violations. Orders that were ignored by the club's operators.

After midnight on Sunday, March 25, 1990, Happyland was packed with young men and women, most of them new to the U.S. and still calling places like Honduras and Ecuador home.

Just before 3 a.m., according to some who later remembered, a man argued loudly with a woman who worked in the club. He said in Spanish: "I'll be back."

Less than an hour later, Happyland was an inferno. Eighty-seven people died that night, 61 men, 26 women, more than half of them under 25 years of age. Along the walls of the dancefloor, 68 bodies were piled, indicative of their desperate attempts to find a way out from the flames.

The dead were asphyxiated or burned to death within minutes.

Later on that Sunday, police arrested a man they said had set the blaze with gasoline after quarrelling with his girlfriend who worked as a ticket taker.

Julio Gonzalez, an immigrant from Cuba, left the club drunk and walked to a nearby gas station where he bought a gallon of gas. He returned to the club and splashed the staircase and lit the gas.

Investigators said Gonzalez wanted to kill his girlfriend in the fire. She was one of the few who survived.

The fire resulted in a crackdown by the city on the hundreds of illegal social clubs and dance halls believed to be located in all five boroughs.

Gonzalez went to trial later in 1990. After two days of deliberations, a jury found him guilty on all 174 counts - two counts for each victim -of murder. However, New York State law did not allow for a sentence greater than that for a single count of murder: 25 years to life.

****I blame the gas and matches lobby for these deaths, and President Bush, of course. When will this country impose reasonable restrictions on the sale and ownership of gasoline and matches?****  grin
11788  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 12:18:34 PM
http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#r1

(R1) May nonimmigrant aliens legally in the United States purchase or possess firearms and ammunition while in the United States?

Nonimmigrant aliens generally are prohibited from possessing or receiving (purchasing) firearms and ammunition in the United States.

There are exceptions to this general prohibition. The exceptions are as follows:

nonimmigrant aliens who possess a valid (unexpired) hunting license or permit lawfully issued by a State in the United States;

nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States to participate in a competitive target shooting event or to display firearms at a sports or hunting trade show sponsored by a national, State, or local firearms trade organization devoted to the collection, competitive use or other sporting use of firearms;
certain diplomats, if the firearms are for official duties;
officials of foreign governments, if the firearms are for official duties, or distinguished foreign visitors so designated by the U.S. State Department;
foreign law enforcement officers of friendly foreign governments entering the United States on official law enforcement business; and
persons who have received a waiver from the prohibition from the U.S. Attorney General.
Significantly, even if a nonimmigrant alien falls within one of these exceptions, the nonimmigrant alien CANNOT purchase a firearm from a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) unless he or she (1) has an alien number or admission number from the Department of Homeland Security (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) AND (2) can provide the FFL with documentation showing that he or she has resided in a State within the United States for 90 consecutive days immediately prior to the firearms transaction.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(b) and 922(y), 27 CFR 478.124, ATF Rul. 2004-1]

 


(R2) Typically, who are "nonimmigrant aliens?"

In large part, nonimmigrant aliens are persons traveling temporarily in the United States for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a foreign residence abroad, and certain foreign workers. Permanent resident aliens are NOT nonimmigrant aliens. Permanent resident aliens often are referred to as people with "green cards."

****It is my understanding that the VT shooter had Permanent resident status.****
11789  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 11:53:34 AM
Rog,

I'm glad to see i've endeared myself to you. I don't think pointing out your using the VT murders as a starting point for an attack on the president and his foreign policy counts as an ad hominem attack on your person.  wink
11790  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 11:42:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Bath School disaster
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bath School Disaster

Bath Consolidated School after bombing
Location   Bath Township, Michigan, United States
Target(s)   Bath Consolidated School
Date   May 18, 1927
Attack type   Shooting/explosives/fire/suicide bombing
Fatalities   45
Perpetrator(s)   Andrew Kehoe
Motive   Financial Hardship

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, USA, on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured 58. Most of the victims were children in second to sixth grades attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history. The perpetrator was school board member Andrew Kehoe, who was upset by a property tax that had been levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack.
On the morning of May 18, Kehoe first killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, and killing and injuring several others. During the rescue efforts, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol planted throughout the basement of the school's south wing.

I Blame BUSH!!!!  rolleyes
11791  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 18, 2007, 11:31:16 AM
Crafty,

What thread would you like this moved to? How do I do it without screwing up this one?
11792  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Virginia Tech Shooting... on: April 18, 2007, 11:26:24 AM
From Bush's comments at the convocation last night:

Quote
Those whose lives were taken did nothing to deserve their fate. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Now they’re gone—and they leave behind grieving families, and grieving classmates, and a grieving nation.

Coming from a president who thinks pre-emptive wars, assassinations, secret imprisonment, and torture are all a-OK, his presence at the service was fairly inappropriate.  If he didn't enjoy effective immunity from the consequences of his policies, it might occur to him that the above could just as easily be said about the masses of dead Iraqis.

There's also this line.  Again, fairly predictable:

Quote
It’s impossible to make sense of such violence and suffering

Really?  Or could it be that why stuff like this is happening with increasing frequency in the US is a question that Bush and his speechwriters would prefer not to examine too closely?  What have we as a society done since Columbine to make such incidents any less likely to occur?

This thread (to this forum's credit) started out with expressions of shock and sympathy for the victims, but now it's all but devolved into a discussion about fears that incidents like this will increase the appeal of gun control laws.  IMO, that says quite a bit.

It seems that someone could post about burning their mouth on a hot slice of pizza and Rog could segue that into an anti-Bush diatribe. Just saying....
11793  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 18, 2007, 04:19:48 AM
http://www.villagevoice.com/generic/show_print.php?id=36975&page=foa&issue=0231&printcde=MzUzMDY2Mjc3MA==&refpage=L25ld3MvaW5kZXgucGhwP2lzc3VlPTAyMzEmcGFnZT1mb2EmaWQ9MzY5NzU=

****Yes, this is from that right-wing paper from that right-wing part of Manhattan.  wink ****


Letter From Israel
Palestine 101
A Short Take on a Long History
by Sylvana Foa
July 31 - August 6, 2002


JAFFA—Have you heard the one about Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Chairman Yasir Arafat finally sitting down to negotiate? Sharon opened with a "biblical" tale.
"Before the Israelites came to the Promised Land and settled here, Moses led them for 40 years through the desert. One day, miraculously, a stream appeared. They drank and then decided to bathe. When Moses came out of the water, he found all his clothes missing.

" 'Who took my clothes?' Moses asked. 'It was the Palestinians,' replied the Israelites."

"Wait a minute," interrupted Arafat. "There were no Palestinians during the time of Moses!"

"All right," smirked Sharon, "now that we've got that settled, let's start talking."

"If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed," Nazi propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels once said. What worked for Goebbels evidently is also working for Arafat.

The blatant lies and vicious propaganda emanating from the Arab world have gotten out of hand. Anti-Semitism is out of the closet. Jews are murdered in Canada, their graves are desecrated in Italy. It's time to sort through the spiteful drivel.

No, Charlie, despite what you read on a zillion Arab Web sites, Jews do not use the blood of Arab children to bake their holiday bread.

Yes, Harriet, the Jewish Temple did exist in Jerusalem. I know Arafat insists it didn't and his excavators are busy destroying all archaeological record of it. But next time you visit Rome, go check out the Forum and you'll find its story carved in the ancient stone of Titus's arch. Let's start at the beginning.

First, who really owns the land encompassing what is now Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority? The answer is so well documented it could be the subject of future UN resolutions—the Canaanites. They established the Land of Canaan here around 2000 B.C., so they have first dibs. Unfortunately for them, there isn't a single Canaanite left on earth.

Abraham, the Father of the Jews and a figure revered by Islam, led a band of Hebrews from Mesopotamia and began the conquest of Canaan in 1741 B.C.—that's 3743 years ago. Those first Israelites were joined in about 1290 B.C. by the Jewish slaves led out of Egypt by Moses.

After many years and a lot of help from Joshua, the Israelites finally defeated the Canaanites and old King Saul united the country in 1100 B.C. King David added Jerusalem in 1000 B.C., and King Solomon built the First Temple around 956 B.C. The land was plagued by raiders like those guys dubbed the Philistines, "Sea Invaders," who came out of the Aegean and snatched a nice chunk of the coast. Remember Goliath? He was a Philistine and King David made mincemeat of him, but the Philistines were a nuisance for many years.

Big trouble loomed in 586 B.C. when the Babylonians (nasty ancestors of the nasty Iraqis) invaded under King Nebuchadnezzar II. They sacked the lavish city Solomon had built in Jerusalem and tore down the First Temple. The Babylonians rounded up all the Jews they could catch and deported them to Babylonia as slaves. That "Babylonian Exile" lasted a mere 50 years and the Jews returned to build the Second Temple.

For the next 1000 years, everyone and his brother grabbed a piece of the territory—Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The Roman reign was particularly benevolent. They destroyed the Second Temple in 70 A.D. and killed an estimated 1.1 million disobedient Jews, including one named Jesus. The Romans also maliciously renamed the area Palaestina, after the Jews' old enemy, the Philistines. The Christian Byzantine Empire took over in 300 A.D. and held on for more than 300 years. During that era, the Muslim Prophet Muhammad was born in Mecca in 570 A.D.

Muhammad's followers believed in conversion, big time, and swarmed around the Middle East giving everyone a fair choice—become a Muslim or die. These Arabs stormed Palestine in 638 A.D. Do the math. The Arabs got to the region 2379 years after the Jews. So, who is occupying whom??

The Arabs considered Palestine unimportant and ruled from Damascus and Baghdad. You could call them benign except for the massacres and the fact that they were uncomfortable with trees . . . so they cut them all down, turning the once fertile region into a more familiar desert.

With all the hoopla about Jerusalem, check out the Muslim holy book, the Koran. The Koran mentions Mecca and Medina countless times but never once speaks of Jerusalem. On the other hand, there are 811 references to Jerusalem in the Bible.

Christian Crusaders arrived from Europe in 1099 and ousted the Arabs. In subsequent years, the land switched back and forth between invaders, and in the turmoil Jews began filtering back from their scattered exile. Many came from Spain, whence they were expelled in 1492.

In 1516, the non-Arab Ottoman Turks conquered Palestine and held sway until after World War I, when the British took over.

We really have no idea how many Jews and how many Arabs there were at the time—mainly because both groups hid from the Ottoman census takers to avoid taxes.

But we do know that there were probably fewer than 350,000 people, the majority Arab, in the whole region (including what is now Jordan) when Mark Twain made a pilgrimage in 1867.

In his travelogue, Innocents Abroad, Twain wrote, "One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings."

"Nazareth is forlorn . . . Jericho the accursed lies a moldering ruin today," Twain said, adding, "There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere."

But the population was growing. More Jews arrived from Eastern Europe and Russia in the 1880s, either fleeing oppression or following the Zionist dream. And Arabs from neighboring countries flocked to jobs created by Jewish immigrants.

Take a deep breath, because now the plot thickens.

In 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Declaration and promised "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People."

The British then turned around and gave over 77 percent of Palestine to the Arab Hashemites, for what later became Jordan. The remaining 23 percent, west of the River Jordan, was supposedly for the Jews.

But in 1947, the UN voted to partition that 23 percent of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Israelis accepted the plan and in 1948 proclaimed the establishment of their state. Neighboring Arab nations, however, rejected both the partition and the idea of a Jewish state and launched a massive invasion of Israel.

They were defeated, and at the end of the 1948 war Israel held all of Western Palestine except the West Bank, which was captured by Jordan, and Gaza, which was seized by Egypt.

In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel again defeated Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq, gaining control not only of Gaza and the West Bank, but also of Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and Syria's Golan Heights.

The big question is: Where were the calls for a Palestinian state during the 19 years Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt held Gaza?

A 1978 peace accord signed with Egypt returned the Sinai to Cairo, but the Egyptians seemed relieved to leave Gaza with Israel. In 1988, King Hussein of Jordan officially renounced all claims to the West Bank.

As far as Israelis were concerned, the land, won in a defensive war, belonged to them.

But even after all the nauseating terror of the last 23 months, the majority of Israelis are willing to give Palestinians the West Bank, Gaza, and half of Jerusalem for their state. We just wonder if they are willing to let us keep ours.

11794  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 18, 2007, 03:49:44 AM
Three months later I was granted political asylum by the United States, and Romania’s tyrant lost his dream of getting the Nobel Peace Prize. A quarter of a century later, however, Arafat remains in place as the PLO chairman and seems to still be on track with the Kremlin’s game of deception. In 1994, Arafat was granted the Nobel Peace Prize because he agreed to transform his terrorist organization into a kind of government-in-exile (the Palestinian Authority) and pretended, over and over, that he would abolish the articles in the 1964 PLO Covenant that call for the destruction of the state of Israel and would eradicate Palestinian terrorism. At the end of the 1998-99 Palestinian school year, however, all one hundred and fifty new schoolbooks used by Arafat’s Palestinian Authority described Israel as the “Zionist enemy” and equated Zionism with Nazism. Two years after the Oslo Accords were signed, the number of Israelis killed by Palestinian terrorists rose by 73% compared to the two year period preceding the agreement.
 
FP: There simply can’t be any kind of peace in the Middle East with Arafat at the helm. What advice would you give to American and Israeli diplomats now?
 
Pacepa: To expose Arafat’s lies and condemn his bloody terrorism, but to avoid being implicated in physical reprisals against him—that would certainly make him a hero with the Palestinians. I strongly suggest the Ceausescu solution. In November 1989, when he was loudly reelected president of Romania, Ceausescu was as popular there as Arafat is now with the Palestinians. A month later, however, Ceausescu was tried for genocide by his own people and executed by his own people. From one day to the next Ceausescu became the symbol of tyranny. Romania turned into a free country, and twelve years later it was invited to join NATO.
 
FP: Tell us a bit about what you think about the state of the KGB in Russia today. Some say it is experiencing a resurrection. Is this true?
 
Pacepa: It certainly is. In the last dozen years, Russia has been transformed for the better in unprecedented ways. Nevertheless, that country has a long way to go until it will tear down the legacy of Soviet Communism. As of June 2003, some 6,000 former KGB officers were reportedly holding important positions in Russia’s central and regional governments. Three months later, nearly half of the top governmental positions were also held by former KGB. It is like putting the old, supposedly defeated Gestapo in charge of rebuilding Germany.
 
Since the fall of Communism the Russians have been faced with an indigenous form of capitalism run by old Communist bureaucrats, speculators and ruthless mafiosi that has widened social inequities and created a decline in industrial production. Therefore, after a period of upheaval, the Russians have gradually—and perhaps thankfully—slipped back into their historical form of government, the traditional Russian samoderzhaviye (autocracy) traceable to the 14th century’s Ivan the Terrible, in which a feudal lord ruled the country with the help of his personal political police. Good or bad, the historically Russian political police may appear to most people in that country as their only defense against the rapacity of the new capitalists at home and the greediness of grasping foreign neighbors.
 
Russia will never return to Communism—too many Russians perished at the hands of that heresy. But it seems that Russia will not truly turn westward either, at least not under this generation. If history—including that of the last 14 years—is any guide, the Russians, who are now enjoying their regained nationalism, will struggle to rebuild a kind of an Old Russian Empire by inspiring themselves from old Russian traditions and by using old Russian ways and means.
FP: So is Russia a friend or a foe of the United States in the present international environment?

Pacepa: After the Berlin Wall was torn down, I hurried over there to have a look around. The dreaded East German political police was abolished from one day to the next, and its archives were opened to the public. One year later, the Stasi’s outrageous activity was laid bare in a large, impressive museum of freedom. A member of the Berlin parliament told me that the Germans wanted to provide the world with the certitude that the past would never be repeated. To be on the safe side, the German government sold off all the Stasi’s buildings to private companies.


After the Soviet Union collapsed, the new rulers in the Kremlin did not open the archives of the Soviet Union’s political police, but in 1992 they did create their own kind of KGB museum in Moscow, in a dreary gray building behind the Lubyanka. The upper floors remain KGB offices, but the rooms on the ground floor are used for conferences and as a club for retired KGB officers—complete with disco.

On September 11, 2002, numerous former KGB officers gathered at the KGB museum. They had not congregated in order to sympathize with us on the date of our national tragedy, but to celebrate the 125th birthday of Feliks Dzerzhinsky—the man who created one of the most criminal institutions in contemporary history. A few days later, Moscow’s mayor, Yury Lushkov, one of Russia’s most influential politicians, reversed his previous opposition and now said he wanted to restore Dzerzhinsky’s bronze statue to its former place of honor on Lubyanka Square. Just before that, the new Russian president ordered that the statue of Yury Andropov be reinstated at the Lubyanka, from where it had been removed after the KGB coup in 1991. Andropov is indeed the only other KGB officer to have been enthroned in the Kremlin, and it was therefore normal for Putin to pay homage to him. For all his life, Andropov indoctrinated his subordinates to believe that American Imperialism was the main enemy of their country. Now these subordinates are running Russia. It may take another generation until the visceral hatred for the US cultivated by Andropov disappears.

FP: How does Russia fit in the War on Terror? Isn’t there at least a common interest in fighting Islamic terrorism?

Pacepa: September 11, 2001 was directly rooted in a joint Soviet/Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operation conceived in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. The object of this joint operation was to repair Moscow's prestige by turning the Islamic world against Israel and by creating a rabid and violent hatred for its main supporter, the United States. The strategy was to portray the US, this land of freedom, as a Nazi-style "imperial-Zionist country" financed by Jewish money and run by a rapacious "Council of the Elders of Zion" (the Kremlin's epithet for the US Congress), the aim of which was allegedly to transform the rest of the world into a Jewish fiefdom. In other words, the heart of the joint plan was to convert the historical Arab and Islamic hatred of the Jews into a new hatred of the United States. We threw many millions of dollars at this gigantic task, which involved whole armies of intelligence officers.

In the late 1960s, a new element was added to the Soviet/PLO war against Israel and American imperial-Zionism: international terrorism. Before 1969 came to an end, the KGB's Thirteenth Department-known in our intelligence jargon as the Department for Wet Affairs, wet being a euphemism for bloody-invented airplane hijacking. The KGB constantly lectured at us that no one within the

American/Zionist sphere of influence should feel safe anymore. The hijacked airplane became an instrument of Soviet foreign policy-and eventually the weapon of choice for September 11, 2001.

During those years of intensive airplane hijackings, I became amazed at the almost identical pride both Arafat and KGB General Sakharovsky exhibited over their prowess as terrorists. “I invented the hijacking of [passenger] airplanes,” Arafat bragged to me in the early 1970s, when I first met him. A few months later I met with Sakharovsky at his Lubyanka office. He pointed to the red flags pinned onto a world map hanging on his wall. “Look at that,” he said. Each flag represented a plane that had been downed. “Airplane hijacking is my own invention,” he boasted.

Sakharovsky’s subordinates are now reigning in the Kremlin. Until they fully disclose their involvement in creating anti-American terrorism and condemn Arafat’s terrorism, there is no reason to believe they have changed.

FP: Mr. Pacepa. thank you. We are out of time. It was a great honor to speak with you. I hope you will return and join us again.

Pacepa: It was a great pleasure to be with you, and I would be delighted to return.

*
 
I welcome all of our readers to get in touch with me if they have a good idea/contact for a guest for Frontpage Interview. Email me at jglazov@rogers.com.
11795  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 18, 2007, 03:49:17 AM
From Russia With Terror   
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 1, 2004

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ion Mihai Pacepa, former acting chief of Communist Romania’s espionage service. In 1987 he published Red Horizons (Regnery Gateway), reprinted in 24 countries. In 1999 Mr. Pacepa authored The Black Book of the Securitate, reportedly an all time bestseller in Romania. He is now finishing a book on the origins of current anti-Americanism.

Frontpage Magazine: Welcome to Frontpage Interview, Mr. Pacepa. Let’s begin. As a former Romanian spy chief who used to take direct orders from the Soviet KGB, you are obviously armed with a wealth of information. You have written about how the Soviets armed Hussein with WMDs, and also taught him how to eliminate any trace of them. Can you talk a bit about this and tell us its connection to the “missing WMDs” in Iraq today?
 
Pacepa: Contemporary political memory seems to be conveniently afflicted with some kind of Alzheimer's disease. Not long ago, every Western leader, starting with President Clinton, fumed against Saddam’s WMD. Now almost no one remembers that after General Hussein Kamel, Saddam’s son-in-law, defected to Jordan in 1995, he helped us find “more than one hundred metal trunks and boxes” containing documentation “dealing with all categories of weapons, including nuclear.” He also aided UNSCOM to fish out of the Tigris River high-grade missile components prohibited to Iraq. That was exactly what my old Soviet-made “Sãrindar” plan stated he should do in case of emergency: destroy the weapons, hide the equipment, and preserve the documentation. No wonder Saddam hastened to lure Kamel back to Iraq, where three days later he was killed together with over 40 of his relatives in what the Baghdad official press described as a “spontaneous administration of tribal justice.” Once that was done, Saddam slammed the door shut to any UNSCOM inspection.
 
FP: So was any Sãrindar plan activated?
Pacepa: Certainly. The minimal version of the Sãrindar plan I made for Libya’s Gaddafi. Soon after I was granted political asylum in the US, Gaddafi staged a fire at the secret chemical weapons facility I knew about (the cellar underneath the Rabta chemical complex). To be sure the CIA satellites would notice that fire and cross that target off its list, he created a huge cloud of black smoke by burning truckloads of tires and painting scorch marks on the facility. That was written in the Sãrindar plan. To be on the safe side, Gaddafi also built a second production facility, this time placed some 100 feet underground in the hollowed-out Tarhunah Mountain, south of Tripoli. That was not in the Sãrindar plan.
FP: It is undeniable, therefore, that Saddam had WMDs, right?
 
Pacepa: In the early 1970s, the Kremlin established a “socialist division of labor” for persuading the governments of Iraq and Libya to join the terrorist war against the US. KGB chairman Yury Andropov (who would later become the leader of the Soviet Union), told me that either of those two countries could inflict more damage on the Americans than could the Red Brigades, the Baader-Meinhof group and all other terrorist organizations taken together. The governments of those Arab countries, Andropov explained, not only had inexhaustible financial resources (read: oil), but they also had huge intelligence services that were being run by “our razvedka advisers” and could extend their tentacles to every corner of the earth. There was one major danger, though: by raising terrorism to the state level we risked American reprisal. Washington would never dispatch its airplanes and rockets to exterminate the Baader-Meinhof, but it might well deploy them to destroy a terrorist state. We therefore were also tasked to provide those countries secretly with weapons of mass destruction, because Andropov concluded that the Yankees would never attack a country that could retaliate with such deadly weapons.
 
Libya was Romania’s main client in that socialist division of labor, because of Ceausescu’s close association with Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. Moscow kept Iraq. Andropov told me that, if our Iraq and Libyan experiment proved successful, the same strategy would be extended to Syria. Recently, Libya’s Gaddafi admitted to having WMD, and the CIA inspectors found them. Why should we believe that the almighty Soviet Union, which had proliferated WMD all over the world, was not able to do the same thing in Iraq? Every piece of armament Iraq had came from the former Soviet Union—from the Katyusha launchers to the T72 tanks, BMP-1 fighting vehicles and MiG fighter planes. In the spring of 2002, just a couple of weeks after Russia took its place at the NATO table, President Putin and his ex-KGB officers who are now running Russia concluded another $40 billion trade deal with Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical regime in Iraq. That was not for grain or beans—Russia has to import them from elsewhere.
 
FP: Tell us about the PLO and its connection to the Soviet regime.  
 
Pacepa: The PLO was dreamt up by the KGB, which had a penchant for “liberation” organizations. There was the National Liberation Army of Bolivia, created by the KGB in 1964 with help from Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Then there was the National Liberation Army of Colombia, created by the KGB in 1965 with help from Fidel Castro, which was soon deeply involved in kidnappings, hijackings, bombings and guerrilla warfare. In later years the KGB also created the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which carried out numerous bombing attacks on the “Palestinian territories” occupied by Israel, and the “Secret Army for Liberation of Armenia,” created by the KGB in 1975, which organized numerous bombing attacks against US airline offices in Western Europe.
 
In 1964 the first PLO Council, consisting of 422 Palestinian representatives handpicked by the KGB, approved the Palestinian National Charter—a document that had been drafted in Moscow. The Palestinian National Covenant and the Palestinian Constitution were also born in Moscow, with the help of Ahmed Shuqairy, a KGB influence agent who became the first PLO chairman. (During the Six-Day War he escaped from Jerusalem disguised as a woman, thereafter becoming such a symbol within the bloc intelligence community that one of its later influence operations—aimed at making the West consider Arafat a moderate—was given the codename “Shuqairy.”) This new PLO was headed by a Soviet-style Executive Committee made up of 15 members who, like their comrades in Moscow, also headed departments. As in Moscow—and Bucharest—the chairman of the Executive Committee became the general commander of the armed forces as well. The new PLO also had a General Assembly, which was the Soviet-inspired name given to all East European parliaments after World War II.
 
Based on another “socialist division of labor,” the Romanian espionage service (DIE) was responsible for providing the PLO with logistical support. Except for the arms, which were supplied by the KGB and the East German Stasi, everything else came from Bucharest. Even the PLO uniforms and the PLO stationery were manufactured in Romania free of charge, as a “comradely help.” During those years, two Romanian cargo planes filled with goodies for the PLO landed in Beirut every week, and were unloaded by Arafat’s men.
 
FP: You have discussed your personal knowledge of how Arafat was created and cultivated by the KGB and how the Soviets actually designed him to be the future leader of the PLO. Illuminate this picture for us please.
Pacepa: “Tovarishch Mohammed Abd al-Rahman Abd al-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini, nom de guerre Abu Ammar,” was built into a Palestinian leader by the KGB in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day Arab-Israeli War. In that war Israel humiliated two of the Soviet Union’s most important allies in the Arab world of that time, Egypt and Syria, and the Kremlin thought that Arafat could help repair the Soviet prestige. Arafat had begun his political career as leader of the Palestinian terrorist organization al-Fatah, whose fedayeen were being secretly trained in the Soviet Union. In 1969, the KGB managed to catapult him up as chairman of the PLO executive committee. Egyptian ruler Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was also a Soviet puppet, publicly proposed the appointment.
Soon after that, the KGB tasked Arafat to declare war on American “imperial-Zionism” during the first summit of the Black International, an organization that was also financed by the KGB. Arafat claimed to have coined the word “imperial-Zionism,” but in fact Moscow had invented this battle cry many years earlier, combining the traditionally Russian anti-Semitism with the new Marxist anti-Americanism.
FP: Why has the American and Israeli leadership been deceived so long about Arafat’s criminal and terrorist activities?
Pacepa: Because Arafat is a master of deceit—and I unfortunately contributed to that. In March 1978, for instance, I secretly brought Arafat to Bucharest to involve him in a long-planned Soviet/Romanian disinformation plot. Its goal was to get the United States to establish diplomatic relations with him, by having him pretend to transform the terrorist PLO into a government-in-exile that was willing to renounce terrorism. Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev believed that newly elected US president Jimmy Carter would swallow the bait. Therefore, he told the Romanian dictator that conditions were ripe for introducing Arafat into the White House. Moscow gave Ceausescu the job because by 1978 my boss had become Washington’s most favored tyrant. “The only thing people in the West care about is our leaders,” the KGB chairman said, when he enrolled me in the effort of making Arafat popular in Washington. “The more they come to love them, the better they will like us.”
 
“But we are a revolution,” Arafat exploded, after Ceausescu explained what the Kremlin wanted from him. “We were born as a revolution, and we should remain an unfettered revolution.” Arafat expostulated that the Palestinians lacked the tradition, unity, and discipline to become a formal state. That statehood was only something for a future generation. That all governments, even Communist ones, were limited by laws and international agreements, and he was not willing to put any laws or other obstacles in the way of the Palestinian struggle to eradicate the state of Israel.
 
My former boss was able to persuade Arafat into tricking President Carter only by resorting to dialectical materialism, for both were fanatical Stalinists who knew their Marxism by heart. Ceausescu sympathetically agreed that “a war of terror is your only realistic weapon,” but he also told his guest that, if he would transform the PLO into a government-in-exile and would pretend to break with terrorism, the West would shower him with money and glory. “But you have to keep on pretending, over and over,” my boss emphasized.
 
Ceausescu pointed out that political influence, like dialectical materialism, was built upon the same basic tenet that quantitative accumulation generates qualitative transformation. Both work like cocaine, let’s say. If you sniff it once or twice, it may not change your life. If you use it day after day, though, it will make you into an addict, a different man. That’s the qualitative transformation. And in the shadow of your government-in-exile you can keep as many terrorist groups as you want, as long as they are not publicly connected with your name.
 
In April 1978 I accompanied Ceausescu to Washington, where he convinced President Jimmy Carter that he could persuade Arafat to transform his PLO into a law-abiding government-in-exile, if the United States would establish official relations with him. Thereupon, President Carter publicly hailed Ceausescu as a “great national and international leader” who had “taken on a role of leadership in the entire international community.”
 
11796  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 18, 2007, 02:38:30 AM
****Here are some muslim websites on the topic of sharia and the requirement of it.****

http://www.al-islami.com/islam/common_mistakes.php?p=11

Common Mistakes Muslims Fall Into



15. Not believing fully in the Shariah.

The Islamic Shariah represents the will of Allah (swt) and His messenger Mohammad (pbuh). As Muslims, we must go about all matters according to the will of Allah (swt). In the holy Qur'an, Allah (swt) has revealed to humanity many verdicts and solutions to many of the problems faced by us. In order to be a true believer in Allah (swt), and in order to worship Allah (swt) only, we must follow the guidance of Allah (swt).

The holy Qur'an also instructs us to follow the messenger of Allah (swt), prophet Mohammad (pbuh). There are many ayat to this effect, which are discussed under a separate article. Therefore, the will of Allah (swt) is for us to worship Him by following His guidance as revealed in the holy Qur'an and in the Sunnah of prophet Mohammad (pbuh).

All Muslims should live their lives according to the Islamic Shariah. Muslim nations should strive to implement the Islamic Shariah in all matters. All laws, legislation, trade, politics and all other matters should be conducted according to the Shariah.

Many nations today rely in their so called "constitutions" on foreign systems of law. Many nations where the majority of inhabitants are Muslims derive their law from western systems of law, such as French or British law. This includes all matters including criminal law and even family law!

How can we continue to abandon the law of Allah (swt) and rely on the man made law?

Some evidence that Muslims must fully believe in and implement the Shariah is shown below:

"And whoever does not judge by what Allah revealed, then they are Kafirun." (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 44).

"And this (He commands): ‘Judge thou between them by what Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires but beware of them lest they beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allah has sent down to you.’ And if they turn away be assured that for some of their crimes it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious." (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 49).

"Do they then seek after a judgment of (the Days of) Ignorance? But who for a people whose faith is assured can give better judgment than Allah?" (Surat Al-Maidah, Ayah 50).

There is a lot more evidence from the Qur'an and Sunnah, but for the Muslim these three ayat should be sufficient to make them implement the Shariah in their life. The first ayah mentioned describes those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed as unbelievers. How can the Muslim not implement Shariah fully after hearing this verse?
________________________________________________________________

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543762

Question and Answer Details
   

   
Name of Questioner
Jody   - Canada
Title
Separating Islam and Politics
Question
Is it true that there is no politics in Islam? Should politics be separated from religion?
Date
12/Mar/2003
Name of Counsellor
`Atiyyah Saqr
Topic
Imamate & Political Systems


   
Answer
   

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear questioner, we commend your keenness on getting your self well-acquainted with Islam and its teachings, which is the way Allah has chosen for the welfare of His servants.

Answering the question in point, Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:

“Religion is a divine system set for people’s benefit in this life and the Hereafter. The Islamic teachings, actually, enables man to attain happiness here, in this life, and later, in the Hereafter. On the other hand, politics is originally the technique of administration and management. So, it is commonly used as a term for a ruler's regime, with the different organizations and laws that regulate it.

Islam sheds light on all aspects of politics. The books of jurisprudence (Fiqh) contain chapters and sections on all such aspects, including the various textual evidences and personal judgments on them. There are also whole books written on politics, the oldest of these specialized books are Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah by al-Mawardi and As-Siyasah ash-Shar`iyyah fi ahwal ar-Ra`i war-Ra`iyyah by Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Islamic state was established on the basis of the Islamic system, which covers all aspects of life, religious and worldly. We also see that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was a conductor of the Divine Revelation, a legislator, a leader in prayer, a judge, and the commander of the army, and so were the Caliphs after him. With such integrity the Islamic nation was the greatest of all nations.

So, the notion of separating politics from religion and vice versa does not belong to Islam. It is taken from non-Muslim sources, i.e. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God’s”, as the famous quote goes."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.islamicity.com/qa/action.lasso.asp?PageCurrent=7&PageCurrent=6&PageCurrent=5&PageCurrent=4&PageCurrent=3&PageCurrent=2&-db=Services&-lay=Ask&-error=error.shtml&-max=25&-format=result.asp&-op=bw&Topic=P&-op=eq&Answer_flag=X&-op=eq&Adminfilter=2&-Sortfield=Topic&-find

Question#:
470
Question Date:
1/16/1997
Topic :
Politics, non-Muslims in Islamic States
Question:
I'm a political science major at georgia state university and I'm very interested in learning about islam and the middle east. Is it possible to be an islamist secularist? Also how would non-muslims be effected in an islamic state governed by islamic law. thank you
Answer:
Dear K. Greetings. Regarding your questions, depending what you mean by Islamist secularist. If you mean that a non-Muslim becomes an expert about Islam but still believes in the secular approach on her own, then the answer is yes, it is possible. If you mean that it is a Muslim person who believes in secularism, then it is not possible, because Islam is a complete system. It doesn't separate State and Religion. The purpose of the an Islamic State is to establish and apply God's Legislation on earth, and the purpose of a Muslim, is to implement such a system. Therefore, a Muslim cannot believe in one part of the religion and disregard the other responsibility. Regarding the other portion of your question, non-Muslims have the choice of either reverting to Islam or staying on their own religion. (We use reverting not converting because Muslims believe that a human being by instinct, is born as a believer in one God, and it is his/her parents or society that changes the natural aspiration and tendency in him/her.) To continue the answer, if the non-Muslims choose not to revert to Islam, then they have to pay a certain tax, called in Arabic the Jizya, for protection, but they are at the same time exempt from other taxes and duties that Muslim have to pay, like the Zakat tax. In addition, they exempt from serving in the army. There are many other regulations, and if you need to know about a specific topic, please don't hesitate to write us back. Thank you for asking, and we hope to be able to serve you more efficiently in the future.

11797  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 18, 2007, 01:34:14 AM
Ah, GM, I just found your reply in there.  Sorry - didn't notice it at first.

I disagree about the Palestinians.  They were invaded by foreigners who set up their own country with their own laws, own language, and pushed out at gunpoint (or worse) the locals (many of whom are descended from the old old old pre-diaspora Jews) who had been living there for literally millenia.  What's so hard to understand about that?  These guys came from concentration camps and were equipped by the Brits and French who were trying to figure out something to do with them.

****Jews lived in Israel since it was Israel and Judea. Jews and Christians have been forced from their homelands all over the muslim world and yet do not sink to the level of conduct that the so-called "Palestinians" live and die by. There has never been a nation called "Palestine". There has been a region, or province of various empires but not a nation-state. The "palestinian" identity is a psy-op from the 60's, probably done by the KGB.****

I feel sorry for the Jews who faced the Nazi holocaust, but they inflicted their own holocaust on the locals. 

****No, it's frankly a disgusting use of language to compare the holocaust to the self-inflicted misery and depravity of the "palestinians" and their self constructed culture of death.****


 The USA backs Israel to the tune of $5 BILLION per year.  We sell them F15s, F16s, Apaches, spy gear, and other weapons that they use on the Palestinians they kicked out of their homes.  They pay for this with money we give them.

****We provide BILLIONS more to the arab nations surrounding Israel and military aid. However Israel has the intellectual ability to have a very compitent and creative domestic arms industry while the Arab nations sorrounding Israel produce new and exciting forms of terrorism. Second, most of the Arabs that ABANDONED their homes did so that they would return after the Jews had been driven into the sea. No such luck. A decent people would move forward, not teach their children it is glorious to be a suicide bomber.****

While I don't like it or want it, I don't blame the Palestinians for fighting back the only way they can.  It's sick and wrong, but they were painted into a corner by Israel, the UK, France, and the US.

****Utter garbage. Frankly they can only do what they do because Israel isn't willing to engage them in the total war they deserve.****
...

During most of the good years of Islam, they were waaaay more generous and civil to Christians and Jews than the other way around.  People of the Book had strong civil rights and were integrated within society.  This got tense during the crusades and inquisition, but Christendom never accorded them such rights.

****Although Jews certainly were better treated under some Islamic rulers than they were in Medival europe, it isn't because the muslims were equitable, but that the medival christians were so much more oppressive and brutal. Your assertion that Dhimmis "had strong civil rights" is to assert that blacks in the south in the 1950's "had strong civil rights. That is, if you accept your status and as a lesser human being and "know your place" otherwise face officially mandated violence.****

Also, Christians have been killing each other since Rome split.  Eastern vs. Catholic church (the Crusades were also against the Eastern church in Byzantium in effect, if not declared openly), Catholic vs. Protestant (remember the Three Musketeers?  Remember who they were fighting?  Protestants), Church of England vs. Catholic, and so on. 

True, Islam split almost immediately, but the only difference is the timing, not the fratricide.

****The difference is Christianity evolved and reformed. Islam is as raw and savage as when Muhammad was robbing caravans and killing those who angered him with mocking poems.****

...

As for growing into this monster, and "it" (however that's defined) is certainly a monster, I'd say stems directly from the Sykes-Picot Treaty at the end of WWI and was fueled by decades of petrol-dollars.  That explains the zit forming. 

Now, said zit is erupting (sorry for the gross metaphor) and I think that comes from globalism, which is its own topic.

Iraq is a perfect example - pieces of three nations who were formerly only united under religion are squished into one secular state (like Neopolitan ice cream).

A weak king is installed by foreigners who is a total sell out to the west (UK in this example - you can see a movie with Alec Guinness as Feisal, I forget the name but it's explains a lot).

The west sucks out oil. ****And pumps in dollars.****

They rebel in the form of the Bath party who tries to re-unite Arabia (Syria was the first), having recent memories of 1200 years of unity), and they are tolerated so long as the oil flows and so long as they keep Iran, the other regional power who is exporting religious fundamentalism (and perversion of Islam), revolution and terrorism, at bay.

That phase ends, China grows, Venusuela is being extremely difficult, South America is nationalizing some of its energy, Globalism is on the rise and oil is looking like it will be sought after by China and India (and drying up, too), so the US invades to set up OUR pet companies.

****Iraq has given it's oil contracts to non-US companies. So much for the conspiracy theories.****

This pops that zit and now Pandora's Box has been opened.

****My view is the global interconnectivity has shown the "umma" how primitive they are compared to the west, which rather than question why islam retards development, project their rage outward the kafir, especially the Jews. Islam teaches islamic supremacy and they cannot question that, so every failure of islam is projected outwards as a conspiracy, especially a jewish conspiracy.****

Anyway, that's how I see it.
11798  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Europe on: April 17, 2007, 10:53:17 PM

Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
“All Women Should Wear A Veil”

By Filip van Laenen
Created 2007-04-15 16:36
According to Mostafa Chendid of the Danish Islamic Society (Islamisk Trossamfund), not only Muslim women but other women too should wear a veil. Why? Because five up to ten percent of all men cannot control themselves when they see a woman without a veil.

Mostafa Chendid is considered to be the successor of Ahmad Abu Laban, one of the imams who was involved in the affair around the notorious Danish cartoons. Ahmad Abu Laban was one of the leaders of the delegation that traveled around the Middle East and that had added three drawings to the original cartoons in its report to «give a clearer picture of the climate against Muslims in Denmark». Mostafa Chendid is doing well to become just as famous as his predecessor, and the interview that he recently gave to the Danish weekly newspaper Weekendavisen certainly isn't going to reduce the controversy around his person.

Earlier he had already succeeded to draw attention to himself by saying, on International Women's Day, to Jyllands-Posten (that's right: the newspaper with the cartoons) that not only Muslim women, but all other women too, should wear a veil. Of course, this resulted in a lot of reactions, and as a matter of fact his remarks in Jyllands-Posten were the direct reason for the interview with Weekendavisen, where he repeated them once more and commented on them. He said for example that wearing the veil is a woman's duty to God, because that is what the Koran says. However, that doesn't mean that he thinks that a woman with a veil is a better person than a woman without a veil.

According to him the veil also serves as a signal: women with a veil are «not for sale». Moreover, the veil protects against rapes, he says: in the US for example, every half minute a woman is raped, and according to him that is because women continuously tempt men by going onto the streets without a veil. Maybe not all men have a problem to control themselves when they see a woman without a veil, and perhaps there is only a problem with five to ten per cent of the men, but he says that is nevertheless enough for all women to wear the veil.

When asked whether men shouldn't cover themselves too, so they do not seduce women either, the imam basically evaded the question. Perhaps the journalist should have gone even further and asked if it wouldn't be much simpler if the men would stay inside and weren't allowed to go out unless accompanied by their wife or a female family member. After all, it's the men that are the problem, not the women. To me it seems rather bizarre that women should walk around with a veil because men can't control themselves. No doubt, it there wouldn't have been a prophet but a prophetess, Mostafa Chendid never would have set a step outside his door! Maybe it would have been better for Islam's image too if he wouldn't do that anyway.

Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2053

11799  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 17, 2007, 10:30:23 PM
Hi GM,

You're dead on about some of this but I think you're blaming Islam for things that also have been done by Christians, Hindus, Jews, and others.  Arabs, Turks, N. Africans, and especially Palestinians (for example) have a lot to say about violence done by the West in the name of Christianity or Judaism.

****Well, the so-called "Palestinians" aren't objects of sympathy in my book. It is my position that the totalitarian imperialism of islam from it's genesis is well documented and though other cultures and religions have their also well documented flaws, islam has well established it's self both in history and in current events as the source of oppression and violence.****

My heritage is Vienese (and Lithuanian) and my antecedants fought the Turks in the 1600s (at least we think they did).  I'm a meaty, blonde, Methodist, German-speaking California surfer-dude. 

I married a Muslim woman (and the rest of her giant family, too  grin ).  They are wonderful people.  Sometimes I tease them when they do something kind and generous (which is often) and tell them they're the best Christians I know.   grin

They fled their country during a civil war against Islamists (violent, hypocrytical religious fundamentalists).  My wife was a doctor and regularly put peoples' bodyparts back on them after bus bombings and village massacres, all the while risking kidnapping and reprisal because she she was a woman (and still is  grin ) professional.  My brother-in-law used to pass by stakes in the ground with decapitated heads on them.  They used to draw rifle fire from way up in their apartment building if they poked their heads out on the balcony after curfew.

So, I'm completely with you regarding "wake up folks, something nasty is brewing" like in reference to Nazis and pre-WWII Japanese, but I don't get a sense of differentiation between Islam, Muslims, and terrorism.

My in-laws and many, many of their countrymen are Muslims and victims of Islamist terrorism.  It freaks me out when public discourse in this country fails to differentiate.  Believe me, there's a big, big difference. 

****Even since the death of Muhammad, muslims have been killing muslims over differences in theology.  That has never stopped. The jihadis/hiraba as, you call them come from a lineage that is rooted in the conduct of muhammad himself.****

I believe that recognizing this is important for three (or more) reasons: 
1) if we fail to understand the problem clearly and our own parts in creating or perpetuating it, we're very unlikely to figure out a way to solve it.
2) if we cannot differentiate between Muslim and Islamist, then good people like my in-laws will be smashed between the two sides in a very nasty fight.
3) in this fight, thanks to telecommunication and especially the internet, each of us is a footsoldier. 

****I agree with every one of those points.****

It's not just gov'ts fighting wars now.  A would-be hiraba (jihadi is the wrong word as it lends a sense of legitimacy to their perversion of their religion - hiraba means "bandit" and is a little more accurate) will be reading the news, surfing the 'net, and seeing how we in the USA behave and what we think of them. 

So, we should mind what we're saying as each of us is a representative of our side and not give in to panic, fear, and hate, but instead analyze, understand, focus, and represent (like a good martial artist  grin ).

I'm very new to this forum so perhaps I missed entirely that everyone already understands this, of course.  If so, please forgive me if I sound pedantic.  No offense meant.  I hope I did not come across rudely.

-E
11800  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Islam in Australia on: April 17, 2007, 01:57:21 AM
Hi GM,

I'm new here and still getting a sense of the tone of this forum.

No offense, but I'm wondering what your point is.

That Islam is evil?

I've met enough whacko, violent, repressive and racist Christians (nicely dressed after church before goin' a'lynchin') and Jews ("hey - _we're_ God's chosen people, not the rest of you!") and remarkably sensible, moderate Muslims to know that the hypocrytes and 4th Commandment breakers are sprinkled among all sorts of religious, national, and geographic bounds.

There's a difference between a religion and those who pervert it.

I'm sure you know this, so sorry if I'm coming across like I'm preaching.

Like I said, no offense meant.  Maybe I misunderstand you.

-E

All humans, no matter their environment, culture, national origins or religion are capible of evil acts. That being said, not all political structures, cultures or religions are equally benevolent. Not every muslim is a jihadist or a supporter of the global jihad. Having said that, if you carefully examine the core theological elements of islam (Not only the qu'ran, but the ahadith, sunna and classical islamic teachings on the interpretation of the qu'ran, ahadith and sunna) I think you may well reach the conclusion that I have that there is a core element of islamic theology that mandates that muslims live under a islamic theocracy and spread the islamic theocracy with every means, including violence until all of mankind submits (Islam, as you may know means "submission").

Historically, islam spread from a small area of what is now Saudi Arabia at the time of muhammad's death, to the gates of Vienna, large parts of Africa, western China, down through SE asia, the Indian subcontinent, the Caucasus and so on. This, no matter how apologists may try to spin this, this most always came at swordpoint. Read about the islamic invasion of India for a (mostly unknown to westerners) story of incredible carnage and atrocity after atrocity.

Often I feel like it's 1938 and i'm trying to warn people of the looming threat and what i'm getting in response is "Not every German is a nazi." "I've met many Japanese and they are wonderful people."

Most Germans weren't nazis, and most Japanese are wonderful people but that wasn't very comforting to those that found themselves in railcars enroute to places like Buchenwald and Auschwitz or the citizens of Nanjing when the Imperial Japanese Army arrived.


Pages: 1 ... 234 235 [236] 237 238 ... 243
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!