...born with the gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad

I'm hatin' it: Naomi Klein, telegenic poster-babe for the anti-globalization whingers, likes to decry the enroachments of American corporations like McDonalds and Nike. But as Jonah Goldberg asserts in NRO (and as Mark Steyn has repeatedly asserted in his writings) there's a different kind of globalization afoot in the world, and, unlike McDonalds, it doesn't offer any Happy Meals:

...In the West, we tend to talk about globalization as if it's a euphemism for Americanization. But there are many competing forms of globalization. Even anti-globalization activists favor the "right" kind of globalization, one driven by the U.N. and "progressives" instead of corporations and markets.

Radical Islam is globalization for losers: It appeals to those left out of modernization, industrialization, and prosperity — particularly to young men desperate for order, meaning, and pride amid the chaos of globalization. Radical Islam provides it, but at a terrible price.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported the sad tale of the demise of Mak Yong, an ancient form of dance and theater in Southeast Asia drawn from pre-Islamic faiths, including Hinduism. But such traditional cultural influences are now considered "un-Islamic." "Many Southeast Asian Muslims now navigate by guideposts from the Arab world," the Journal reported. "Young men in Indonesia are starting to wear turbans and grow beards. In Malaysia, Malays have adopted the Arab word for prayer, salat, to replace the Malay word, sembahyang, which literally means 'offer homage to the primal ancestor.' "

This is merely an extension of trends that have already transformed the Middle East. As Fareed Zakaria writes in "The Future of Freedom," until the 1970s most Middle Easterners "practiced a kind of village Islam that adapted itself to local cultures and to normal human desires. Pluralistic and tolerant, these villages often worshipped saints, went to shrines, sang religious hymns, and cherished art — all technically disallowed in Islam." This indigenous form of Islam was bulldozed by urbanization and radicalization. The Iranian Revolution was a harbinger of the transformation toward a more "universal" Islam that was also more doctrinaire: "Islam of the high church as opposed to Islam of the street fair," Zakaria writes.

Reihan Salam, a coauthor of one of the smartest blogs going right now — theamericanscene.com — is an American of Bengali descent who argues that the death of Mak Yong represents "globalization at its worst." He rightly notes that if the choice is between the globalization of "crass Arabization" and the globalization of "crass Westernization," then it should be no choice at all.

Although Western-style globalization may force certain technological and economic changes on indigenous cultures, it also provides those cultures with the tools and flexibility to keep much of their culture. The hard Islam coming out of Riyadh and Tehran offers no such freedom. Recall that Afghanistan was a Muslim country for centuries, but it wasn't until the jihadi thugs of the Taliban took over that the historic Bamiyan Buddhas were deemed an offense to Islam and destroyed.

Bin Laden's call to kill U.N. peacekeepers is consistent with the Islamist desire to impose a harsh, "one true Islam" across the Muslim world (and, someday, they hope, the non-Muslim world too).

Too many intellectuals and commentators take the ignorant and condescending view that because jihadism is exotic, it is also "authentic." On the right, this often translates into the view that all strains of Islam are alike — and equally dangerous. And on the left, we get the usual knee-jerk defense of any seemingly "indigenous" foreign movement that casts America as a global villain. The reality is that in the War on Terrorism, America is on the side of freedom and diversity. Bin Laden & Co. are the real crusaders...

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:58 | link | comments

Money for terror: Hamas doesn't have enough cash to meet its payroll, but it managed to scrape together the shekels required to fund a failed terrorist mission last week.

Well, it does have its priorites, after all. From the Jerusalem Post:

Senior Hamas leaders in the Gaza Strip, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) revealed on Sunday, funded and trained Palestinian terrorists who last week launched a thwarted terror strike on the Karni Crossing into the Gaza Strip. This was the first time since winning the Palestinian elections in January that Hamas was directly connected to anti-Israel terror activity.

A cell consisting of operatives from the Popular Resistance Committee (PRC), the Shin Bet revealed, arrived at the Palestinian side of Karni last Wednesday in three cars, one of which was filled with explosive canisters. The plan was to blow a hole in a wall dividing the PA side of the terminal from the Israeli side, which the gunmen would then use to infiltrate the crossing. The attack was however thwarted by PA policemen who stopped the cars at a roadblock leading into the crossing.

Security officials said that while Hamas has been putting on appearances that it had ceased its terror activity, in reality the group was funding and training PRC cells, which regularly fired Kassam rockets at Israeli targets from the northern Gaza Strip. Head of PRC in Gaza, Mumtaz Dugmash, officials said, regularly participated in Hamas meetings during which terror attacks were planned. Hamas, the officials said, not only funded PRC activities but also supplied the group with weaponry and additional professional assistance.

"At no point since agreeing to a hudna (cease-fire) with Israel in 2005, has Hamas ceased its terror activity," a Shin Bet official said Sunday. "They provide money and training to PRC operatives who perpetrate the attacks like the attempt on Karni last week."

The Shin Bet said it received intelligence indicating the involvement of four senior Hamas officials in the attempted attack on Karni last week including: Ahmed Andor, head of Hamas in the northern Gaza Strip and Ahmed Jabri, head of the Hamas military wing in Gaza. The same Hamas officials, the Shin Bet said, also directed and gave logistic support to a PRC cell, which assassinated Musa Arafat - Yasser Arafat's nephew and a security advisor to PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas - in September.

Government officials noted the irony that while Hamas was warning of a humanitarian disaster inside the Gaza Strip, and while the Palestinian Authority was lobbying the world to pressure Israel to keep the Karni crossing open, Hamas was involved in an attack aimed at blowing up the crossing. Due to numerous terror specific warnings, Karni has been repeatedly opened and closed by Israel since the disengagement from Gaza last year. The closures are often depicted by the PA as collective punishment on the Palestinian people, which relies on the goods transferred through the crossing....

Update: This one's from a few days ago: James Lileks on Iran, one of the few nations willing to fund the rancid regime. From JWR:

Iran announces it will give Hamas $50 million to meet the bills. Pin money, you might say. Grenade pin money, more like it.

The day after the award, a suicide bomber kills eight at a lunch stand in Tel Aviv. Hamas, speaking with the exquisite sense of nuance and reason that got them elected to run the Palestinian Authority, defends the attack. They blame Israel's "aggression" — must have been the flowerpots knocked over on the way out of Gaza — and call the action "self-defense."

This may seem absurd to some, since the people killed were waiting in a line at a falafel stand. If you believe the Jews exist only to weave dark plots against innocent Muslims and gentiles, well, yes, it's self-defense. The mother of two who was killed in the bombing could have been taking a break from inventing invisible Mossad vampire robots. You never know.

How should the West respond? With furrowed brows, of course.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, through his spokesperson, called upon the Palestinian Authority "to take a clear public stand against such unjustifiable acts of terrorism." In other words, Annan wants Hamas to condemn as "unjustifiable" something it has just justified. And do so sincerely. This is the response of civilized men to barbarity: They're reduced to begging for a lie....

I guess the mullahs reason it's good P.R.--the Palestinians eliciting the most crocodile tears in the Arab/Muslim world, and from tender-hearted Westerner leaders, like Eurabian Jacques Chirac who wants the World Bank to set up a special fund to pay Hamas government salaries. Also, it's likely to be a short term committment. Once Iran has their nuclear warheads and can drop the big one, the Palestinians may well be winging their way to Paradise, sacrified for the larger cause of a Judenrein Middle East. Or, as Globe and Mail columnist Shira Herzog would probably never describe it (reserving such descriptions for how the Jews of Israel are "marginalizing" Israel's Arabs)  they're going to become "collateral damage."

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:53 | link | comments

Stuck in the tropics, ironically: The U.S. wants to send back some of those true believers who've been enjoying the tropical delights of Gitmo's Club Fed, but there's a hitch. Washington is afraid that if it ships them home, their "human rights" will be as risk.

Quel conundrum! From the New York Times:

A long-running effort by the Bush administration to send home many of the terror suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has been stymied in part because of concern among United States officials that the prisoners may not be treated humanely by their own governments, officials said.

Guantánamo Bay: Prisoners of the Fight Against Terrorism Administration officials have said they hope eventually to transfer or release many of the roughly 490 suspects now held at Guantánamo. As of February, military officials said, the Pentagon was ready to repatriate more than 150 of the detainees once arrangements could be made with their home countries.

But those arrangements have been more difficult to broker than officials in Washington anticipated or have previously acknowledged, raising questions about how quickly the administration can meet its goal of scaling back detention operations at Guantánamo.

"The Pentagon has no plans to release any detainees in the immediate future," said a Defense Department spokesman, Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon of the Navy. He said the negotiations with foreign governments "have proven to be a complex, time-consuming and difficult process."

The military has so far sent home 267 detainees from Guantánamo after finding that they had no further intelligence value and either posed no long-term security threat or would reliably be imprisoned or monitored by their own governments. Most of those who remain are considered more dangerous militants; many also come from nations with poor human rights records and ineffective justice systems.

But Washington's insistence on humane treatment for the detainees in their native countries comes after years in which Guantánamo has been assailed as a symbol of American abuse and hypocrisy — a fact not lost on the governments with which the United States is now negotiating.

"It is kind of ironic that the U.S. government is placing conditions on other countries that it would not follow itself in Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib," said a Middle Eastern diplomat from one of the countries involved in the talks. He asked not to be named to avoid criticizing the United States in the name of his government.

The push for human rights assurances now, some officials said, also reflects a renewed effort by the State Department to influence the administration's detention policy, even as the United States continues to face wide criticism for sending terror suspects to be interrogated in countries known to practice torture.

Neither the State Department, which is the lead agency in the repatriation talks, nor the Pentagon would comment on them in detail. United States officials who agreed to discuss them would do so only on the condition of anonymity, either because they were not authorized to speak publicly or to avoid disrupting the negotiations.

Those officials said the talks had been particularly difficult with Saudi Arabia and Yemen, two nations that account for almost half of the detainees now at Guantánamo...

Wow. An unnamed Middle Eastern diplomat from one of the countries involved, huh? Wasn't the Times  lucky to find someone like that to point out the "irony" while failing to note the "irony" of a paper with an ongoing grudge against Bush quoting someone who, like them, has a vested interest in casting his administration in the worst possible light?

Bet they didn't have to  look too hard to find him.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:01 | link | comments

The eyes have it: The San Franciso Chronicle sees "Cold War overtones" in the current contretemps with Iran. That way, it can avoid any mention of the religious angle, like the fact that Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic dystopia dedicated to waging jihad (that would just be sooooo insensitive) and frame the issue as a non-relgious power stuggle--a Middle Eastern Cuban Missile Crisis:

Iran and the United States have begun to reveal new strategies in their nuclear dispute that seem bound to escalate their confrontation, as both nations seek to turn to their advantage a highly critical U.N. report that portrays a nuclear program proceeding at full tilt, in growing secrecy.

In many ways, what has unfolded in the past three days resembles Cold War deception and brinkmanship, but with some decidedly new twists for a very different nuclear age. Both sides have been trying to rewrite the rules on the fly, using every tool available -- from American threats of sanctions to Iranian threats of oil cutoffs -- to maneuver.

Iran, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been successful in gradually restricting the agency's inspectors, increasingly denying them access to crucial sites and steadfastly refusing to answer questions about suspected links between Iran's civilian nuclear program and its military.

While Iran denies any clandestine effort to build a nuclear weapon, it is clearly drawing on the North Korean playbook -- to the point of boasting about, and perhaps exaggerating, its nuclear prowess in an effort to convince the West that its program is now unstoppable...

In describing how the world raced to the nuclear precipice during those terrifying days in October, 1962, but was able to to pull back from the brink, Dean Rusk, Secretary of State at the time, made a quip that went on to become famous: "We were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked."

I think it's a fairly safe bet that a nation bent on Armageddon and willing to martyr its citizens so they can enjoy the fruits of the Afterlife (to fanatics, martyrdom being a Muslim's highest calling) ain't gonna blink.

I think the Eagles said it best "way, way back in the 70s" (as my son likes to say of the era when the first Star Wars movie was released):

You can’t hide your lyin’ eyes.
And your smile is a thin disguise.
I thought by now you'd realize.
There ain’t no way to hide your lyin’ eyes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:12 | link | comments

The truth about Iran: The Toronto Star's resident Islamist, Haroon Siddiqui, is in stellar form today. His mission today: to convince the Star's avid but critically inastute readership that Iran, and not the U.S., is a bully, and that anyone who says otherwise is succumbing to what Siddiqui calls Bush's "spin" and "media hysteria."

I post the column in its entirely, so as to not deprive you of a single word of Siddiqui's astonishing insights:

Set aside the American spin — dutifully disseminated by the media — regarding the latest report of the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program.

Rather than augment America's case, it proves how counterproductive George W. Bush's bullying tactics have been.

Cornered by him, Iran has enriched uranium. It has reduced co-operation with the Vienna-based agency, thereby slowing progress on unearthing all aspects of the nuclear program. It hinted Friday that it'd co-operate even less if he does not let up.

"The international community is less well off than it was before the issue was taken to the Security Council," said a diplomat over a phone from Vienna.

Bush's tactics bear eerie parallels to his 2002-03 buildup to the invasion of Iraq. The ostensible issue then was the hidden weapons of mass destruction. Now, it is the Iranian intention to develop a nuclear bomb.

Iran's nuclear program is not new. It began in the 1970s under the Shah, with U.S. co-operation. But following the 1979 Islamic revolution, the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, a 45-nation cartel, wouldn't sell Iran nuclear technology. So it went to the black market. What it bought there is a matter of debate.

But Iran is not in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Its enrichment of uranium, under international inspection since 2003, is legal. (What transpired before that we do not fully know). Iran even opened up some military installations, where the inspectors found no nuclear activity. Two years ago, Iran voluntarily agreed to suspend enrichment. It did so while negotiating with Britain, Germany and France in an attempt to end the U.S.-led Western freeze on technological transfers, including spare parts for civilian planes. When those talks failed, Iran removed the seals on nuclear material to resume low-level enrichment. That, too, was legal. The IAEA inspectors were present when the seals came off.

So, what is Iran guilty of?

It has not been fully forthcoming on what enrichment equipment it bought pre-2003. It is yet to prove that its work is solely for peaceful purposes. But the IAEA has not found a smoking gun. Hence its conclusion: The glass is half-full and half-empty.

On Friday, the agency added what Iran has already said: the enrichment program continues.

Along the way, Iran had made two offers: set up a consortium to let other nations partially own and operate its commercial enrichment facility, thereby removing the secrecy around it, or, alternatively, ditch that facility in return for a small experimental facility (which would pose little threat of nuclear proliferation), along with an ensured supply of nuclear fuel, plus security assurances that it won't be whacked (by the U.S. or Israel).

But the U.S. would not agree. It says Iran might make a bomb. But there's no way the IAEA can measure intentions.

That Iran has an unsavoury regime does not mean that Bush can have carte blanche to start a war. He says he does not plan to. But that's what he said on Iraq.

The more he drags Iran into the Security Council, the greater control he has over what he really wants: regime change. That, in turn, drives Iran even more toward the bomb.

The more debate and resolutions he can generate in the council, the better for Bush, even if Russia and China don't fully go along.

The media hysteria would help ratchet up the fear factor and keep the spotlight off the debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also all his troubles at home.

Secondly, it would let him turn the Iran case into "a test of the credibility of the Security Council," the same way he did on Iraq. Condoleezza Rice is already using that phrase.

None of this is to say that Iran's nuclear program should not be curbed. But one cannot think of a worse way than Bush's way.

He is pushing Iran to take the North Korean path: pull out of the Non-proliferation Treaty altogether to shield itself from any international inspection and develop the bomb.

It is this dangerous game of chicken that Stephen Harper is getting Canada into, by supporting Bush holus bolus on Iran.

I'd say that was a fairly comprehensive apologia for Iran and its nuclear non-compliance, but one can't help but notice that something is missing. Something that might have shed light on Iran's true intentions. Something that would show that Iran, while being ruled by what even Siddiqui can't help but concede is "an unsavoury regime" (an understatement on par with saying Joseph Stalin made a few Ukrainians go hungry), is a force to be feared and must be stopped--before it has a chance to build nuclear weapons. That "something," of course, is any mention of President Ahmadinejad, who has held conferences devoted to the proposition of a "World Without Zionism," and who denies the Holocaust ever happened but longs to "wipe Jews off the map" in a second one (the precondition for the return of the 12th iman, who Shias believe will preside over the end of days).

A glaring omission, ideed, but one Siddiqui is prepared to make. Why? Probably so that his gentle readers will continue to hold Bush and the war in Iraq responsible for the all the problems, and so his gentle readers will holus bolus be lulled into a false sense of security about the mullahs and their apocalyptic dreams.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:28 | link | comments

Go figure: Even though it's having trouble meeting its payroll, Hamas has so ingratiated itself with the populace that, contrary what one might have expected (and contrary to any expected norms of rational behaviour), support for the jihadi terror regime is actually rising, not falling. From the Jerusalem Post:

...GIVEN THE results of Hamas's political rule to date, leaders of Israel, the international community and Fatah should probably all be kicking back this weekend in the late-April sun with their legs up on a lawn chair, a glass of lemonade in hand, and a big grin across their faces. For, despite proclamations from PA Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh that the Palestinian people would "make do with eating olives and salt" before Hamas "[goes] back on its principles," it would seem to be clear that the unrelenting pressure brought to bear upon the terrorists-cum-national leaders is moving the situation toward a collapse of the Hamas regime only a month after it first coalesced.

Except for one problem. Support for Hamas from the Palestinian public, far from falling off, is on the rise.

According to the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, Hamas's popular support is up to 47 percent among Palestinians in the territories, while Fatah's has fallen to 37%. By contrast, the popular vote totals of the Palestinian elections in January gave Fatah and its allies around 55% and Hamas and its allies around 45%.

Though the poll was conducted on the eve of the Hamas government's swearing-in, those surveyed, the poll's authors said, expected economic and political support to fall from the PA immediately after the government was formed. In essence, Palestinians knew what they were getting themselves into and yet public "support for Hamas has never been as high as it is today," the authors wrote.

The results, said Basem Ezbidi, a professor of political science at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah, show whom the Palestinians blame for the deteriorating conditions inside the West Bank and Gaza.

"Everybody knows Hamas is under siege and not able to deliver money. It's indicative of the support on the part of the population, because Hamas is being perceived as an illegitimate terror group [by the international community] even though it came to power through democracy," Ezbidi said. "The people are sticking more and more to the conviction that this kind of intransigence by the outside world means Hamas deserves more sympathy than the other way around. This government was not provided even a chance to perform."...

Wow. If Hamas keeps up the crappy work, at this rate their poll numbers are likely to shoot into the stratosphere.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:36 | link | comments

One man's nuke is another man's Persian: Isn't it hypocrital of Israel to want to prevent Iran from producing nuclear weapons when Israel itself is a member of the nuclear club? After all, what's the difference between a religious lunatic awaiting the return of the Shia Messiah--an event that hinges on the murder of all the Jews--having some nukes, and a free and democratic nation of Jews trying to stave off annihilation having them? According to some "pundits" whose piece is to appear in tomorrow's Washington Post, why, there's not much difference at all.

An article on The American Thinker site points out some obvious flaws in this even-steven approach to nuclear capability:

In a WaPo opinion piece this Sunday, Avner Cohen and William Burr present a critique of US policy on Israel’s nuclear weapons capacity. As usual in the liberal media, they take their facts completely out of context: This is Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.

They fail to mention, for example, such little facts as the repeated genocidal attacks on Israel by Egypt, Syria and even Jordan over a forty year period. They fail to mention that Israel came close to being overrun by a massive tank assault in 1973, which would have meant the second genocide of the Jewish people in three decades. And they do not mention that Israel is in greater danger today than it has been since the Holocaust, as its Defense Minister has just said.

This is the standard leftist line. By suppressing history, it conjures up a moral equivalence between attackers and defenders, between free societies and what Sharansky has aptly dubbed Fear Societies. Fear Societies do not represent their people, but brutalize them. They lack popular legitimacy and therefore moral authority. Today’s Iran is a Fear Society that has killed tens of thousands of its own people to give the Mullahs dictatorial control. Israel is both a free society and one that has its back against the wall, time after time.

The timing of the WaPo opinion piece is crucial, because of the looming Iranian threat. Ahmadinejad has been telling us every single day why Israel should be destroyed. Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert just called Ahmadinejad a “psychopath who speaks like Hitler.”

A psychopath is someone who can kill with no qualm of conscience, and will do it again and again. This guy is a killer. The US State Department has just named Iran as “the most active state sponsor of terrorism.” For twenty years Ahmadinejad has been directly involved in directing terrorist killings abroad. A few weeks ago he met in Damascus with Imad Mughniyeh, often considered the most dangerous terrorist in the world.

Israel does not threaten Iran’s right to exist. Quite the contrary. Israel and Iran had peaceful relations until the Khomeini coup in 1979, which was quietly abetted by Jimmy Carter. So the WaPo piece gives us a warped history to create an impression of moral equivalence: Why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad have his own nukes? After all, Golda Meir got hers thirty years ago!

Well, picture this: We live in a dangerous world in which two people each have a gun they could aim at us. Both guns are lethal. But one gun is held by a man named Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been threatening to kill us with it, along with millions of civilians in Israel. His strategic aim is to control the Persian Gulf and the oil that keeps the industrialized world alive. When he gets nukes, he will become the hegemon of Middle Eastern oil...

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:16 | link | comments

Germany and the Holocaust, redux: The parallels between this war against fascism and the previous one continue to creep me out. In the earlier one, German corporation I.G. Farben came to the aid of the Nazi regime by producing the Zyklon-B gas which was used for mass killing in the death camps. This time around, German industries have been helping Moo Jihad and his Shia goons construct the nuclear infrastructure which, if Allah smiles upon them, will enable them to get at the Jews who've thoughtfully concentrated themselves in Eretz Yisrael. From YNet News:

BERLIN - Not long ago an Iranian delegation came to Germany to discuss "Nuclearizing the wider Middle East as a challenge for coordinating trans-Atlantic policy."

Put more simply: The Americans are once again threatening world peace, and something must be done about it.

Nor was Israel spared from criticism. Every time anyone had the nerve to voice doubts about the nature of Iran's nuclear program, others quickly pointed out that the "real" threat to peace in the Middle East was the "Zionist entity," its nuclear arsenal and it's "policy of occupation."

The crowd, which included diplomats, military men, academics and journalists, greeted the accusation with applause. One must be polite, after all.

Transparent memorial

The conference took place several dozen meters from Berlin's central Holocaust memorial. Behind the speaker's platform, one could see the grey, concrete pillars. But many Germans sat inside the auditorium and failed to see. For them, the pillars were transparent. Invisible.

When Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister for education and research put forth his ideas about "Limited relations" between Middle Eastern countries and the right of all nations in the region to pursue their rightful due, I couldn’t restrain myself. I asked whether his country's policy vis-à-vis Israel contributed to peace in the region, and whether he intended to pay an official visit to the memorial just a few meters behind his back.

He had no idea what I was talking about. Afterwards, he decided my questions were off the topic. Organizers quickly put a stop to the debate, and thanked their guest for his wise words. And again, more enthusiastic applause from the crowd.

Sports and politics

I wouldn't even have mentioned this absurd conference, were it not for the fact that one of the bodies who funded it was Germany's Foreign Ministry. At every opportunity, Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs Frank-Walter Steinmeier criticizes Iranian President Ahmadinajad's stance on destroying Israel and his Holocaust denial – but his declarations bear no relation to his actions.

This is also the German government's position on Ahmadinejad's plans to attend the soccer World Cup this summer. "He should expect to be criticized for his statements," said Germany's interior minister, "but he's welcome to come. We want to be good hosts."

When Israel demanded sanctions be placed on Iran following Ahmadinejad's statements and the Iranian national soccer team disqualified from the tournament, Israel was told not to involve Germany in its differences with Iran. Berlin stressed that sports had nothing to do with politics.

The Holocaust that Ahmadinejad denies was carried out by Germans. To permit him to enter Germany would be to spit on the ashes of every one of the six million.

But Germany is responsible not only to preserve the memory of the Holocaust, but is also largely responsible for developing Iran's nuclear program. In the mid-1990s Israel provided then-Chancellor Helmut Kohl with a list of German firms that were providing Iran's drive for nuclear weapons.

Very little was done to prevent this, and when the German's did move on the information, it was usually too late.

Thanks, Deutschland, for helping make "Iran uber alles"--and the Holocaust, part twei--a sickengly real possibility.

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:55 | link | comments

France sucks: That's my educated conclusion after reading this story about how Chirac wants the World Bank to set up a special fund to pay the salaries of Palestinian civil servants.

I have a better idea. Maybe they can all move to France, where the government has become accustomed to seething, discontented masses, yearing to burn. From the Toronto Star:

PARIS - French President Jacques Chirac called Friday for the creation of a World Bank fund to pay the salaries of Palestinian officials, his office said Friday after he met with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

France will raise the issue during talks May 9 with the United Nations, the United States, the European Union and Russia — the four key international players behind the stalled "road map" peace plan, Chirac spokesman Jerome Bonnafont said.

France and other European Union nations earlier this month cut off direct aid to the Palestinian government after Hamas' election victory. The European Union is the largest donor to the Palestinians, with aid totalling more than the equivalent of $600 million US a year.

Because of international sanctions, the Hamas-led government has been unable to pay salaries to 165,000 Palestinian government employees.

France believes aid "must be maintained for humanitarian reasons, as well as for political reasons," Chirac said before going into the talks with Abbas. "And it will push for this continuance (of aid) within the international community and notably within the European Union."

Abbas confirmed at a later news conference that the World Bank channel was among those discussed with Chirac to get aid to the Palestinian people.

"If we do not reach a solution, it will be catastrophic," he said through a translator. "The situation is very grave, complex and sensitive."

Chirac said humanitarian aid must be maintained and enlarged "in particularly through the agencies of the United Nations," his spokesman said. He said aid must channel through institutions independent of the Palestinian government.

The French leader also suggested that more aid could be placed under the authority of Abbas, a moderate, his spokesman said.

Chirac asked Hamas to respect the demands of the international community: to renounce violence and recognize Israel's right to exist. The militant group, which has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, has refused to temper its radical views.

Abbas, a moderate whose Fatah Party was defeated by Hamas in January's legislative elections, has worked to try to keep the West from shunning the Palestinians over the militant group's violently anti-Israel ideology.

"We affirm that we want to live in peace, security and stability next to the state of Israel," Abbas said...

Does anyone really believe that Abbas is a "moderate" and that he longs to live in peace, side by side with the Jews?

If so, they probably also believe that Hamas is going to moderate its stance once the going gets tough, er, tougher.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:23 | link | comments

Moo Shickelgruber: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert minces no words about the man whom he and many others describe as the new Hitler. (In a colourful and apt turn of phrase National Post columninst George Jonas called Moo "Hitler with nukes.") From aljazeera.net:

The Israeli acting prime minister has called the Iranian president a psychopath and anti-Semite whose declarations resemble those of Adolf Hitler.

Ehud Olmert told Germany's Bild Zeitung on Saturday: "[Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad speaks today like Hitler before taking power. He speaks of the complete destruction and annihilation of the Jewish people."

The Iranian president has expressed doubts over whether the Jewish Holocaust took place and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

He has also suggested the Jewish state should be moved to Europe or North America.

"So you see, we are dealing with a psychopath of the worst kind, with an anti-Semite," Olmert said. "God forbid that this man ever gets his hands on nuclear weapons, to carry out his threats."

God forbid, indeed. But it's going to take a lot more than prayers and beseechments to a higher power to defang this particular snake.

Update: Searching around on google for a link to the Jonas piece about Moo being a nuclear Hitler, I happened upon this piece from April, 2002 by Mark Steyn. It was written several years before Moo Jihad came to power, so it's rather startling to recall that Iran was rattling its nuclear sabres way back then. No one was paying much attention, though, since it was the "moderate" Rafsanjani who was lobbing the threats, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran seemed years, nay, decades away:

...As George Jonas pointed out the other day, the Arabs resent Europe for solving its Jewish problem - by dumping it in their lap, making it an Arab problem. The problem now for the Arabs is that they cannot rid themselves of the Jews by conventional military means: they have tanks, missiles, aircraft, but every time they use them against Israel, they lose.

So their chosen weapon is the Palestinians: effectively, they've designated the West Bank as one big suicide bomb to take out the Jews. Either it'll wear them down by attrition - or it will hold them until the finishing touches are put to that eagerly awaited Muslim nuke: Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of those famous Iranian moderates, has already said that "when the Muslim world gets nuclear weapons the Jewish question will be settled forever."

It's not tiny Palestine versus big Israel, anymore than it was tiny Sudetenland versus big Czechoslovakia. It's six million Israelis versus 300 million Middle Eastern Muslims...

Yikes! Talk about stacking the deck against us--again.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:26 | link | comments

Responding to fascism: I don't know about you, but I always get Ayman al-Zawahiri, al Qaeda's numero dos, confused with Abu Musab al Zarqawi, al Qaeda's man on the ground in Iraq. They don't look at all alike--Zawahiri has a full beard, glasses, and a prominent dent in the center of his forefead; Zarqawi is younger, clean-shaven and is usually wearing one of those knitted rapper hats--but their names are close enough to give me pause every time I read about the mischief one or another of them has gotten up to: I have to remind myself which is Tweedle Dee and which is Tweedle Dum.

Dum has tended to keep the lower profile. However, several days ago he released a tape with the usual al Qaeda blather about how infidels sucked and all deserved to die--ho hum. Not to be outdone, Dee released a tape yesterday featuring his musings on the war in Iraq. His message: The U.S. is, in his word, "broken."

I'm not sure if Bush is planning to resond to these words, but if he does, I hope he draws inspiration from the words of Winston Churchill, another wartime leader who seemed to be holding the fort for Western civilization, and who refused to give up or give in, even as others were festering in defeatism. Here are a few of his better known quotes spoken during that earlier war against fascism:

• Never give in — never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
  Speech given at Harrow School (29 October 1941)
• When I warned them that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken... " Some chicken; some neck."- Refering to France in a speech to the Canadian Parliament 1941
• Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
  Speech given after the British defeat of the German Afrika Korps at the Second Battle of El Alamein in Egypt. (10 November 1942)

Sigh. I miss Winnie. Where is he when we need him?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments

Moo's mind: On Radio Blogger, Hugh Hewitt has a conversation with Victor Davis Hanson. After recounting his experience with the Libyan health care system--he was there for less than a day when appendicitis struck and he required immediate surgery (the surgery went fine, but Libya's post-op philosophy is no pain killers; youch!)--Hanson tackles the issue of Iran and its loopy leader. As an example of Moo's derangement, Hanson points out that the man who avers he's Hamas's biggest booster doesn't seem at all reluctant to subject his pals to some of his collateral nuclear damage:

HH: Now Victor Davis Hanson, then, how significant are the days in which we are living? Because the alternative to doing that, and you make it sound remote, and I have to agree if it was a different president, I would think it was remote. The prospect of a nuclear Iran is really extraordinary.

VDH: I think it is, and more importantly, this is a man who says that he's the biggest supporter of Hamas, and yet from his rhetoric, you understand he's willing, probably, to send a missile into East Jerusalem as if 50 kilotons can tell the difference between East and West Jerusalem. I mean, that's how he treats his friends like the Palestinians. He says I'll help you by nuking the people right next to you. I mean, it's crazy. He listens to a voice in a well. He thinks people can't blink, and we don't know to what degree this is staged or real. So we don't have a lot of options. It's bad and worse. Oddly enough, the people who don't want to use military force under any circumstances in Iran should be the biggest supporters of what's going on in Iraq. Because with this recent presidential change, there's a good chance that we could end up with a government that would prove very destabilizing to the theocracy in Iran. But to say you can't use force in Iran, and yet you're not for what we're doing in Iraq, then you really don't have any options that are peaceful...

Rats. I was sort of counting on those U.S.-Iran discussions, now just getting underway.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:09 | link | comments

The beginning of the end?: While many continue to voice their concern that George W. Bush is getting set to attack the mullahs' nuclear facilities, the President insisted today that "diplomacy with Iran has just started."

And to prove that he intended to take a genteel approach to negotiations, he sang an updated version of one of his favourtie songs of the 1970s--The Carpenters' "We've Only Just Begun."

We've only just begun
To talk.
Taqiyah and promises.
Some cries and preens and they're on their way.
And yes, we've just begun.

Before the setting sun,
They'll strike.
Wiping Jews off the map.
And leading us into a big trap.
And yes, we've just begun.

Playing along with our diplomacy.
Pretending talk will lead somewhere.
When we both know there's no deterring 'em.
And all our words are just hot air…hot air…

And when the evening comes,
We'll smile,
Knowing that life is short.
And now the ball is in Israel's court.
And yes we've just begun…

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:59 | link | comments

A show of hand: Moo "Sammy Davis, Jr." Jihad entertains the masses with his unique rendition of "Little Rabbit Foo Foo."

And, as you may of may not recall, the story's punchline is "hare today, gone  tomorrow"--which is precisely what he's hoping for the Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:29 | link | comments

I.O. sniffs out a smelly story: The news that two leading Harvard academics have penned an update of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has finally made its way to Islam Online. Leading to the obvious question: what took I.O so long to get wind of this by now weeks old story, especially when it's, to employ a hoary old bowling phrase, right up its alley?

“Why has the United States been willing to set aside its own security in order to advance the interests of another state?” wonders a US study called, “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”.

The 83-page study is co-authored by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

“The US national interest should be the primary object of American foreign policy. For the past several decades, however, and especially since the Six Day War in 1967, the centerpiece of US Middle East policy has been its relationship with Israel," says the study.

Relying on efforts by Israeli scholars, journalists and international human rights organizations, the academic paper reveals the role played by the Israel Lobby inside the United States in directing Washington's foreign policy to promote Israel's interests, regardless of negative effects on US own interests.

Largest Recipient of Aid

Citing the USAID's "Greenbook", the study notes that the Jewish state has received a total of $140 billion of US aid, making it the largest annual recipient of direct US economic and military assistance.

"Moreover, the United States has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems like the Lavi aircraft that the Pentagon did not want or need, while giving Israel access to top-drawer US weaponry like Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets."

In addition to this, Washington has always come to Israel's rescue at wartime and has always protected it in the United Nations Security Council, according to the study.

"Washington provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the United States has vetoed 32 United Nations Security Council resolutions that were critical of Israel, a number greater than the combined total of vetoes cast by all the other security council members."

The study further reveals how Washington is consistently blocking Arab states' efforts "to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the International Atomic Energy Agency's agenda".

Within the context of unwavering US support to Israel on all fronts, the study recalls one US participant at Camp David negotiations between Israel and Palestinians (in 2000) as saying, "far too often, we functioned… as Israel's lawyer."

The study then refutes allegations that claim Israel is a strategic asset through shedding light on the "strategic liability" posed by the constant US support of the Jewish state in all fields.

"…Saying that Israel and the United States are united by a shared terrorist threat has the casual relationship backwards: rather, the United States has a terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with Israel, not the other way around."

The study further sheds light on how Washington's support of Israel makes it easier for terrorists like Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda to "rally support and to attract recruits".

Refuting all claims by the pro-Israel Lobby in the United States aimed at justifying this "unique" relation, the study then traces the Lobby itself, defines it and highlights the tactics it uses to achieve its goals...

Okay, enough of that. What Islam Online won't tell it's readers, and for obvious reasons, is the mega-gazillions the U.S. has forked out in jizya over the years to various Arab regimes, and the woeful return on its money it has received for its financial largesse. Nor will it mention the powerful Islamic lobby--CAIR and others--who wield enormous influence. Nor will it remind readers of the touching pictures of the American President and the King of Saudi Arabia strolling hand in hand through a flower garden. Nor will it name the various American government bigwigs--Jimminy Carter and James Baker, for example--who despised Israel; Jimminy Carter is still doing his utmost to undermine it. Nor will it point out that since Israel is the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, and since its enemies and the enemies of America are one in the same, there's a good reason for Washington to support Israel.

Islam Online won't mention such petty details. But I will.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:15 | link | comments (2)

Shira's and Moo Moo's modest proposal: Over the years, there have been many ways in which Israelis enemies and the self-loathing leftists who enable them have tried to discredit the Jewish state. Off the top of my head, the three that come to mind are the "Zionism is racism" meme the UN embraced with such alacrity back in the 1970s (and rescinded much later), the positioning of the Palestinians as the new Jews and the Jews as the new Nazis, and branding Israel an "apartheid" state, so as to confer on it the pariah status of South Africa during its apartheid era.

But there's another approach being taken which is just as insidious, and perhaps even more so, because it suggests that it is "unfair" to Israel's Arab's for Israel to retain its Jewish character, and that steps must be taken to ensure that Israel must become like, say, Canada, a multicultural wonderland where no one religion is in charge.

You know, like in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Jordan and Syria and Lebanon and on and on, until you've included the name of every last Arab and Muslim entity, none of which has any problem with Islam being the state religion, and none of which is ever hassled by the international community for being so constituted.

You can put Globe and Mail columnist Shira Herzog in the "Israel is unfair to Arabs" camp. In her column today, Herzog writes about the emergence of hardline political leader Avigdor Lieberman, whose party seeks to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. Since I don't know the ins and outs of Lieberman or his party, I can't really comment on his shtick. All I know is that Ms. Herzog is mighty offended by him and his ideas (which could be reason enough to believe he's onto something) and in the name of "fairness" to Arabs, would like to see Israel become more open and less specifially Jewish. Essentially, this is the "one state solution" that addlepated Libyan potentate, Moo Moo Khadaffyduck, likes to talk about; he suggests it be called "Isratine." But unlike him, Herzog prefers to drape her arguments for the end of a Jewish Israel in the pseudo-profundities of psychology and political science:

By drawing on two key planks of the Israeli Jewish psyche -- the need to preserve a Jewish majority, and a pervasive mistrust of Arabs -- Mr. Lieberman manifests what political scientist Yoram Peri describes as Israeli "post-territorial, ethno-nationalism" (a term first used to describe European nationalism that values ethnic affiliation over citizenship defined by borders).

It's precisely the political strength of Mr. Lieberman that's forcing Israelis to confront the dilemma hidden just beneath the surface of daily life -- the tension in Israel's dual self-definition as a political democracy (where belonging is defined by citizenship), and as an ethnic homeland (where preference is given to membership in the Jewish collective).

There's been some response. At the Knesset's opening session last week, President Moshe Katzav spoke against the idea of forcibly withdrawing citizenship on grounds of race, nationality or religion, and the respected Florsheim Institute quickly published a research monograph that discredited Mr. Lieberman's proposal on legal and demographic grounds.

The Labour Party wanted a commitment in the coalition agreement that "no Israeli citizen will lose citizenship in a future Israeli-Palestinian deal." Unfortunately, the party withdrew the demand in the last stages of negotiation.

Israel's Arab citizens have reason to fear the collateral damage in public attitudes and continued marginalization. Arab parties hold 10 of 120 Knesset seats but, once again, are left out of government-building. Using national security as a pretext, no Israeli prime minister (with the short-lived exception of the late Yitzhak Rabin) has ever relied on them for a majority or included them in cabinet. Israeli coalition agreements are key to budget allocations, so Arab citizens have never received a proportional share of the public pie for infrastructure, education or social services.

Got that? If Israel want to stop "marginalizing" all its Arab citizens, it has to stop walking those planks and get over its post-territorial, ethno-nationalism. Europe certainly has, and look at what it's done for them.

Back to my original point: Herzog, self-loathing leftist that she is, is doing what others of her ilk usually do when they want to discredit their opponents: they try to label them as bigots and racists. That's what happened to Pim Fortuyn in Holland, who tried to warn his countrymen about what was happening in his country, and who was smeared as a racist (or what Herzog would have called an ethno-nationalist) for his efforts. He was murdered by someone who had imbibed the toxic but false message about his character, and took it upon himself to silence him forever.

Holland paid a huge price for not heeding Fortuyn's warnings; it took the murder of another Dutchman, filmmaker Theo van Gogh, to finally rouse them from their bi-cultural fantasies, for a time, anyway. And, were Israel to follow Herzog's and Khadaffy's suggestions, Israel would pay an enormous price, too.

In fact, you could even call it the ultimate price.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:50 | link | comments

Anti-dhimmitude in Italy: From the Jerusalem Post:

Italian authorities are investigating anti-Israeli protests that marred a march in Milan commemorating the 61st anniversary of Italy's liberation from fascism, a prosecutor said Friday.

Armando Spataro, an anti-terrorism prosecutor in the northern city, said a number of people have been placed under investigation for incitement to commit a crime, causing damage and holding an unauthorized demonstration.

Spataro refused to release information on the number of those investigated or their nationality, saying only that police had identified them as having taken part in Tuesday's protests, during which demonstrators trampled and burned Israeli flags and shouted slogans in support of the Palestinians.

The protests happened on the sidelines of a Liberation Day commemorative march and were apparently prompted by the presence in the march of Israeli flags in honor of members of the Jewish Brigade, an infantry unit that helped liberate Italy.

Commemorations are held throughout Italy on the April 25 national holiday in honor of the partisan uprising that began on that day in 1945 and ended with the execution of Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.
Italian politicians joined Jewish leaders and the Israeli ambassador to Italy in harshly condemning the flag burning as having marred the celebration. Center-left leader Romano Prodi, who will lead Italy's incoming government, called it a "vile demonstration of intolerance."

Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano wrote Wednesday that "to offend a flag means to offend the people for whom it is a symbol, and therefore in this case it was an offense to the entire Jewish people, precisely on the day in which we celebrate liberation from their infamous oppressors."

All I can say is, "Bravo!"

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:42 | link | comments

Damnable Moo: Not long ago, Iraninas were positively giddy about the prospect of going nuclear. At a festival where their fearless leader announced that Iran had finally joined "the nuclear club", the air was electric with anticipation as revelers cavorted gaily with test tubes full of faux-yellowcake.

Of course, the reason they were all so delighted is because (wink, wink) all that nuclear energy means (nudge, nudge) Iranians will be able to illumine all those office towers in Tehran without depleting their tremendous reserves of oil.

In an effort to maintain that impolite fiction in the face of worldwide concern about crazed mullahs with nukes, Moo Jihad is sticking to his story about (wink, wink) nuclear enrichment being earmarked for peaceful domestic purposes. He's also telling everyone who would deprive Iran of its Allah-given right to be a member of a club that doesn't want to allow it in the clubhouse, and has a sickening dread about what a nuclear Iran could mean to the health of the planet that he doesn't "give a damn" about what anyone else thinks: Iran's going ballistic no matter what.

Not that it plans to build nukes, or anything. From Iran Focus:

Tehran, Iran, Apr. 28 – Iran’s radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared on Friday that the Islamic Republic would ignore resolutions by the United Nations Security Council calling on it to suspend its uranium enrichment. His remarks, which were aired on state television and carried by the official news agency, came on the final day of a 30-day deadline Tehran had been given by the Security Council to suspend all its uranium enrichment activities.

“Obtaining peaceful nuclear energy is the first step by the Iranian nation to conquer the obstacles to advancements”, Ahmadinejad told a crowd at a rally in north-west Iran.

“The enemies imagine that they can halt our nation from continuing its proud path with propaganda, creating a false atmosphere, political threats and embargo of junk consumer goods”, he said, adding that the Islamic Republic was a nuclear state “whether they like it or not”.

“Those who want to prevent the Iranian nation from its rights with these methods must know that Iran does not give a damn about any such directives or resolutions”, Ahmadinejad said, referring to the demand by the Security Council.

Okay then, Mr. Ahmadinejad. No more junk consumer goods for you.

Update: Headline in Asia News--Ahmadinejad between looming sanctions, clientelism and populism.

Yikes, sounds uncomfortable. Wouldn't it have been more accurate to say "Ahmadinejad between loony mullahs, in the grip of jihadism and Mahdi-madness"?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:37 | link | comments

Re-education in Germany: As we all know, Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion which has been misappropriated by a tiny fraction of the ummah who seem not to have gotten the memo about the peaceful, tolerant aspects of their faith. In brief: Islam--perfect. The behaviour of a few, troublesome Muslims who are making the religion look bad--not so perfect.

To underscore this truth, the EU thought police have decreed that people may no longer refer to suicide bombings, decapitations and the like as "Islamic terrorism." Such a phrase is, as the believers are apt to aver, blasphemous. And the language/mind sanitizers aren't too thrilled about some other expressions, either; pretty soon words like "jihad" may be shuffled out of circulation.

In Germany, they're really excited about these changes. So excited, that the government is sponsoring a traveling exhibit to highlight the difference between Islam, the perfect, and the imperfect behaviour of some of its adherents. From Islam Online:

The German Interior Ministry is sponsoring a mobile exhibition touring the country to draw the line between Islam as a faith and the practices of some Muslims.

The drive aims to distinguish between Islam as a religion that preaches peace and tolerance and parties condoning violence in the name of Islam, said the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, the sponsor.

It added that the exhibition also seeks to highlight the dangers posed by what it called "Islamist extremists".

The "Die Missbrauchte Religion Islamisten in Deutschland" exhibition would visit universities, schools, parliaments, municipalities and cultural centers in the different states.

Launched on Tuesday, April 25, it targets both Muslims and non-Muslims, especially students, to highlight the true image of Islam.

The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution, an interior ministry affiliate, is responsible for gathering, processing and analyzing information about terrorist activities in Germany.

Islam comes third in Germany after Protestant and Catholic Christianity.

There are some 3.4 million Muslims in Germany, two thirds of whom are of Turkish origin...

I'm not sure what "missbrauchte" means; my High School German didn't equip me to translate the word. But I'm sure it's something really complimentary. Like: "The Marvelous Islamic Religion in Germany." Or: "The Misunderstood Islamic Religion in Germany."

Something like that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:07 | link | comments

Kudos to the Vatican: On Tuesday in Milan, there was a march to celebrate the 61st anniversary of Italy's liberation from fascism. During the march, some of the marchers spied some Israeli flags being flown in honour of the Jewish Infantry Brigade Group which assisted in the liberation. The sight caused all sorts of agita, and rapidly developed into a full-fledged display of Jew, er, Israel-hatred. Israeli flags were trampled, torn and burned amid cries of, what else?, "intifada."

The deconstruct this shameful episode: People demonstrated their disdain for Italian fascism by endorsing Islamic fascism and obliterating the emblem of the Jewish State.

During Italy's last go-round with fascism, the Vatican and Pius XII, the Pope at the time, couldn't exactly be counted on to stand up for the Jews. This time around, the Vatican seems more willing to condemn such revolting displays of Jew-hatred. From AP (via israelinsider):

The Vatican newspaper on Wednesday called the trampling and burning of Israeli flags during a march in Milan a "disgusting" offense to all Jews...

In a news article about the march, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano called the anti-Israel protests a "serious and disgusting offense."

"To offend a flag means to offend the people for whom it is a symbol, and therefore in this case it was an offense to the entire Jewish people, precisely on the day in which we celebrate liberation from their infamous oppressors," L'Osservatore wrote.

Commemorations are held throughout Italy on the April 25 national holiday in honor of the partisan uprising that began on that day in 1945 and ended with the execution of Fascist Party dictator Benito Mussolini.

Israel's ambassador to Italy, Ehud Gol, condemned the demonstrations as "barbarous."

"As a Jew and an Israeli, I was filled with shame and anger at the sight of the barbarous behavior of the 'fascists' of the extreme left, who defiled the sanctity of the Liberation Day holiday," the ambassador said in a statement.

Good on Benedict, a Pope who seems to realize that, at the end of the day, Islamic supremacism and the jihad mentality endanger Catholics just as much as Jews.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:17 | link | comments

Another fine mess: Oy vey, it’s tough to be a Jew. As if millennia of Jew-hatred, culminating in the murder of six million during the Shoah weren’t enough, today we must contend with the demon seed of Euro-hatred (now mostly secular, formerly Christian) insinuating itself into the flower bed of Islamo-hatred; the result being a far bigger and uglier Venus Fly Trap than either monotheism was capabable of on its own. And the Jewish state, the place that was supposed to serve as a haven for Jewry, a respite from the storm, instead finds itself in the crosshairs of the predatory plant.

After reading Phyllis Chessler’s take on it all—how Holocaust memorials, meaningful as they are, may actually give us a false sense of security; how the Jews of Israel are in even graver danger than the Jews of Europe were when Hitler came to power; how it seems the whole world has geared up to abominate the Jews in general and the Jews of Israel in particular—one has two choices: You can cry. Or you can laugh.

Today at least, I’m opting for the former, overwhelmed by the absurdity of it all. From FrontPage Magazine:

...Jew-haters are creating a situation in which another Holocaust-like mass murder of Jews may be possible. Indeed, in my view, it has already begun, certainly not in America and not yet in Europe – but in Israel. Today, Jews who live in the Jewish state – a nation that was initially envisioned as the solution to the ceaseless persecution of the Jews – are far more endangered than those who live in the Diaspora.

Israel endured the equivalent of 9/11 every month for four years during the intifada that erupted in 2000. In 2005, seven Palestinian homicide bombers killed and wounded Israeli civilians; an additional 15 such terrorist attacks were thwarted. True, Israel is well-armed and has nuclear capacity. However, the military superiority of the Jewish state is now being used to diabolize Israel on university campuses throughout the Western world.

The fanatical leader of Iran has gone further. President Ahmadinejad has threatened to annihilate Israel using nuclear weaponry. He has said: "The Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. It will be eliminated by one storm. Believe that Palestine will be freed soon." I take him seriously. My military sources tell me that there are at least 65 known nuclear facilities in Iran. All are strategically located in heavily populated civilian neighborhoods. Iran must be stopped. But who will do it? And when?

Ahmadinejad, notoriously, is a Holocaust denier. Another prominent exponent of Holocaust denial, historian David Irving, has been jailed in Austria for those beliefs. As dangerous as Holocaust denial is, however, memorialization of the Holocaust may also function as a form of denial. How can remembering the European Holocaust be a form of denial? Because in this instance it may also allow us the luxury, and the consolation, of assuming that the "worst" has already happened. Unfortunately, that may not be true.

Some days you can't help but think that all this "chosen" stuff may be a bit over-rated.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Truth and lies: I'm sure there are some bigots out there who hate Muslims for being Muslims. Just as there are plenty of folks who hate Jews for no better reason than because they are Jews. (Or maybe because they're Jews who are so uppity as to presume they can be sovereign over land claimed by Muslims--but that's another facet of this type of blind hatred). However, when you hear the epithet "Islamophobe" being hurled these days, more often than not it pertains not to someone who harbours a genuine animus towards Muslims solely because of who they are, but is lobbed in order to silence those who are brave enough to try to tell the truth about how the world is being imperiled by fundamentalist, radical, Islamic extremists who are in the grip of a jihad ideology.

Thus, Daniel Pipes--Islamophobe.

Robert Spencer--Islamophobe.

Steve Emerson--Islamophobe.

Oriana Fallaci--Islamophobe.

Not hard to see a trend here.

Recently, another "truth-teller" has been tarred with that label. Nonie Darwish, a former Muslim (according to classic sharia law, an offence punishable by death) who supoorts Israel, spoke to Hillel, the Jewish students group, at Toronto's York University. As expected, all hell broke loose as a result. Darwish's words were twisted and misrepresented by Arab students, who immediately began a campaign to discredit Hillel and Darwish, branding both as "racist" and  "Islamophobic." And also as expected, York's dim, dhimmified student council has demanded--what else?--that Hilel grovel and prostrate itself before the aggrieved. From the Canadian Jewish News:

Hillel at York wants the York Federation of Students to backtrack on its implication that Hillel is a racist organization after the student council demanded that Hillel apologize for comments about radical Islam by a speaker the Jewish group invited on campus.

Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-born, pro-Israel Arab American and former Muslim, spoke on March 29 at York University in a talk titled, “Why I support the State of Israel.”

Adam Hummel, president of Hillel at York, said Darwish caught him and other organizers off guard when she strayed from her announced topic to criticize radical Islam.

After the lecture, Hummel said he spoke to members of the campus group Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights who were offended by Darwish’s comments, and he said he apologized to those who approached him.

Within hours of the lecture, the YFS issued a public statement in which Ahmed Habib, YFS’ vice-president of equity and services, and Shamini Selvaratnam, YFS’ vice-president of education, demanded a formal apology from Hillel and condemned the organization for Darwish’s remarks, which they described as racist and Islamophobic.

“[The lecture] further increases tension on campus between students surrounding a [sic] already sensitive topic. York Federation of Students is alarmed that such racist remarks would be condoned by a well-established organization like Hillel.”

Tilly Shames, Israel affairs director at Hillel of Greater Toronto, said the statements paints Hillel as a racist organization.

“We felt Hillel, at least Hillel at York, was being presented as an Islamophobic organization, and we’re concerned that the YFS has spread this message to the campus community and student groups… We won’t stand for that,” Shames said.

“They pushed us into a corner,” Hummel said. “We issued a statement to Ahmed Habib saying that we stand by [Darwish’s] right to freedom of speech. They are pointing a finger at us and insinuating that our organization is Islamophobic. Because we defended her right for freedom of speech, they’re suggesting that we agree with her.”

Corrie Sakaluk, YSF’s president-elect, said she wants Hillel to issue another statement to apologize for and denounce the parts of Darwish’s lecture that could be perceived as Islamophobic.

“Freedom of speech is not meant to defend or justify hate speech,” Sakaluk said, adding that Darwish made insensitive and hateful comments and “used sections of her time to make sweeping generalizations about Arabic and Muslim people.”

Hummel and Keren Katz, Hillel’s Israel affairs chair at York, did release a statement to the YFS executive that said “Hillel at York denounces Islamophobia in all its forms,” but Shames said she is still waiting for the YFS to release a statement of its own saying it “recognizes Hillel as a diverse and pluralistic organization that condemns racism of all kinds.”

She said she hopes a future YFS statement will put Hillel in a more positive light and will not further tarnish the group’s name.

Although the YFS has yet to release such a statement, Sakaluk said in an interview with The CJN that her group’s “comments are not meant to paint Hillel as a racist organization,” but she added that since Darwish was Hillel’s guest, Hillel should take responsibility for her comments.

Shames said Hillel is also deciding how to respond to an article in York’s main student newspaper, Excalibur, that misquoted Darwish and took her words out of context.

The article misquoted Darwish as saying that “most Muslims are terrorists.” However, what Darwish actually said was that statistically, “most terrorists are Muslims.”

“It may seem like semantics, but there is a major difference between the two statements,” Shames said...

I don't think I'd call that "semantics." More like an outright attempt to completely distort Ms. Darwish's remarks so that no one will be inclined to listen to what she has to say. As such, I think the apology here is owed to Hillel by those who falsified her comments, an obvious attempt to silence her.

In his book, Explaining Hitler, Ron Rosenbaum devotes a chapter to the brave reporters who wrote for The Munich Post in the days before Hitler assumed power. These fearless scribes were relentless in trying to expose Hitler as a ruthless, brutal tyrant who they believed would lead Germany into an abyss. They were merciless in their scorn, and knew exactly what buttons to push to drive Hitler crazy. For example, one of the reporters wrote a tongue-in-cheek account of how Hitler had Negro blood--an article which made Hitler go ballistic. He referred to these detested reporters as "The Poison Kitchen". In so doing, he hoped to discredit their writings and, eventually, to put a stop to them. Alas, that's exactly what he did almost as soon as he came to power, sending most of writers to their deaths in concentration camps.

As yet, those who support and/or enable the holy war against Western civilization have been unable to silence the Pipes, the Spencers, the Fallacis and the rest--the current incarnation of "The Poison Kitchen." But count on this: The Islamists and their fellow travelers will stop at nothing to keep the truth-tellers from shining a light on the dank, dark corridors of the Islamo-fascist mind.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:53 | link | comments

Moo's jihad: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is shooting off his mouth again. This time he’s insisting that any measure to put the brakes on his nuclear agenda is “illegitimate”—unless it acknowledges what he calls his “right” to a persue a nuclear agenda.

Sounds reasonable. From monsters & critics:

At a joint press conference with visiting Sudanese President Omar Hassan Beshir, Ahmadinejad said Iran would not accept 'any illegitimate decisions under the cover of the UN Security Council or International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).'

'We would only respect decisions by international bodies if the same bodies would in return respect our international rights as well, otherwise their decisions would have no credit for us,' he said, adding that Iran would ignore the Security Council's demand that it suspend uranium enrichment before April 28.

'The UN Security Council and IAEA should follow their designated duties so that there would be no need (for Iran) to revise relations with them,' he said.

Ahmadinejad reiterate previous warnings that Iran would look again at its membership of the IAEA and its commitments to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) if the UN imposed sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad blamed the IAEA for playing 'political games' rather than supporting a member state in gaining its rights in line with IAEA and NPT regulations.

Upon hearing the news, the Security Council and Mo ElBee, head feline of the UN nuclear watchkittens, immediately broke out into the “Moo Jihad Calypso”.

Don't know that one? It's from the "beloved" Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, Mahmoud and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamnukes:

Oh, yes,
Say we,
How he gonna do it
Is no mystery.
Nuke you,
Nuke me.
Mahmoud is as nutty as a pecan tree

Sure as jihad slay the infidel
Mahmoud has a plan he never tell.
Sure as Khomeini make Carter lose
Mahmoud gonna clean the map of Jews.

Oh, yes,
Say we.
How he gonna nuke ‘em is no mystery.
Oh, yes,
You see,
Mahmoud is much smarter than that Mo ElBee.

Sure as the Mahdi’s coming back,
Mahmoud getting set for a bit attack.
Sure as the EU shake with fear,
Mahmoud gonna have a great career.

Oh, yes,
Yes, he
Is gonna flex his muscles—
You just wait and see.
Say yes,
Begin.
Mahmoud should be living in the loony bin.
La la la la la la la la,
La la la la la la la.
La la la la la la la la,
La la la la la la.

Posted by: scaramouche at 20:55 | link | comments

Zarqawi's follies: The Christian Science Monitor has a story about the re-emergence of al Qaeda's go-to man in Iraq, Jordanian terror maven Abu Musaal Zarqawi. The story, referring to Zarqawi's appearance on a video tape, is headlined "I'm still here."

Funny, thought I to myself. That's the title of the showstopper from Stephen Sondheim's unsuccessful but critically acclaimed musical, Follies.

Who knew the Zarqmeister was a Sondheim fan?

Of course, he had to change a few words--and abbreviate it a bit, because unless you're Elaine Stritch on a Broadway stage, who has time to sing the whole thing? Certainly not a master strategist engrossed in planning his next big kaboom:

Good times and bum times,
I’ve seen them all and, my dear,
I’m still here.
Successful bombs sometimes,
Sometimes a kick in the rear,
But I’m here
I’ve followed bin Laden
Through thick and thin.
Raged about jihad
With my own special spin.
Seen some shahids disappear,
But I’m here.
I’ve slept in hovels,
Guest of insurgents and thugs,
But I’m here.
Seen dhimmis grovel,
Lie down like pathetic old rugs,
But I’m here.
I’ve been quite careful
‘Bout showing my face.
Keeping my head down—
Not a disgrace.
Is my holy war wholly done?
Nowhere near.
I met a big financier
And I’m here…

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:29 | link | comments

No mitzvah: I'm all in favour of being ecumenical, if there's a real chance of fostering understanding and promoting dialogue between different religious groups. But there's ecumenacism and then there's--how shall I put this--blinkered, lamebrained, outrageous stupidity. Case in point: the Birmingham Rabbi who invited Bosnia's pogrom-endorsing, terror-enabling Grand Mufti to speak at his shul. From JWR:

Earlier this month, Rabbi Jonathan Miller of Birmingham's Temple Emanu-El hosted Bosnia's Grand Mufti Mustafa Ceric to address an interfaith audience at his synagogue so that we Jews and Christians might "make room in our hearts and souls for others who believe differently from us," as his op-ed in The Birmingham News read. According to one attendee, the mufti packed a big house and the evening was replete with Martin Luther King tie-ins and civil rights-era imagery.

The rabbi should have done some research first. Ceric recently called on the world to stand by Syria, a state that sponsors terrorism against Israel and U.S. forces in Iraq, among other targets. During the March, 2004 pogroms in Kosovo against Orthodox Christian Serbs by Albanian Muslims — in which 19 people were killed, dozens of churches and cemeteries destroyed, and close to 4,000 of Kosovo's minority Serbs displaced — BBC.com reported that Ceric "expressed concern about the rise of anti-Islamic hysteria in the West." He added that there was "no such thing as Islamic terrorism," and assured reporters that there were no charities linked to al-Qaeda operating in Bosnia.

In fact, a CNSNews.com article titled "Jihadists Find Convenient Base in Bosnia" reported that "terrorists who previously targeted the U.S. are now in Bosnia, where they have access to a 'one-stop shop' of jihad training camps, weapons and illegal Islamic 'charities' — all at the doorstep of Europe."

One charity that was funding millions of dollars to al Qaeda — the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation — closed in 2002 and then reopened under the name Vazir — an "association for sport, culture and education."

"More ominously," reported the Washington Times in 2003, "the greatest threat to peace and stability stems from the resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism in Bosnia, which seeks to either wipe out or convert all Christians in the region. The country now serves as a base for al Qaeda operatives, where numerous terrorist cells are active and plotting attacks on targets throughout Europe. In the past, Saudi Arabia has sent millions of dollars in aid to "humanitarian" agencies that encourage Bosnian Muslims to promote the doctrines of Wahhabism…. Mosques have been established throughout the Muslim-Croat federation, many of whom preach the need for 'jihad' against the country's Catholic Croats and Orthodox Christian Serbs."

Further, "Osama bin Laden is actively directing terrorist cells in the former Yugoslav republic of Bosnia," read an October 2004 AFP dispatch. According to terror expert and author Yossef Bodansky, Bosnia's Zenica region provided the training ground for the terrorists who conducted a series of suicide attacks in Baghdad in August 2003, including the UN bombing there that killed 22 people.

More damning still, at least two of the 9/11 hijackers — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — trained and fought in Bosnia, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed "also honed his jihadist skills in Bosnia and financed some of the mujahedin operations there," Brendan O'Neill wrote for The New Statesman in 2004.

Last October, a raid on a Sarajevo apartment turned up suicide vests, 65 pounds of exploding bullets, rifles and a machine gun, to be used in an imminent attack on the British embassy in Sarajevo. What's more, reported the International Herald Tribune, "Bosnia gave passports to more than 800 former fighters and aid workers from the Middle East," including to known terrorists and sometimes under aliases.

Even more disturbing, the Islamists have been creating cells of "White al Qaeda" — Caucasian Bosnian Muslims who can evade ethnic profiling. The rabbi might also be interested to know that the suicide attack in Netanya in December, which killed five and wounded 95, was organized by a Bosnian-based group called Al-Asifa. There are Balkans ties as well to the London and Madrid attacks, as well as New York on 9/11.

That a rabbi would invite a terror enabler to ingratiate himself and his religion to a Judeo-Christian audience is a disgrace. Miller isn't doing Americans any favors by helping the Islamic PR campaign...

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:34 | link | comments

Poisoning the airwaves: Hamas, the terrorist regime that represents the Palestinian people, has been striving of late to spruce up its image. Oh, it's not like its planning to amend its agenda of concerted terrorism and Jew-killing any time soon. It's just that it wants people to preceive it in a more positive light, as the duly elected, and thus fully legitimate, government of the Palestinians.

If Hamas really wanted an image makeover, it would do well to look to the example set by al Jazeera. Here you have Arab, Arab-language television station with a pro-jihad mindset that regularly spews Jew-hatred and anti-Americanism. Yet, somehow, it has managed to convince a world astonished (and blinded) by the high quality of its production values that it is nothing more than the Arab CNN--Muslim "newzak"--and every bit as bland and inoffensive.

Until now, viewers in Canada have been spared from al Jazeera's toxic beams, but all that is about to change. And the Toronto Star, for one, is onside. The article in the Star features the photos of two of the talking heads who toil for a-J's international, English-speaking division, a Ken and Barbie-ish team who look as unthreatening looking as Paula Zahn and Anderson Cooper, or any of the other pretties who populate mid-to-large market North American TV stations. And, heck, this Ken and Barbie are thrilled to be working for such a worthy employer:

Richard Gizbert has covered news stories on five continents, including war zones in the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya and Rwanda. But it was the unfriendly firing by ABC News which has helped chart the expatriate Canadian journalist's future.

While the painful experience is still playing out, Gizbert is looking forward to his next assignment: host of a media analysis program for the controversial Al-Jazeera network, which is set to launch its English-language version.

After stints for CJOH in Ottawa and CFTO in Toronto, Gizbert spent 11 years at ABC. The London correspondent was terminated in 2004 after he refused an assignment to cover the Iraqi war, citing a young family.

Last December, a British labour tribunal ruled Gizbert was unfairly dismissed but the news giant appealed.

"The appeal hearing is going to be held on the fourth of July actually here in the U.K. The British do have a sense of irony," Gizbert said in an interview.

The process has been long, stressful and "much more expensive than advertised," said Gizbert, adding he believes ABC has deliberately dragged its feet in resolving his case.

"They (ABC) did what a lot of large, faceless corporations do when confronted by a legitimate claim from an individual who doesn't have as much money as them; they tried to fight dirty," Gizbert said.

ABC News did not respond to a request for comment.

It is partly that disdain of the corporate-dominated media that led Gizbert to approach Al-Jazeera and propose Listening Post, a program that will examine news stories from a non-Western perspective.

Al-Jazeera — which, in its decade-long existence, has earned the wrath of the Bush White House and authoritarian regimes such as Saudi Arabia, as well as notice for its post-9/11 coverage — plans to launch an English-language service from Doha (Qatar), Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), London and Washington by the summer.

The satellite network has just hired another Canadian, Kimberly Halkett, a correspondent for Global Television, as the network's weekend news anchor.

Halkett said the service hopes to appeal to those with a thirst for international news from a new perspective and to cover stories from "under-reported" regions of the world.

"There are world services out there right now but they have a distinctly British or American filter," Halkett said.

Al-Jazeera International has 500 journalists representing 30 nationalities, Halkett said, "so I think when we tell a story, we really have the credibility to deliver."

Gizbert will host Listening Post, a crucial part of the network's programming.

"I say to my friends in North America ... `Look, if you think that the ABCs, CNNs and Foxs of the world have done a bang-up job since 9/11 and the run-up to the Iraq war, asked all the right questions and covered the political decision-makers in an adequate way, then you probably have no reason to tune into Al-Jazeera,'" Gizbert said.

"If, on the other hand, you think this wasn't the finest hour for North American news gatherers, that they failed to ask the right questions of the Bush administration ... that they failed to do a proper job, then you might want to check out Al-Jazeera.

"Frankly, we want the show to be a little bit mischievous, a little bit subversive," he said, noting it will be interactive, with input from viewers worldwide on webcams and cellphones.

Amir Hassanpour, an associate professor at the University of Toronto who teaches a course in mass media in the Middle East, called Al-Jazeera's English programming a "very positive development in the evolving world of media.

"I would argue ... the English-language channel will be one step in the direction of making the world of media more diverse and less monolithic. So the Middle East can also talk to North America, Europe and East Asia," Hassanpour said....

And I would argue that the English-language channel will be one step in the direction of making the world less diverse by helping lay the groundwork for our acceeding to and accepting another kind of monolith--the one that has already more or less transformed the continent of Europe into Eurabia.

But that's me.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:56 | link | comments

Loose lips win Pulitzers: Not only are much of the mainstream media doing their utmost to undermine the war against Islamic totalitarians, but as Max Boot notes in the L.A. Times, they are even winning awards for it (link via RealClear Politics):

ON JUNE 7, 1942, shortly after the Battle of Midway, the Chicago Tribune carried a scoop: "Navy Had Word of Jap Plan to Strike at Sea." The story, written by a correspondent who had seen intelligence reports left in an officer's cabin, reported that the U.S. knew in advance the composition of the Japanese fleet. It didn't say where this information came from, but senior officers privy to the U.S. success in breaking Japanese codes were apoplectic at this security breach. The Justice Department convened a grand jury to consider whether to charge the Tribune and its flamboyant owner, editor and publisher, Col. Robert McCormick, with a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.

No charges were brought, in part because military officials were unwilling to share classified information about intelligence gathering. But the Chicago Tribune was reviled by other journalists for betraying national security, and no other publication followed up its revelation.

Poor Col. McCormick. He was a man before his time. Today, he would have been hailed as a 1st Amendment hero, and his newspaper would have been showered with accolades. That, at least, is the only conclusion one can draw from this year's Pulitzer Prizes, which reflect a startling degree of animus toward the commander in chief in wartime.

It is hard to see how media apologists can deny their political bias when no fewer than four prizes were given at least in part for Bush-bashing. These included awards to Mike Luckovich, the left-wing cartoonist of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who routinely portrays President Bush as a malevolent dolt, and Robin Givhan, the catty fashion critic of the Washington Post, who devoted an entire column to ridiculing Vice President Dick Cheney's attire at an Auschwitz ceremony.

There's nothing wrong with caustic criticism, but two of the award winners went further, into areas that may hamper our battle against Islamist terrorism. The Washington Post's Dana Priest won a prize for revealing the existence of secret CIA-operated prisons in Eastern Europe, and the New York Times' James Risen and Eric Lichtblau won for revealing the existence of a secret program to intercept communications between terrorists abroad and their domestic contacts.

The full repercussions of these security breaches remain unknown because, just as in 1942, intelligence officers are loath to publicly reveal the harm done to their activities. But there is no doubt that these were among the government's most tightly held secrets and that, despite personal pleas from Bush, both newspapers decided to publish them anyway — to the approbation of their peers...

Winning a Pulitzer, like winning a Nobel, used to mean something. Now all it usually means is that the winner has consistently towed the same ill-considered political line as those granting the prizes. Any prize committe that could give an award to Dana Priest over Claudia Rosett, or Harold Pinter over, say, Philip Roth (not that Phil isn't a Bush-basher, just a worthier recipient), has lost most if not all of its credibility.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:21 | link | comments

Abject are the cheesemakers: Andrew Apostolou has a piece in the National Post about the lengths--actually, more like the depths--Danish dairy company Arla has gone to in an effort to persuade Arabs and other Muslims to lift their boycott of its products. The boycott was spearheaded by Ken Livingstone's favorite terror-appologist, Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi, after a Danish newspaper had the temerity to publish some fairly innocuous cartoons featuring the Most Perfect Human Being Who Has Ever Lived. Arla, which had absolutely nothing to do with the publication, was nonetheless expected to atone for the "sins" of its countrymen, and has submitted to a number of humiliating measures--what Arla calls taking "an active marketing approach"-- to try to win back its seething customers:

At the end of January, Arla paid to have the Danish government's official statement indicating its respect for Islam printed in Saudi newspapers. Then, in a full-page advertisement in newspapers in 25 countries on March 26, Arla stated that "Our presence in the region has given us an insight into your culture and values and about Islam. This understanding has, over many years, enabled us to supply high quality products which meet your preferences."

God, it is said, works in mysterious ways. How else to explain this previously unknown symbiosis between the gathering of religious insight and the sale of dairy products?

The centerpiece of the deal between Arla and Qaradawi is not the grovelling statement, but Arla's offer to start humanitarian projects in the Middle East, including helping disabled children and cancer sufferers.

The terms of this deal had already been set in March during a conference convened by the Danish Foreign Ministry in Copenhagen. According to The New York Times, Amr Khaled, an Egyptian preacher, indicated that the boycott of Danish goods could end "if Danes and their government reached out with initiatives like help for small businesses, or health care."

That's because a mea culpa and some verbal grovelling is insuffient for some of the aggrieved, like Khaled, who insist the apology take a more tangible form. The kind of monetary tribute, in fact, that Muslims have traditionally foisted on infidels--a jizya:

On his own Web site, Khaled had been even more explicit, announcing "We will not accept a symbolic apology. We want them to take actions that prove their respect for the Prophet." Arla got the hint and paid up.

And really, what choice did it have? After all, it was losing heaps of money--the boycott is likely to skim $65 million from the dairy's gross. And it's not like it could count on the EU for any back-up. Au contraire. Since the EU was enmeshed in all sorts of complicated trade deals with the boycotting governments, it was disinclined to take any action when the anti-Arla frenzy was unleashed:

The EU could have responded by threatening to suspend those trade agreements, but did not. Even after a Syrian government-organized mob burned down the Danish embassy in Damascus (simultaneously lighting up the Norwegian embassy for good measure), the EU responded with nothing more than strong words.

The EU's message to the Danes could not have been plainer: They were on their own.

"On their own"--sort of like the Jews of Europe were when Hitler unleashed his frenzy on them (the Danes being one of the few peoples who took pro-active steps to impede his plans). There's a bitter irony in the Danes becoming the pariahs, the despised, "the Jew" of Europe. And a sickening sense of deja vu in seeing Europe once again genuflecting to the forces of fascism.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:05 | link | comments

Prize fools: The New York Post skewers the Pulitzer Prize committee for failing to reward the dogged efforts of Claudia Rosett:

The Pulitzer Prizes, the Academy Awards of journalism, were announced last week; The Washington Post and The New York Times scored heavily, as always.

What a bore.

What a joke, actually.

Because any journalism award committee that didn't automatically hand top honors to Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the columnist who has explained to the world the appalling United Nations' Oil-for-Food scandal, is trafficking in hollow honors.

The foundation nominated Rosett for her work in 2005 - which, among other things, detailed the diversion of billions in Oil-for-Food cash and helped explain the cozy relationships Saddam maintained with Russian and French leaders and businessmen. (That Kofi Annan has kept his job, given Rosett's reporting, is simply astonishing.)

But she wasn't even a finalist.

Yet it's not like she's an upstart.

In the recent past, Rosett has detailed, in part:

* How U.N. funds intended for victims of Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait instead ended up in Iranian, Syrian and Palestinian Authority hands.

* How the U.N. has indirectly helped advance North Korea's nuclear-weapons program.

* How the U.N. refugee agency sabotages North Korean refugees' efforts at liberation.

She began her Oil-for-Food work in earnest in 2004, wading through the muck of U.N. corruption and reporting back with shocking dispatches that detailed, just as an example, how the U.N. financed the weaponry currently being used against U.S. troops in Iraq.

Back when she worked at The Wall Street Journal, Rosett received Pulitzer nominations for her coverage of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre and for her reporting on the 1996 Russian presidential election.

Alas, today - nothing.

Instead, the Pulitzer Prize committee has lately preferred the work of reporters who endeavor effectively to undermine the U.S. government's antiterrorism efforts...

Long gone are the days when journalists paid respect to the notion of national security. Now, journalism's most prestigious awards seem to encourage the opposite: undermining national security for the sake of individual self-aggrandizement.

Maybe it's a greater honor that Rosett didn't receive a Pulitzer.

Hear, hear.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:01 | link | comments

You don't say: Today's egregiously obvious headline, from the IHT: Domestic threat seen in Egyptian bombing.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:24 | link | comments

Mubarak's distorted perspective: In the wake of the latest attack on Egypt tourist resorts, the front page of Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram featured Hosni Mubarak's resounding words about the terrorism crisis.

Unfortunately, they didn't pertain to Dahab. From the BBC:

Coverage of the bombings in the Egyptian resort of Dahab and their aftermath has differed greatly between the Arab world's satellite news stations and its press.

On the television stations, coverage has been virtually non-stop.

In contrast, the coverage in much of the Arab press - including Egyptian papers - has been more low-key.

Even the paper generally considered the most influential in Egypt, Al-Ahram, did not run the attacks as its top story.

The headline in Al-Ahram is a quote from President Hosni Mubarak saying: "Terrorism combines religion and politics to destabilise the nation."

Despite appearances, though, the president's words are not a direct reaction to the Dahab attack.

Instead, they were part of a speech he made before the bombings on Monday to commemorate the 24th anniversary of the return of the Sinai peninsula from Israel to Egypt.

In his speech, Mr Mubarak spoke of a better future for Egypt, highlighting the moves towards greater democracy in the past year.

Do you get the feeling that, in his own way, Mubarak is every bit as delusional as Ahmadinejad?

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:17 | link | comments

Magazine's mismatch: I'm confused. An article by Alan Dershowitz in The Spectator is headed "We Can't Attack Iran." Yet the article makes a persuasive case for taking definitive action to prevent Iran from getting nukes. The article concludes thus,

The Iranians will persist therefore in their efforts to secure nuclear weapons. Unless they are stopped or significantly delayed by military actions, they will become a nuclear power within a few years — precisely how many is unknown and probably unknowable. Armed with nuclear weapons and ruled by religious fanatics, Iran will become the most dangerous nation in the world. There is a small but still real possibility that it could initiate a suicidal nuclear exchange with Israel. There is a far greater likelihood that it could hand over nuclear material to one of its terrorist surrogates or that some rogue elements could steal nuclear material. This would pose a direct threat to the United States and all its allies.

The world should not accept these risks if there are reasonable steps available to prevent or reduce them. The question remains: are any such steps feasible? Probably not, as long as the US remains bogged down in Iraq. History may well conclude that America and Britain fought the wrong preventive war against a country that posed no real threat, and that fighting that wrong war stopped them fighting the right preventive war against a country that did pose a danger to world peace.

Though the doctrine of preventive war is easily abused — as it was in Iraq — sometimes it is a necessary evil. The failure of Britain and France to wage a preventive war against Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s cost the world millions of lives. Will the same be said some day about the failure to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Headline to the contrary, it sounds to me like an attack on Iran is precisely what Dershowitz is urging.

Did the headline writer neglect to read the piece?

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:03 | link | comments

Malaysian malice: Malaysia, which is currently hosting a two-day conference devoted to some confounding issues facing would-be Muslim astronaunts (like: how do you turn and face Mecca in outer space?), has issued a definitive statement on its dealings with Israel. It doesn't want to have any. From the Jerusalem Post:

Malaysia won't consider establishing diplomatic ties with Israel until the Jewish state changes its policies toward the Palestinians, a Foreign Ministry official said Monday.

"Tel Aviv has yet to fulfill certain conditions," Foreign Ministry Parliamentary Secretary Ahmad Shabery Cheek was quoted as saying by the national news agency, Bernama. "Therefore there is no reason why Malaysia should review its current stand."

Ahmad Shabery, speaking in Parliament's lower house, reiterated Malaysia's desire to see Israel resolve its conflict with the Palestinians peacefully to turn hopes for a free and independent Palestinian state into a reality.

Nevertheless, despite shunning Israel in diplomatic channels, Malaysia doesn't advocate hatred toward Jews, Ahmad Shabery added.

"We must remind the citizens that the Jews are not our enemies," Ahmad Shabery said. "What we are against is the Zionism practiced by the current administration in Tel Aviv."

Malaysia currently chairs the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference, the world's largest Muslim political grouping.

Former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad angered Jews and Western leaders shortly before his retirement in 2003 when he told a summit of Islamic leaders that "Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

Notice how the cheeky secretary refers to Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. so as to underscore his contempt for the notion of Jews being sovereign over Jerusalem. And isn't it comforting to know that his animus is directed solely toward the Jewish state and not the Jewish people? A philosophy the "moderate" Malaysians seem to have in common with the far from moderate Iranians.

Update: And speaking of Semites in space...From the Sydney Morning Herald:

Israel is reportedly set to launch a highly accurate imaging satellite which will enhance its ability to spy on Iran.

A report in the mass circulation daily Yedioth Ahronoth claims Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz said this week that the nuclear programme being pursued by arch-foe Iran was the most serious threat faced by Jews since the Nazi Holocaust.

"The capabilities of the satellite speak for themselves. I do not need to say anything about what the purpose of its use might be," Shimon Eckhaus, the chief executive of manufacturer ImageSat International told Reuters.

The Eros B satellite has a camera which can decipher objects on the ground as small as 70 centimetres (about two feet) across, the report said. Eckhaus confirmed the accuracy of the published details to Reuters.

The report said Eros B will join an earlier version of the satellite, launched in December 2000. Both are set to augment the work of Israel's declared spy satellite, Ofek 5, which regularly passes over Arab territory...

Update: More Semites in space--the kind that face Jerusalem.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:37 | link | comments (1)

Explosive threats: Another day, another round of black hilairity from the most dangerous nation on the planet. Today's amusement comes from Iran's announcement that--and l hope I have this right--even though Iran has yet to co-operate and cancel its efforts to enrich uranium, were the UN to impose sanctions, Iran would refuse to, er, co-operate.,

Now we're really trembling in our Nikes.

And I suppose tomorrow the mullahs are going to threaten to blow us up unless we allow them to blow us up.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:34 | link | comments

"Hairan": As promised, here's the theme song to the Shia tribal musical:

We asked him why,
Why he’s a scary guy.
He’s scary noon and nighty night.
Nukes are a fright.
He’s scary through and through.
Don’t know what he
Is gonna do.
It’s ‘cause of the jihad
He would kill for God.
Sings Mahmoud—

“Give me a land with nukes,
Strong, damaging nukes.
Shining, gleaming, streaming into action.
So you think we’re kooks, nukes
Give us lots of power.
Here Georgie, there Ehud,
Shower you with hatred with our
Nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes.
Throw ‘em, show ‘em, long as I can blow ‘em
My nukes.

Let ‘em fly with a heave
Aimed straight at Tel Aviv,
The Jews will feel the fury of our nukes.
A big mushroom cloud
Will make us so proud.
A lovely crater,
Incinerator,
Ain't nothin' greater than the wonder of my
Nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes.
Throw ‘em, show ‘em, long as I can blow ‘em
My nukes.

I like ‘em long, strong, twirly, whirly,
Flashy, splashy, and panachey,
Oily, loaded, 'sploded,
Rushing, flushing, crushing,
Smoking, stoking, and tobacc-ied
Mangling, tangling, (bang)
And Nagasaki'd
'Oh Say Can You See'
Is Great Satan's theme song—
Not for very long.

Down they fall,
Kill you all,
Have a ball
When you land in Hell.
(Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo
Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo)

I seem ga-ga in some fora
When I mention a green aura,
An aura worn by only the select.
My nukes, how I adore 'em
Though some others may abhor 'em.
When my bombs are flyin' up above me
I'll know my Mahdi loves me.
Nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes, nukes.
Throw ‘em, show ‘em, long as I can blow ‘em
My nukes."

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:03 | link | comments

Dutch doubletalk: I admit to harbouring certain "misconceptions" about Islam. You know the kind I mean. That, while it demands tolerance (dare I say obeisance?) of non-Muslims, it is disinclined to accord it to others. That sharia law is fundamentally incompatible with freedom and democracy. That the purpose of jihad is to claim Dar al Harb for Dar al Islam.

Stuff like that.

I'm so glad that someone in The Netherlands has conducted tons of research into these matters with the aim of disabusing us unnecessarily suspicious "Islamophobes" of all our foolish notions. From Islam Online:

After three years of research, the Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR) in the Netherlands concluded that Islam neither conflicts with democracy, nor human rights nor Dutch values.

The WRR report, titled “Dynamism in Islamic activism”, said that European countries must support the Islamic movements that embrace democracy, like the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

It also recommended that Europe communicates with and offers aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian government.

“Contrary to the common belief, Islam has no problem accepting democracy and human rights… Instead of exporting democracy to Muslim countries, democratic attempts harmonious with their own traditions and cultures must be supported,” the Council advised European governments in its report.

The study, which also covered the Islamic movement in Europe, said that tensions between Muslim countries and the West are mainly caused by a lack of communication and dialogue.

"This study is indeed a step towards opening a more serious dialogue with Islam and curbing extremism irrespective of its source," said Marzouk Abduallh Awlad, professor of Islamic Studies in the Amsterdam Free University.

"Islam is a religion that interacts with its surrounding environment and adapts with different circumstances with no complications," he added.

I guess car-b-cues, riots and suicide bombings fall under the rubric of "uncomplicated adaptation."

Who funded this whimsical study? Saudi Arabia?

UNESCO?

Moo Jihad?

Posted by: scaramouche at 00:01 | link | comments

That little old peacemkaker, Moo: At that convivial confab with foreign reporters today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said of himself, "I am a teacher and I love peace." He proceded to outline his surefire recipe for world harmony. Not surprisingly, it's called "submission." From Iran Daily:

TEHRAN, April 24--President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday Iran wants peace and stability for all citizens of the world and its message to the planet is to abide by the culture of the divine prophets.

Addressing an international press conference, the chief executive noted that Iran does not trust the American government, which essentially has no powers, but wants everybody else to accept its hegemony, IRNA reported.

“The Iranian nation has lost trust in the US government because of its previous attitude and this is why we will not negotiate with them,“ he said.

Moo also revisited his theories about the provenance of Israel's Jews, and why he thinks it's so critical they go back where they came from:

Asked about his views regarding Jews, he said that Jews have the right to live freely and with security like all other people.

He explained that Jews came to Palestine from all over the world because of the anti-Semitism pursued by the West, which should “allow Jews to return to their countries of origin“...

Oh, you mean like Egypt, Yemen, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and all the other Arab and Muslim lands where Jews dwelled in varying degrees of dhimmitude for many centuries? 

Thanks, but no thanks, Moo. If it's all the same, we prefer to keep our sovereignty.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:25 | link | comments

The meaning of Moo's laughter: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a.k.a. Moo Jihad, is holding his own kind of Holocaust memorial today. While the ambitious map-wiper doesn't believe (or pretends not to believe) that the Holocaust actually occurred, seeing the whole thing as a put up job by the Zionists, he's awfully keen to see another Shoah take place, prefererably as soon as inhumanly possible. That way the Middle East can be restored to its pristine pre-Israel condition (i.e. no Jewish sovereignty; no Jews lording it over Muslims; Jews reduced to dhimmitude--their Koranically-decreed fate--or killed outright, also featured in the text). From Ha'aretz:

In wide-ranging remarks, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday that Israel was an artificial state that could not continue to exist.

"Some 60 years has passed since the end of World War II, why should the people of Germany and Palestine pay now for a war in which the current generation was not involved," Ahmadinejad told a press conference.

"We say that this fake regime cannot not logically continue to live," he said.

The Iranian president has long campaigned against Israel, saying last October that Israel should be "wiped off the map." He has said Europe should find a home for Israelis, who should not live on Palestinian land.

"Open the doors [of Europe] and let the Jews go back to their own countries," the president said Monday.

He added that Europeans should jettison their "anti-semitism" to enable Israelis to "return" to their continent, and "allow Palestinians to decide their own fate and live freely."

Ahmadinejad also hinted that Iran would consider withdrawing from the United Nations nuclear agency if membership produced no benefit.

"What has more than 30 years of membership in the agency given us?" he asked rhetorically at a press conference.

"Working in the framework of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the agency is our concrete policy," he added. "(But) if we see that they are violating our rights, or they don't want to accept (our rights), well, we will revise."

The UN body, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has accused Iran of failing to answer all questions about its nuclear program and reported the country to the Security Council for non-compliance with its demands.

The Security Council has given Iran until Friday to suspend enrichment of uranium, a process that can produce fuel for nuclear reactors material for nuclear warheads. Iran has rejected the demand, arguing it is entitled to the peaceful use of enrichment as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Ahmadinejad often gives long, rambling speeches but Monday was one of the rare occasions when he allowed foreign journalists to question him. He seemed to enjoy the encounter, making jokes and putting questions to the reporters.

In his book Explaining Hitler, Ron Rosenbaum concludes that what made Adolf's Hitler brand of evil different and grander than evils perpetrated by other evil leaders--the Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots who, like Hitler, were responsible for the deaths of millions of people--is the utter relish, the wicked delight which Hitler took in orchestrating the murder of Europe's Jews. It is the dark, cheeky laughter that accompanied the killing--Arbeit Macht Frei about the Auschwitz gate; the veiled language (but decipherable to those in the know) that Hitler used when he knew his words were being recorded for posterity--that distinguishes him from all others. Reading the above, one can't help but think that Hitler didn't die in that Berlin bunker. He's alive and well and living in Moo Jihad. And he's getting set to give the other monotheistic faith that succeeded Judaism a crack at a Jewish genocide.

(Re Moo's jocular encounter with reporters, I wonder if any of those foreign journalists dared to point out the obvious: There's no "lebensraum" for Jews in Europe because of all the Muslims.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:28 | link | comments

It's the ideology, stupid: The woman who crashed a lavish wedding in Amman along with her husband (his suicide belt detonnated, killing scores of revelers; hers was a dud) has gone on trial in Jordan. According to the Ceeb story, Jordanians are hoping she gets the death sentence for her crime, because the terrorism-approved and directed by Jordan's own Abu Musab al-Zarqawi-- has deprived Jordanians of the sense of security they enjoyed prior to the blast.

Some Jordanians are crticial of the government's efforts post-bombing:

Analysts like Abdullah Abu Rumman say Jordan's establishment has failed to drive home the link between the bombings and Zarqawi.

"I think it was a very good chance [for] the government, [for] the media to make propaganda against Zarqawi and his ideas, but they failed," Rumman said.

But some critics (and, apparently, the Ceeb) think they know what's really at the root of Islamic terrorism and, quel surprise, it ain't the jihad:

Critics also say that while Jordan's intelligence agency is working to prevent further attacks, the government isn't doing enough to address the social ills that can turn the disaffected towards militancy.

Ah, yes. If only they could dispel all those nasty "social ills," there would be no need for young people to embrace a holy war to deafeat the infidel.

I suppose it would be churlish to point out that some of those young suicide bombers from Leeds who blew up on the London transit system weren't exactly struggling with any "social ills." They were affluent, had lots of expensive toys and seemed--seemed--well-integrated into society. And yet, they fell under the influence of an ancient siren call--one that had nothing to do with being poor and "disaffected" and everything to do with being in the grip of a compelling, all-consuming, over-arching ideology.

But don't count on Jordan's intelligence agency to make any headway with that "social ill."

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:08 | link | comments

The lesson of the Holocaust: In previous years, we could derive some solace from the idea, whether true or not, that the world had learned a lesson from the Holocaust--a lesson being about irrational hatred of the Jews and the calamitous places it can lead the world. Alas, this year's Holocaust remembrance ceremonies are bereft of such comfort. With Iran on the verge of nuclear capablility and genocidal jihadis--the duly elected choice of Israel's neighbours--perched on Israel's doorstep, the lesson this year seems to be that mankind is as blind, irrational and hateful as ever. From israelinsider:

Israel's consul general in New York said Sunday that the world needs to take a tougher stance with Iran and warned that a "strong" and "determined" Israel will never allow another Jewish Holocaust.

"It's important that the world understands that this is not an Israeli issue, it's a world problem, and the world must stop Iran," Arye Mekel said. "At this time, we would hope that the Security Council of the United Nations would impose economic and political sanctions against Iran. Let's be clear: That country cannot, cannot have nuclear weapons."

Mekel delivered his pointed remarks at Hunter College during the Annual Gathering of Remembrance, which commemorates the deaths of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis in the Holocaust.

Joining Mekel was New York Senator Charles Schumer and U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who also warned about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Israeli officials believe Iran could be just a few years away from obtaining the capability to make nuclear weapons, and they view Iran as a gathering threat.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims his country's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes but has said Israel should be wiped off the map and that the Holocaust didn't happen.

Mekel said Israel will protect Jews from Iran or terrorist groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah.

"We are strong and we are determined, and our youth is as strong as ever in this noble idea of defending the Jewish people and the Jewish state," Mekel said.

Bolton told the crowd of several hundred that Iran gives fresh meaning to the Holocaust and its survivors, many of whom attended Sunday's event with their families.

"When a country like Iran seeks a nuclear weapons capability under the leadership of a man who denies the Holocaust, it is the reason why this prospect of the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction weighs so heavily on the president as he contemplates the risk to the United States and all of its friends and allies but in particular the risk of a second, a nuclear, holocaust," Bolton said.

Schumer also had strong words for Iran, calling Ahmadinejad a "madman." But he warned against other threats to Jews.

"In Europe itself," he said, "we see a vehement double standard against Israel and the Jewish people. We see countries recognizing a government, Hamas, dedicated to killing Jewish women, children and men."

Schumer said there was little difference between the Nazis and Hamas.

Hamas might not use gas like the Nazis, he said, "but the result is the same."...

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:27 | link | comments

If you can't stifle 'em, kill 'em: That was a critical part of the attenuated terrormeister's message as broadcast on Al Jazeera TV yesterday. (An appropriate venue for such declarations since Al Jazeera's website, aljazeera.com, recently hosted a forum providing "insight" into the ongoing threat of Jewish domination as outlined in The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Love how they threw in that extra word--"learned"--just so we'd know that these Elders are also religious scholars, the implication being that Judaism is the threatening faith, what with all our notions of jihad and all.) From Reuters:

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden has called for people who ridiculed the Prophet Mohammad to be killed, weighing into the furore that erupted after a Danish newspaper ran cartoons lampooning Islam's holy messenger.

"Heretics and atheists, who denigrate religion and transgress against God and His Prophet, will not stop their enmity towards Islam except by being killed," the Saudi-born militant said.

Bin Laden's remarks were part of an audio tape which Al Jazeera television aired excerpts from on Sunday. The television station later published a full transcript on its Web site.

The Doha-based satellite television channel had aired excerpts of the tape in which bin Laden accused the West of waging a "Crusader-Zionist" war against Islam, citing the isolation of the Hamas-led Palestinian government and the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region as examples...

The atavistic "justice" of the jihad: No Gulags or Concentration Camps. Just a nasty, brutish and brief encounter with a true believer's sword.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:11 | link | comments

Good morning, Starshine: Another selection from "Hairan: The Shia Tribal Musical":

Good morning, Mahmoud.
The earth says, “lay off!”
Your freaky pronouncements
Are nothing to scoff.

Good morning, Mahmoud.
Unhappy with you.
The mullahs, too, as you sing
The Mahdi’s Armageddon song:

“Glippy glub gloopy
We are so loopy
La la la lo lo.
Got a crazy notion,
Spark a great commotion
Le le le lo lo.
Cannot tell a lie,
Jews deserve to die.
Gonna lob a Shia bomb.”

Good morning, Mahmoud.
You’re makin’ us sweat.
A Shia explosion’s
A fairly safe bet.

Good morning, Mahmoud.
Your jihadi plans
And also Iran’s
Are alarming
Because of what you’re arming.

“Warheads, warheads, warheads,
Worry on our foreheads,
La la la lo lo.
Faster, faster, faster,
Nuclear disaster
Le le le lo lo.
Nihilists so feral,
Mankind they imperil,”--
That’s our plaintive singin’ song.

Lobbing a bomb,
Throwing a bomb,
Aiming a bomb,
Lobbing a bomb.
Tossing a bomb.
Hurling a bomb.
Lob a bomb.
Sob--a bomb!
Lob, lob, lob, lob, lob,
Lob, lob a bomb…

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:24 | link | comments

A spotlight on al jazeera's Jew-hatred: A forum on aljazeera.com offers what it calls "insight" into what Norman Cohn called a "Warrant for Genocide":

Dear Sheikha Sajida,

Very recently I have read the protocols mentioned above. Please let us know if this topic is to be considered genuine?

I appreciate your comments with interest, thank you.

BIBA - Spain.


Dear BIBA,

I remember Winston Churchill once saying of Zionism;

"This movement among the Jews is not new. This world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society has been steadily growing."

Originally, Zionism refers to a group of people called Khazars from southern Russia who adopted Judaism in the 7th century.

“The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”, originally published in Russia around 1897, is a plan outline for world domination that unveils the true intentions and agenda of the Zionist movement and indeed worth discussing, however we need more than one episode to fully cover it.

Briefly; this anti-Semitic and racist literature called Zionist Protocols, is the confidential minutes of meetings of Jewish leaders towards the end of the nineteenth century, where they drew up plans to dominate the world.

"The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion", considered the manual of a centuries old conspiracy seeking world rule, prove that Israel’s political agenda represented in the Zionists’ hegemony over world superpowers, foremost Washington, is dated back to more than a century ago.

The Virtual Jewish Library (VJL) refers to the 25,000 word documents as "the most notorious and most successful work of modern anti-Semitism, [which] draws on popular anti-Semitic notions which have their roots in medieval Europe from the time of the Crusades. The libels that the Jews used blood of Christian children for the Feast of Passover, poisoned the wells and spread the plague were pretexts for the wholesale destruction of Jewish communities throughout Europe. Tales were circulated among the masses of secret rabbinical conferences whose aim was to subjugate and exterminate the Christians, and motifs like these are found in early anti-Semitic literature."

The Protocols, a proven, anti-Semitic plot, set a time-table of about 100 years to achieve the Zionists’ intended goals across the world...

Old Winnie said that, did he? What an odd comment for a philo-Semite to make. It couldn't be that the quote was --what's the word I'm frantically groping for here-- oh, yeah, fabricated?

You'll notice that the Sheika quotes the Virtual Jewish Library--thus making it sound like she's backing up her notions by quoting the Jews themselves. Unfortunately, she seems to have left out the part which confirms that The Protocols is a bogus, thoroughly discredited tract that was cooked up by Czar Nick's police.

I'm bookmarking this link so the next time I hear about how people are pushing to allow al-jihad to air in Canada, I can email the Sheika's "insight" to the proper authorities.

Update: I doubt whether Churchill actually made the anti-Zionist comment, but he is known to have had a few choice words about "Mohammedans":

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

And here is some of what Churchill really had to say on the subject of Zionism (in 1921):

"It is manifestly right that the scattered Jews should have a national center and a national home and be reunited and where else but in Palestine with which for 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated? We think it will be good for the world, good for the British Empire, but also good for the Arabs who dwell in Palestine. . . . They shall share in the benefits and progress of Zionism."

And here's what he wrote in October 1941, in a secret Cabinet minute supporting the partition of Palestine into two state (in defiance of the 1939 White Paper):

"I may say at once that if Britain and the United States emerged victorious from the war, the creation of a GREAT JEWISH STATE in Palestine inhabited by MILLIONS OF JEWS will be one of the LEADING FEATURES of the peace conference discussions."

I guess the Sheika must have quoted that other Winston Churchill--the fabricated one.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:38 | link | comments

Killers and scapegoats: On April 12, a 17-year-old Belgian was murdered in the central train station of Brussels. His killers were said to be a group who looked to be North African. The murder has sent shockwaves through Brussels, much as the murder of Theo van Gogh did in Holland. Today, 80,000 Belgians gathered in Brussels to protest the murder, and, feeling the heat (or as they refer to it, "being scapegoated"), Belgian imams have urged their followers to turn the murderers in to authorities. From Expatica:

Imams in Brussels will urge Muslims during Friday prayers to turn in the killers of Joe Van Holsbeeck to police.

The murder has placed the Belgian Islamic community in a difficult position, given that the two suspects are of North African ancestry.

Since the 12 April murder at Brussels Central, the Muslim community has born the brunt of widespread criticism.

Imams will therefore use Friday's prayers to give a clear anti-violence message, the newspapers from the VUM group reported.

The spiritual leaders will also urge Muslims to turn the suspects over to police.

"Those who know them must not stay silent but make public their identity," the

chairman of the Union of Brussels Mosque Associations, Said Dakkar, said.

The imams will also urge the Islamic community to pray for the family of the murdered 17-year-old.

Brussels imams will also hold an extraordinary meeting on Saturday to discuss the murder.

"A life is life, no matter who it is," Dakkar said, adding that it is a pity the entire Muslim community is again being scapegoated.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to Joe's family.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:03 | link | comments

Little Zbig man: The man Wikipedia describes as "the least popular member of the Carter administration" (yikes--talk about a put down; that's like being the least popular agency of the UN, or the least popular member of the Hamas cabinet) thinks the U.S. should hold off on taking any pre-emptive action against Iran. And, as the man who thought it would be good strategy to arm the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski knows a lot about bad ideas. From the L.A. Times:

...Iran has the objective preconditions in terms of education, the place of women in social affairs, and in social aspirations (especially of the youth) to emulate in the foreseeable future the evolution of Turkey. The mullahs are Iran's past, not its future; it is not in our interest to engage in acts that help to reverse that sequence.

Serious negotiations require not only a patient engagement but also a constructive atmosphere. Artificial deadlines, propounded most often by those who do not wish the U.S. to negotiate in earnest, are counterproductive. Name-calling and saber rattling, as well as a refusal to even consider the other side's security concerns, can be useful tactics only if the goal is to derail the negotiating process.

The United States should join Britain, France and Germany, as well as perhaps Russia and China (both veto-casting U.N. Security Council members), in direct negotiations with Iran, using the model of the concurrent multilateral talks with North Korea. As it does with North Korea, the U.S. also should simultaneously engage in bilateral talks with Iran about security and financial issues of mutual concern.

It follows that the U.S. should be a signatory party to any quid pro quo arrangements in the event of a satisfactory resolution of the Iranian nuclear program and of regional security issues. At some point, such talks could lead to a regional agreement for a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East — especially after the conclusion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement — endorsed also by all the Arab states of the region. At this stage, however, it would be premature to inject that complicated issue into the negotiating process with Iran.

For now, our choice is either to be stampeded into a reckless adventure profoundly damaging to long-term U.S. national interests or to become serious about giving negotiations with Iran a genuine chance. The mullahs were on the skids several years ago but were given a new burst of life by the intensifying confrontation with the United States. Our strategic goal, pursued by real negotiations and not by posturing, should be to separate Iranian nationalism from religious fundamentalism.

Treating Iran with respect and within a historical perspective would help to advance that objective. American policy should not be swayed by the current contrived atmosphere of urgency ominously reminiscent of what preceded the misguided intervention in Iraq.

Thanks, Zbig, for that Chamberlainesque take on how to deal with megalomaniacal totalitarians. I'll be sure to give you a high five up in Heaven--the place we'll all be headed to if anyone in Washington decides to listen to your sage advice.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:29 | link | comments

Time on his hands : There's one good thing about living in a cave. It gives you lots and lots of time to come up with colourful turns of language. Like, for instance, conflating the other two Abrahamaic religions--the ones you think your religion supercedes--and putting the original monotheists on top. From the CBC:

The West's rejection of the Palestinian Hamas-led government is a "Zionist crusade," says a new audiotape said to be from al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In the tape, broadcast by Al-Jazeera television on Sunday, the speaker said the decision to cut funding to the Palestinian Authority proves the West is at war with Islam.

The authenticity of the tape could not be immediately confirmed...

The other good thing about living in a cave is that it gives you lots of time to consider who your friends are. And, since vultures of a feather like to prey (and pray) together, there's no surprise that Osama would be laden with praise for the genocidal jihadis trying to supercede the uppity Jews back into dhimmitude, or better yet from their perspective, into death.

We know the reluctant spelunkerer is keeping up with the times, though. Not only because of the reference to Hamas's travails, but because he referenced the most recent episode of American Idol. I have it one good authority that the audiotape included the following message: "I implore the faithful not to vote for that Kelly Pickler. She caused grievous injury to the eardrums during her last outing, and she had the mental acuity of radish. Also, she is a brazen harlot, what with her uncovered hair and her wanton ways and her pert little figure, poured into those whoresome outfits.  Reminds me of Mrs. Osama bin Laden number five, but younger, blonder and with a firmer booty. Why, what I wouldn't give to make her Mrs. Osama bin Laden number eight. Or is it nine? Hard to keep track. It's not like I have them all living in one compound just now, like that Mormon guy on that Big Love show. When I asked them to come live me they said (voice in falsetto), 'Live in a cave? Who do you think we are--Wilma Flintstone?'. (Voice returns to normal pitch.) Hey, maybe HBO could make a reality show about my life. They could call it No Love. I could really use the extra shekels..."

The tape ran out at that point, but I have a feeling that, even as I type, Osama's on the blower to his agent, trying to set things up.

Update: It looks like the "love" doesn't flow both ways. From Fox News:

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — The Islamic militant group Hamas on Sunday said its ideology is vastly different from Al Qaeda's after new threats by Usama bin Laden but noted that international sanctions on the Hamas-led Palestinian government would naturally cause anger among some Muslims.

In his first message in three months, bin Laden said in an audiotape that the West's decision to cut off funds to the Palestinians because their Hamas leaders refuse to recognize Israel proved that the United States and Europe were conducting "a Zionist crusader war on Islam."

In response, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said "the ideology of Hamas is totally different from the ideology of Sheik bin Laden." But he also added that the "international siege on the Palestinian people" would create tension in the Arab and Islamic world.

In the past, Hamas leaders have distanced themselves from Al Qaeda, saying their struggle is only against Israel and does not fit into the worldwide radical Islamic effort.

"It's natural that this tension is going to create an impression that there is a Western-Israeli alliance working against the Palestinians," Abu Zuhri said, adding that Hamas is interested in having good relations with the West.

Sure, 'cause if you take the al Qaeda route, you'll end up sitting in a cave with no wives, lusting after Kelly Pickler via satellite.

As for that "vastly different" ideology the Hamasnik mentions--it's true that Hamas and al Qaeda seem to have a different modus operendi, but it's mostly a matter of scale rather than kind. Both are devoted to the jihad, but while Hamas may think globally, it acts locally. Conversely, al Qaeda is more of a "big picture" kind of  outfit.

Update: As an example of Hamas's local focus, here's an interview with the new interior minister, in which he describes his regime's primary concern: From YNet News:

"We have only one enemy. They are Jews. We have no other enemy. I will continue to carry the rifle and pull the trigger whenever required to defend my people," said Jamal Abu Samhadana, appointed to the role of Director General of the Palestinian interior ministry. Abu Samhadana was later thrown out by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, but Hamas refused to recognize the move and kept the appointment.

Abu Samhadana, a commander of the Popular Resistance Committee, is one of the most senior wanted suspects in the territories, who stands at the head of the Qassam rocket attacks on Israel in recent months. Under his new role, Samhadana rules some of the Palestinian security bodies, and he says he does not plan to end attacks on Israel.

In an interview published in the British Sunday Telegraph, Abu Samhadana said: "The resistance must continue. This will be the nucleus of the future Palestinian army," he said...

Update: And as an example of Osama's global mindset, he's calling for a jihad in Darfur.

You mean they don't have one there already?

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:37 | link | comments

Gaza rumble: The Sharks and the Jets are mixing it up in their nascent Vaterland again. From the BBC:

Several people have been hurt in Gaza City in clashes between rival groups of students supporting ruling Palestinian party Hamas or their opponents, Fatah.
The two sides fought around their campuses, throwing stones and homemade explosives and exchanging gunfire.

Relations between the two factions have worsened since Hamas came to power.

On Friday, Palestinian Authority president and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas vetoed Hamas government plans for a new militia security force.

Plot claims

Mr Abbas' decision brought searing condemnation from Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal who talked of a plot against the Hamas administration.

Outraged Fatah supporters staged a number demonstrations in Gaza and the West Bank to demand an apology.

The BBC's Alan Johnston in Gaza says an Egyptian envoy has stepped in to try to calm tensions, organising talks between the two sides which began on Saturday.

At least 15 people were wounded in the fighting in Gaza City, which involved students from two of the city's universities - al-Azhar University, which is dominated by Fatah, and the Islamic University, dominated by Hamas...

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:19 | link | comments

Hydra in plain sight:

An editor of two Muslim weeklies says the Bush administration has gone woefully wrong by focusing on only front on the war on Islamic terrorism—the one in Iraq—and honing in on only one facet of terrorism—the one involving al Qaeda. Tasbih Sayyed says it's a terrible miscalculation, because it allows terrorism and terror regimes to blossom in other regions, most notably, in Hamas’s Palestine. Sayyed notes that the enemy is like a hydra, and there’s little point in expending all your energy lopping off one head; you must confront the entire beast. From israelinsider:

One doesn't have to be terribly smart to appreciate why the war on terrorism is not going so well: Believing that Iraq is the main front, the war planners have dedicated a major portion of their resources to fight the insurgency in Iraq and have ignored the other power centers of the Islamist terror like Palestinian Authority Territories. This gross miscalculation on the part of the coalition strategists has enabled the other terrorist groups like Hamas not only to continue with their atrocities but has also allowed them a very valuable opportunity to learn from their partner's experiences in Iraq.

The United States of America that launched this campaign and took upon itself to mobilize and lead the international community against the Islamist scourge has to bear the responsibility for this failure. It is treating the enemy as if it has only one face -- Al Qaeda -- and one front - Iraq. Bush, who has repeatedly said that Iraq is ?our main front in our war against terror," is also seems to be convinced that the war on radical Islam will be won just by defeating Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

This simple-hearted approach has helped the enemy tremendously: The Arab terrorist group, Hamas, in the Jewish Palestine, Taliban in Afghanistan and fascists like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran have emerged as the immediate beneficiary of the U.S.'s misguided policies in the Middle East. Radical Islamists using their strongholds in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Syria and PA territories have cast the U.S. campaign in Iraq as a crusade. That helped Hamas and Iran's President Ahmadinejad in winning their elections. They have not only won the elections but have also renewed their call for the destruction of the Jewish State.

Failure to fathom the true nature and reach of the Islamist threat by Washington prevented it from adopting a uniformed policy against all the different heads of a unified and universally connected Hydra. Even the post-September 11, 2001 awareness could not pull the only super power out of its pre-September 11, 2001 slumber. It remained selective in identifying the enemy and ignored some vital terrorist bases like Palestinian Authority territories, from where the terrorists operate with impunity.

The world has to understand that Hamas' agenda of destroying the Jewish State is part of the same Islamist ideology that has an unalterable objective to enslave the whole world. It has many faces and many fronts. And all of these faces and fronts are equally important in this war on terrorism. They have to be attacked simultaneously and with equal force. Just cutting off one head of the Islamist serpent and letting others to grow unimpeded will only result in the eventual victory for the enemy. Bush has to realize that in this war, saving Israel is as important as saving Iraq: Insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is strategically and tactically linked with Hamas' terrorism in the Jewish lands of Palestine...

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:53 | link | comments

Breaking news: Four Canadian soldiers have been killed in a roadside bomb near Kandahar, Afghanistan. Count on this to lead to an even greater outcry that Prime Minister Stephan Harper bring the troops home before any more Canadians get killed.

Update: Canada's Defence Minister says "the terrorists" won't chase Canada away. From the CBC:

The bomb attack that killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan Saturday will not deter Canada from its mission, military officials said.

"We're not going to let the terrorists win," Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor told reporters Saturday.

Brig-Gen. David Fraser called the fallen soldiers 'outstanding Canadians.' (Canadian Press)
It's in Canada's national interest "to prevent Afghanistan from reverting to a safe haven for terrorists and their destructive networks," he said in a statement.

"Our troops on the ground are protecting Canada."

Spokesman Maj. Quentin Innis said the incident won't affect the coalition force's commitment to Afghanistan, but the military will take a look at its drills and procedures and make improvements.

I'm glad the Minister is calling them "terrorists" and not soft-peddling them or their actions by calling them "activists" or "militants" or any of the other obfuscatory weasel words commonly employed by the CBC and other mainstream media outlets. Still, I'm waiting for someone in government to take the next bold leap forward and refer to the terrorists by their more accurate appellation: jihadi terrorists.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:40 | link | comments

Murphy explains Hitler: In his Globe and Mail column, Rex Murphy notes “this week was stained by the bleakest of anniversaries”, the birth of Adolf Hitler. Murphy goes on, to the best of his ability within the brief space alotted, to cogitate on the nature and meaning of Hitler. Does he represent the most profound evil mankind has ever faced, or can he be placed alongside a whole slew of evil-doers, including his contemporary, Joseph Stalin, and, later, Cambodian butcher, Pol Pot?

Needless to say, it’s not a question that can be answered in such a brief amount of space, or, indeed, in spaces that have much more Lebensraum, like, say, Ian Kershaw’s two volume biography. Hitler was, is and remains a cipher, a man who has been subjected to so many different explications (see Ron Rosenbaum’s Explaining Hitler for a summary of the explanations, as well as the “’splainers”, a colourful, querulous, quarrelsome lot, academics mostly, with the odd crank—i.e. David Irving—thrown in for good, or should that be bad?, measure) and yet manages to remain forever elusive. Is he Hugh Trevor-Roper’s mesmerising true believer? Alan Bullock’s cynical mountebank (later modified to incorporate elements of Trevor-Roper’s mesmeriser)? Is he the product of a particularly virulent strain of indiginous, endemic Jew-hatred, combined with a particular kind of national character, which resulted in Germans becoming his willing executioners, as Daniel Jonah Goldhagen posits? The fruit of a New Testament suffused with hatred for Jews in general and Judas—the despised betrayal of Jesus and the representative of all Jewry—in particular, the theory advanced by Hyam Macoby? Did he turn to a life of evil because (pick one) a billy goat kicked him in the cherries, irreparably damaging his goods; he was born with only one testicle (or had two, but suffered from a medical condition wherein one of them appeared and disappeared on an irregular and unpredictable basis (speculation about Hitler’s testicle being almost as rife--and the errant gonad being almost as elusive--as the man himself); he feared his father had Jewish blood; he witnessed a Jewish doctor attending the horrifically painful death of his beloved mother; he was in love with his half-brother’s daughter, Geli Raubal, and became deranged when she “killed herself” (or he had her killed because she was in love with a Jewish music teacher, and was about to run away to marry him)?

There are more theories, much more speculation, much of it fascinating, some of it specious and, ultimately, none of it sufficient to resolve the question: what was it that made Hitler Hitler? How can we account for the man he was and the evil he wrought?

Certainly, such a question is beyond the ability of Rex Murphy to answer in a single column, although he does give it the old college try:

Perhaps the best disguise that evil wears is its mundaneness, the dim ordinariness of capacity or intellect (Arendt's “banality”) of those who carry it into the world. The great slaughterers were not geniuses, not great minds put to murderous intent. Hitler was the very definition of boring, an uneducated scattershot mind, empty of most curiosity, a vessel of received half-ideas, of little taste and — save for two areas — less competence.

Those exceptions were his powers of platform demagogy and his fund of boundless and intense hatred. Hitler hated more firmly and comprehensively than perhaps the rest of us have the imagination to sketch. Hatred was the fuel of his ambition, the energy behind the demagoguery and the purpose of his life.

And, alas, gets it wrong, resorting to the Arendtian nonsense of banal evil, which, as Arendt wrote it, didn’t refer to Hitler himself, but to the supposed “banality” of functionaries like Adolf Eichmann, project manager of Holocaust, who kept the Henry Ford-like assembly line of death ticking along in good working order, turning out corpses instead of cars. I don’t recall Arendt ever suggesting that Hitler himself was “banal”. And while, intellectually, Hitler was no genius, one must concede that he had a type of genius—a genius for knowing what buttons to push with the German people to get them to follow his lead. To dismiss that genius by calling him boring and mundane is more than inaccurate; it is bad history.

As for Hitler having "little taste”—again, I think Murphy gets it wrong. While Hitler may have had what you and I would term bad taste—all those grandiose edifices, all those hideous paintings—he did have a genuine aesthetic. (I was going to mention his obsession with Wagner’s operas here, but, unaccountably, many people consider them to be the height of artistry.) Indeed, whole books have been written about how aesthetics informed both his ambition and his leadership. He was a man who envisioned a Thousand Year Reich not only to impose political dominion over the world, but also to impose an aesthetic one.

Murphy continues his explication:

Anti-Semitism was the hatred's chosen vehicle, anti-Semitism, which may properly be called the emotion of those who have no other emotions, the demonic parody of human emotion. It could be thought that with such an exemplar as Hitler, and with the fully awful demonstration of its corrosiveness that his tyrannical career has supplied the world, anti-Semitism would now be vanished from the world.

But that is not the case. It rages still. Even within the week of Hitler's anniversary, the President of Iran spoke of Israel as “a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm” and, last fall, announced to the world that “Israel should be annihilated.” Whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, pursuing nuclear weapons for Iran, is or is not a new Hitler is not a point upon which I want to speculate.

That he dances with the same furies and hate is, I think, beyond speculation.

I like how he draws a direct line from Hitler to Ahmadinejad. I am less pleased with his refusal to consider whether or not he represents the same kind of threat as Hitler. As far as I’m concerned, that, and not what made Hitler Hitler, is the key issue we must concern ourselves with at the moment—how Hitler’s Jew-hatred, that eternal hatred, has infested the Muslim world and become entwined with an agenda of jihad, and how, once again, such hatred threatens Jews and all of Western civilization. If we don’t look this problem square in the face, right now, we may not have the luxury “to speculate” about it in future.

Noted theologian Emil Fackenheim, one of the explainers in Rosenbaum’s book, has said that we are not allowed to hand Hitler any posthumous victories. By refusing to speculate about the true nature of Ahmadinejad and his nuclear, religiously-fueled totalitarian dreams, I fear we are doing just that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:33 | link | comments

Fiddling while the WTC burns: A disgusting image, no? It's the winner of the anti-Semitic cartoon contest. No, not the Iranian one. The one intended to be tongue-in-cheek and sponsored by an Israeli cartoonist. (Art Spiegelman, of Maus fame, was one of the judges).

You can view a gallery of the the nine "also-rans" here.

It strikes me that these images are far worse than the Danish 'toons which caused all that commotion a few months ago, the reverberations of which we are still feeling today. Also, while they are meant "satirically", they would not be out of place in any number of Muslim publications, and are not dissimilar to some of the contestants in Iran's anti-Semitic 'toon contest.

Then again, after reading the Der Spiegel piece,  I'm not too sure if they were meant satirically. The people in charge of the contest seem to be gripped by the kind of deep-seeded self-loathing which can sometimes turn Jews into Kosher anti-Semites (the title of the piece; again, is that supposed to be satirical?):

(Israeli cartoonist Avital) Sandy had expected worse. In the end, he was "almost a little disappointed that nobody really got upset." After all, the cartoons he posted on the Internet included all well-known Jewish clichés -- Jews as exploiters, blood-suckers, swindlers, war mongers and conspirators thirsting for world domination. "The contest for the best anti-Semitic cartoon was a demonstration of strength and self confidence," he said in justification. "Before the others point their finger at us, we'll do it ourselves and funnier. We're kosher anti-Semites."

Of the approximately 150 cartoons submitted, about a third were disqualified. Not because of content, but because of "poor quality." Some artists made fun of Jesus or Muhammad "and that wasn't our intent." The remaining 100 will be exhibited in a Tel Aviv gallery beginning May 20 and can also be looked at on the Internet.

A good Israeli

Amitai Sandy, who says he belongs to the "extreme Israeli left" and recently voted for the Communist Hada list, feels he's still a good Israeli.

"As an artist I have a lot more leeway in Israel than in any other country -- nobody censors me, nobody threatens me," he says. He participates in demonstrations against the construction of the wall that will separate Israeli and Palestinian areas and exhibits with Palestinian artists. He doesn't care whether his contest plays right into the hands of anti-Semites. "They don't need me," he says. "They have enough ideas on their own."

And so he quietly, and with a trained eye, reviews the truly anti-Semitic cartoons on www.irancartoon.com. Some, he admits, "are really well done." While mostly amateurs took part in his contest for the best anti-Semitic cartoon, many professionals were among the 181 participants from 42 countries (including Russia, Switzerland and the US) that took part in the official Iranian contest.

Now Sandy's hoping that the Palestinians can learn from the contest and someday sponsor the best anti-Palestinian cartoon contest. "That would be a sign of political maturity," he says. "But if someone tried that today, they'd have to fear for their life."

So in fact, I admit to being confused. If these images were meant to lampoon the ones on offer every day in Jew-hating arenas, then I don't really have a problem with them. If, however, they are examples of self-loathers trying to outdo other Jew-loathers--a kind of anti-Semitic pissing contest--then I most definitely do have a problem.

Not that I'm planning to go on a rampage and torch embassies or anything.

Then again, if you can't really tell the difference between the "truly" anti-Semitic 'toons and the satirical anti-Semitic 'toons (if indeed, they are meant satirically), don't you run the risk of the "truly" hateful using your satirical images for hateful purposes?

Okay, I'll stop now before my head explodes.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:22 | link | comments

Happy Birthday, Q.E. II: You have to admire a woman who's stuck to the same hairdo for more than half a century. Clearly, she's someone who's comfortable with her own image. (Unlike, say, Cherie Blair.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:16 | link | comments

Sucking it up sucks: When you're not winning any popularity contests, it's nice, once in a while, to bask in some approbation. These days, the two least popular kids in the internationalist High School are Israel and the U.S. and, as Caroline Glick notes, the only way they win approval of the "cool kids" in the international community is to endure attacks from their enemies without fighting back. So in the days following 9/11 and before the U.S. took decisive actio and chased out the Taliban who were harbouring bin Laden and his terror gang, the world was caught up in a vertitable love-fest for the wounded giant. And most recently, Israel seems to think the world is feeling all warm and fuzzy about it for refraining from hitting back after the Islamic terror attack in Tel Aviv.

As Ms. Glick writes, approbation that hinges on a willingness to "suck it up" and withstand the murder of ones' citizens comes at far too high a price. It is not the kind of approval anyone should be seeking. Moreover, it could result in the kind of paralysis we now see--serious provocations from Hamas and Iran resulting in an utter confusion about what to do next. From the Jerusalem Post:

In the aftermath of Monday's massacre in Tel-Aviv, IDF commanders recommended that the government officially recognize reality and declare the Palestinian Authority an enemy entity. They argued that such a declaration would facilitate IDF targeting of PA institutions, leaders and military forces that are presently transitioning to Hamas rule.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his colleagues Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz rejected the army's recommendation, arguing that they wish to preserve the international support they claim Israel now enjoys in the aftermath of the massacre (although with Italy's incoming leader Romano Prodi chatting on the phone with Ismail Haniyeh and British Foreign Minister Jack Straw expressing his deep desire to speak with Hamas, it is unclear what international support they are referring to). Rather than strike the PA, our leaders announced their intention to seek a UN condemnation of the attack.

Yet even assuming that Israel now enjoys some level of international support, the government's decision still raises the question: What good is that support if to preserve it Israel is required to refrain from taking actions that could protect its citizens from massacre? The government's preference for international declarations of sympathy over national security indicates that our leaders are in the grips of a deep conceptual confusion over what its actual responsibilities are.

But Israel's leaders are not unique in their confusion. Over the past few years another country targeted with international calumny for its actions against the global jihad has confused its desire for international support with its responsibility to safeguard its national security and international interests. This country is the United States.

Over the past few months not a day has gone by without Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad letting loose some threat against the US, Israel or global security. Barely a day has gone by without Tehran taking some action to show how desperately the mullahs need to be taught some manners by the 101st Airborne or Golani.

Given Tehran's constant provocations and the seriousness of the threat it poses to international security, it would make sense for states to be lining up to support US action against Iran. And yet today not even Britain is willing to support the use of force against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile facilities. The question is why. How is it that aside from Israel, no state today is willing to contend with the obvious danger emanating from Tehran?

IN A nutshell, the reason that the international community is unable to contend with the threat Iran poses to international security is because today's dominant international institutions are constituted in a manner that protects those who endanger international security at the expense of those they target with aggression...

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:39 | link | comments

Their own private Wehrmacht: Even though Hamas is a novice at running an entire regime, it's had tons of experience in other areas. Thinking up ways to blow up Jews, for example--the genocidal jihadis have great depth in that area. Thus, when it came time to appoint a new security chief, it didn't take long for Hamas to find the perfect candidate--a guy who's been working in the area of Jew-explosion for years; a terrorist, in fact. From ABC News Online:

The Hamas-run Palestinian Authority has announced it is forming a new security force comprised of members of the group's military wing.

The Interior Minister has also appointed a senior militant leader wanted by Israel to lead the Palestinian security services.

Jamal Abu Samhadana is the founder and leader of the Popular Resistance Committees, a group responsible for dozens of attacks against Israel and the bombing of a US embassy convoy in Gaza three years ago.

Israel has tried to kill Mr Samhadana several times.

The wanted militant has been put in charge of the Palestinian police and security forces, and told to spearhead the restoration of law and order in Gaza.

The Palestinian Interior Minister Saeed Seyam has also announced the creation of a new security force which will be comprised of members of Hamas's military wing, a decision certain to outrage Israel.

The sight of the new Hamas executive can't help but induce feelings of nostalgia (the black, stomach-turning kind): The world hasn't seen such a collection of thugs and killers in charge of a democratically elected regime since the Nazis came to power.

Update: The Guardian approves of the move:

Last week, there was a "reverse honour crime" of sorts in Gaza. A man was found murdered in Gaza City after being accused of molesting a young girl (reverse, I say, because usually it works the other way around). The crime was immediately decried by local human rights organisations and people alike.

But when there is no one around to enforce the law - or rather, no one able to enforce the law, other than verbal condemnations - there is little else that can be done. If the accused was jailed, his family would have inevitably intervened, hiring gunmen to break him out or taking it out against another member of his family. It's a vicious cycle. Citizens don't feel accountable and law enforcers are impotent.

In Gaza, we have become accustomed to the rule of lawlessness. And people are sick of it - in fact 84% according to a recent poll, place internal security as their number priority.

This is not to say that gangs and armed gunmen somehow roam the streets as in some bad western, as the mainstream media would make it seem. But for sure, it is brawn and bullets that win the day, and decide everything from family disputes to basic criminal proceedings.

The bigger problem is what to do when the law enforcers themselves are the ones breaking the law.

Last week 50 masked gunmen belonging to the preventive security forces blockaded off the main street between northern and southern Gaza demanding jobs and wages, as they have become accustomed to doing over the past few years (though the mass media would have us assume otherwise, citing the incident as "the first sign" of frustration with the new government).

It is the same old group that has always made trouble, whether for Mahmoud Abbas or Ismail Haniya, and is effectively supported by Mohammed Dahlan. He fondly refers to it in his inner circles as "little army". Hamas and others accuse them of being a "minority" attempting to stir up trouble and gain political capital.

Many of them belong to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (AMB), Fatah's rogue offshoot.

The AMB constitute one of the biggest security challenges to Hamas. They are loyal to Fatah but seemingly answerable to no one, and a contingent of them are supported by very strong figures who want nothing else but to see this new government fail.

So what is Hamas to do? For one, form their own security force.

Do you get the feeling that the Guardian sees Hamas as "the good guys"--the men in white hats come to clean out the riff-raff and bring order to Dodge City?

And isn't that about the most reprehensible suggestion you've ever heard?

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:17 | link | comments

Looking for a heavenly hand-out: So far, Hamas's "friends" have failed to cough up the cash it needs to keep from going under. Qatar, Russia, Iran--you name it, their bucks have yet to arrive. Now, facing almost certain financial catastrophe, Hamas has decided to depend on what the old Hebrew National commercials used to refer to as "a higher authority." From the CBC:

The finance minister in the Hamas-led Palestinian government is hoping God comes through with a way to let him pay the salaries of 165,000 workers whose paycheques are three weeks overdue.

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has vowed that his government would survive the suspension of aid.

"For the first time, I find myself in such a dilemma, but I hope that God will provide a solution," Omar Abdel Razek said in an interview with the Associated Press on Thursday.

The finance minister said the authority needs $160 million US a month to cover government workers' wages and operating expenses...

If the genocidal jihadis manage to scam some lucre from their despicable pals, I think a far less lofty Deity should get the credit.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:30 | link | comments

Enabling the Apocalypse: Iran is on track to produce nuclear weapons--if Russia has anything to do with it, that is. And it seems it does, it does. From the Jersualem Post

Russia on Thursday rejected a US call for Moscow to end its cooperation with Iran in constructing the Bushehr nuclear power plant, the Foreign Ministry said.

"The adoption of a commitment on ending cooperation with this or that state in some sphere lies exclusively in the competence of the UN Security Council," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement. "Up to now, the Security Council has taken no decision on ending cooperation with Iran in nuclear energy."...

"Competence" isn't the word I would have used: "Incompetence," more like. And if we have to depend on the Security Council's incompetence to save us from nuclear mullahs, all our proverbial geese are going to be well and truly cooked.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:02 | link | comments

Sing a song of jihad: The lead editorial in the Times Online calls for "moderate" imams to be trained in the U.K.:

Our report that Muslims training to be imams at a college with links to Iran are using texts describing unbelievers as “filth” is deeply disturbing. Imams play a vital role in the spiritual education of young British Muslims. The example they set to thousands of young people attending mosques out of school hours is of utmost importance. What they teach, what attitudes they inculcate and how they prepare young Muslims for life in Britain is vital not only to the Muslim community in Britain, now numbering almost two million; it will largely determine whether attempts to reconcile Islam with life in Britain succeed or whether a new generation is alienated, embittered and religiously adrift, perceiving only conflict with the society and values around it.

Much attention has understandably been given to the role of imams since the London bombings. There is evidence that it was at their mosques and in meetings with radicalised preachers that the young Muslims who committed the atrocities last year developed their religious extremism. This is one reason why the Government has, belatedly, stopped issuing visas for imams from Pakistan and Bangladesh who speak no English and have no conception of life in the West. Some, in their profound ignorance, preach only the crudest extremism. It is also abundantly clear, from the trial of Abu Hamza al-Masri, that those wanting to spread a message of hatred focus first on gaining control of their local mosque as a platform to extend their malign influence over the community, especially its vulnerable young men.

There have been concerted efforts, mainly by Muslims themselves, to improve the training of imams. The problem, though, is one of funding. In Muslim countries, training traditionally begins early — at the age of 11 or 12, when boys are sent to Koranic schools for education in Islamic jurisprudence and those other areas essential to Muslim scholarship. Half a dozen such schools exist in Britain. But these do not offer a general education beyond GCSE, and cannot compare with seminaries taking in students at 18 or beyond. Local authorities do not offer grants for study in those few institutions, such as the Muslim College founded by the late Sheikh Zaki Badawi, training imams post-A level.

The way is thus open for institutions funded from abroad to establish colleges purporting to supply British Muslims with trained imams. But there is ample room for abuse. Any college in this sensitive area must be fully open to inspection. It is not enough simply to register an institution with the Charity Commission, which has neither the expertise nor the responsibility to vet the courses. These must be approved by the Department for Education, and their teaching materials must not contravene either laws on religious incitement or standards of decency accepted by British society. The funding must be transparent, so that if a country, such as Iran, provides the bulk of the money and inspiration, this should be known by applicants. No college should be able to produce apparent jihadists.

Muslims have a right to demand the highest standards of imams, just as Christians should be confident in the training of their clergy. It is not enough for the State just to denounce extremists; it should bolster appropriate education for Muslim preachers, monitor religious colleges; and where they are malign, close them down.

The Times has obviously concluded that the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the text, but in the training. If only England could engender some homegrown imams, ones who haven't been ruined by exposure to foreign--and extreme--influences, the problems would disappear. As Robert Spencer is wont to say, there are moderate Muslims (although where they are is often a mystery) but Islam is not a moderate faith. Thus, it probably matters very little where the imam receives his training. What matters, as always, is the jihad ideology embedded in the Koran which commands believers to extend the ummah's reach. This ambition can be achieved through peaceful means, like the ballot box and demographics, or warlike ones, like combat and terrorism. The Brits may think that by cracking down on the latter, they can, like Katie Holmes (see post below) relax. In the words of Jewish chanteuse, Carole King, "It's too late, baby"--even with such a crackdown, their future is most probably Eurabian. 

And in the words of Canadian warbler, Joni Mitchell, "Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you got till it's gone?"

Update: The same edition of the Times has a story about what some Shia Muslim students in Britain are learning these days. Their studies seem to de-emphasize all those peaceful, tolerant precepts we always hear so much about:

MUSLIM students training to be imams at a British college with strong Iranian links have complained that they are being taught fundamentalist doctrines which describe nonMuslims as “filth”.

The Times has obtained extracts from medieval texts taught to the students in which unbelievers are likened to pigs and dogs. The texts are taught at the Hawza Ilmiyya of London, a religious school, which has a sister institution, the Islamic College for Advanced Studies (ICAS), which offers a degree validated by Middlesex University.

The students, who have asked to remain anonymous, study their religious courses alongside the university-backed BA in Islamic studies. They spend two days a week as religious students and three days on their university course.

The Hawza Ilmiyya and the ICAS are in the same building at Willesden High Road, northwest London — a former Church of England primary school — and share many of the same teaching staff.

They have a single fundraising arm, the Irshad Trust, one of the managing trustees of which is Abdolhossein Moezi, an Iranian cleric and a personal representative of Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme religious leader...

The text that has upset some students is the core work in their Introduction to Islamic Law class and was written by Muhaqqiq al-Hilli, a 13thcentury scholar. The Hawza Ilmiyya website states that “the module aims to familiarise the student with the basic rules of Islamic law as structured by al-Hilli”.

Besides likening unbelievers to filth, the al-Hilli text includes a chapter on jihad, setting down the conditions under which Muslims are supposed to fight Jews and Christians.

The text is one of a number of books that some students say they find “disturbing” and “very worrying”. Their spokesman told The Times: “They are being exposed to very literalist interpretations of the Koran. These are interpretations that would not be recognised by 80 or 90 per cent of Muslims, but they are being taught in this school.

I think the spokesman is being a bit--okay, a whole lot--disingenuous about the percentage of Muslims who wouldn't recognize such teachings. As Robert Spencer points out on JihadWatch, such lessons aren't exactly fringe; they represent mainstream Shia thinking.

Spencer quotes some salient passages from the al-Hilli text:

‘The water left over in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever’

‘There are ten types of filth and impurities: urine, faeces, semen, carrion, blood of carrion, dogs, pigs, disbelievers’

‘When a dog, a pig, or a disbeliever touches or comes in contact with the clothes or body [of a Muslim] while he [the disbeliever] is wet, it becomes obligatory- compulsory upon him [the Muslim] to wash and clean that part which came in contact with the disbeliever’

No wonder they don't want us touching their holy book (without wearing gloves, I mean).

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments (2)

Straw's infamy: On the occasion of Queen Elizabeth's 80th birthday I'd like to say, "God save the Queen" (in part because the alternative is too unpleasant to contemplate). And may the Deity give Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary of her much diminished nation, his just desserts for being such a craven scoundrel. From the Jerusalem Post:

British Ambassador to Israel Simon McDonald stressed on Thursday that there was no change in British policy towards contact with Hamas. "We still believe in the three conditions outlined by the Quartet," said McDonald. "Hamas must recognize Israel's right to exist, give up violence and abide by existing agreements."

He said that until that happened Britain would not be in contact with the Hamas leadership.

McDonald went on to say that the recent terror attack and subsequent justification by Hamas that it was act of self defense, was "dreadful" and "completely unacceptable," echoing Prime Minister Tony Blair's statement in parliament on Wednesday.

"I hope very much that members of Hamas realize that those who kill innocent people in this way are wicked and irresponsible," added the British ambassador.

Earlier on Thursday, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had claimed that since Hamas now headed the PA government Britain wanted to maintain normal relations with them "as we did with the previous government."

During his visit to Riddyah, Saudi Arabia, Straw added that he would demand in any case that Hamas meet the requirements of the international community - to stop terror, recognize Israel, and honor existing agreements between Israel and the PA - but softened his stance by saying that he would be satisfied with the group "accepting" the existence of the Jewish state, and would not insist that Hamas make a formal statement recognizing Israel.

Straw arrived Tuesday in Saudi Arabia to take part in a conference devoted to bilateral relations.

Straw will attend the "Two Kingdoms' Conference," which begins Wednesday, and is expected to deliver a speech on relations between Britain and Saudi Arabia as well as his government's view on bringing peace to the Middle East.

Straw met Crown Prince Sultan on arrival, and was expected to meet King Abdullah during his visit.

Anyone who thinks "normal relations" are possible--or desirable--with genocidal jihadis deserves the Neville Chamberlain Award for Historical Stupidity (and stupidity of historical proportions). Straw has sold out the Jews for some oil.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:45 | link | comments

The hard part begins: There has been far too much fanfare about the birth of Tom Cruise's bambino, much of it the result of his own bizarre behaviour. (Sonogram machines? Placenta ingention? Tirades and couch bouncing on the tube? Some little Scientologist needs to Get. A. Grip.) So I promise to strive from now on to avoid any mention of Tom, Katie, their unfortunately named child and any and all combinations of the three.

As soon as I post this:

If Katie Holmes managed to give birth to TomKitten in silence, in keeping with the Church of Scientology's teachings, she at least had a little help - from a painkilling epidural.

Tom Cruise, 43, had earlier said his fiancée could have an epidural if she needed one, and the 27-year-old actress opted for the shot, People magazine reported.

"Everything is fine, and Katie can relax now," a source close to Holmes' family told the magazine...

If only.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:27 | link | comments

When the going gets tough, the fearful, foolish and hateful blame the Jews: Suzanne Fields on the RealClear Politics site has a piece about Jew-hatred, that eternal emnity. She notes how it seems to resurface whenever times get tough, which, on our benighted planet, is far too frequently for this Jew's taste:

When things go bad, blame the Jews. This is the chorus with many verses, sung often throughout history. The latest verse, reverberating now through the media and the faculty lounges, was written by two professors who have discovered that Israel, which shares certain enemies with the United States, cultivates friendships in America.

The professors, John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, have stirred accusations of anti-Semitism (as well as stirring up certifiable anti-Semites) with an essay in the London Review of Books called "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy." Angry exchanges that had been limited to the radical fringe on campuses and in radical mosques moved front and center. The professors, with respected scholarly credentials, accuse a shadowy Jewish lobby of manipulating U.S. policy in the Middle East to favor Israel even as it runs against the moral and strategic interests of the United States...

The history of blaming the Jews is a long one. After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the 4th century, anti-Semitism emerged to stay over the next 16 centuries. When an earthquake followed by a hurricane struck Rome in 1021, Jews were blamed. Several were tortured, confessed and burned. When cholera, the Black Death, decimated Europe in the 14th century, Jews, who of course died along with Christians, were blamed for spreading the plague.

"The experience of the Jews during the plague was a precursor of the modern scapegoat role and the secular 'Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,'" write Paul Grosser and Edwin Halperin in "Anti-Semitism: The Causes and Effects of a Prejudice."

Jews caught a break for a few years after the Holocaust, when international sympathy embraced them and the United Nations voted them a homeland in Israel. American Jews eagerly supported the new state, but not just the Jews. Harry Truman, a church-going Baptist, responded to popular American public opinion and recognized the new state of Israel within minutes of its official founding. Israel, socialist but a democracy in a part of the world where democratic values were unknown, was widely perceived as an important ally of the United States during the Cold War. For a while, even the Muslims were mellow. But the Islamic world soon grew hostile.

Now that the war in Iraq is not going well, and terrorism formerly aimed only at Israel has spread across Europe and into North America, the scapegoat is called out of retirement, fluffed up and fashioned in terms of contemporary politics. But earlier slurs echo across the landscape. Henry Ford blamed Jewish financiers for starting World War I to profit from dealing with both sides. Charles Lindbergh described the Jews as "war agitators" before World War II. Franklin Roosevelt's enemies called the New Deal the "Jew Deal."

The essay that set off the latest contretemps over "the Jewish lobby" was published in London, where it received a more receptive audience than here. Anti-Semitism has always enjoyed a certain intellectual currency in the ruling class. There were nudges, smiles and knowing winks early in the Iraq war when the French ambassador amused a fashionable dinner party with his fecal adjective to describe Israel as "that . . . little country." Americans, particularly the church-going middle class, generally appreciate their shared common values with the Israelis.

Debate, robust debate, over foreign policy is not only fair, but necessary. Criticizing Israeli policy, as many Jews do, is legitimate, just as criticizing U.S. policy is legitimate. But the professors, who cite criticism of their work as proof of the existence of "the Jewish lobby," should have known that it would encourage the recycling of old canards and invite authentic anti-Semites out of the shadows.

I'd like to point out, as I have on previous occasions, that the canards, both past and present, are correct in one sense. There is a religious plot to control the world, only it isn't secret and it isn't Jewish.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:10 | link | comments

Tom's kitten: Taking time out from supping on placenta, Tom "Just Call Me the New Wacko Jacko" Cruise (with input I'm sure from with his mesmerised fiancee, Katie Holmes) has named his newborn daughter. (Note: I realize Tom wasn't actually intending to ingest placenta and meant it as a joke; anyone laughing yet?)In keeping with tradition, which compels celebrities to burden their kids with "unusual" names, Tom and Katie have decided to call their baby "Suri". It's unclear at this stage if Suri has a fringe on top--wouldn't it be adorable if she did?--but her name is said to have a variety of meanings:

A publicist for the celebrity couple revealed that the baby is to be called Suri, after the pair fell in love with the name in a book of baby names. It means "princess" in Hebrew and "red rose" in Farsi. It also means "pickpocket" in Japanese.

The American media has however already started to refer to the new arrival as the TomKitten, a play on the nickname - TomKat - given to Cruise and Holmes during their whirlwind and unorthodox courtship.

Yikes. Poor baby.

I hear the proud Papa, who monitored the baby's progress in utero with his very own sonogram machine, has moved on to the next crucial stage of mechanized intrusiveness: He's bought Suri her very own teeny tiny E-meter, so she can be as "'clear" as possible at the earliest possible age. (Just kidding. I'm sure he's planning to wait a year or two for that.)

Suri's birth--like Tom's announcement of his romance with her mother--has come at a fortuituous, one might even say serendipitous, time: just as another Cruise blockbuster is about to open.

It has also upstaged the birth of another celebrity's baby--Brooke Shield's. Ironically, Shields and Cruise were engaged in a heated and very public battle last year when Cruise condemned her for taking drugs for post-partum depression. As a Scientologist, Tom is vehement about that rival religion--psychiatry--and abhors it and its medications as both ineffective and dangerous.

Unlike E-meters, which don't harm anyone, unless you consider the amount of money people have to continually fork over to be able to use them.

As the article in the Telegraph notes drolly re the timing of the two births,

Not that there’s any suggestion the battle could continue down the generations but Suri was also a few pounds heavier than Grier. Watch out, Shields Jnr.

In the meantime let’s just hope for Katie’s sake she doesn’t experience any post baby blues.

Baby blues, huh? Nothing a little exercise and some vitamins can't cure--at least according to "Dr." Cruise.

Update: Poor l'il kitten. Only a few hours old and already she's a hunted woman.

I can save all the crazed paparazzi the trouble of trying to show us what she looks like. I have it on good authority she has her father's eyes.

Update: Re placenta consumption: Apparently, there's some question as to whether Tom was joshing or not. This story in The Independent takes him at his word, and goes on in all earnestness and in some detail to describe the peculiar practice:

In an interview with GQ Magazine, Cruise, 43, announced: "I'm gonna eat the placenta. I thought that would be good. Very nutritious. I'm gonna eat the cord and the placenta right there." He later played down his comments, telling a television audience: "We're not eating it." But by then, the debate over what some parenting websites call " placenta etiquette" had already been ignited.

Placentophagy, the eating of the placenta after birth, is common among mammals - and also in some human cultures.

Followers of Chinese medicine prepare it with rice wine, herbs and ginger before the mixture is dried, and it is then taken in capsules three times a day by the mother during the first month after birth.

And it became popular in some circles in the West during the 1970s, when it was associated with "earth mothers". Adherents of the practice believe that the placenta can help to prevent post-natal depression because it is rich in minerals and nutrients, particularly vitamin B6, which is know to ward off depression. Some believe that men and close family who eat the placenta feel more bonded with the baby.

Some German women mix their placentas into clarified butter and use it to treat their babies' skin ailments. The television chef Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall caused outrage in 1998 when his TV Dinners programme showed him making a paté out of a woman's placenta, which was then eaten by her and her family. The Broadcasting Standards Commission censured the programme, saying it had "breached a convention" and that some complainants had compared it to cannibalism. The chef said he was happy with his creation, which he said tasted "not unlike tripe". Others have compared it to beef or foie gras.

One woman on the British website Mothers 35 Plus tells how her placenta was put in a blender with a glass of V8 fruit juice and served to her by her midwife. "To my delight and surprise, it was great!" she wrote

I say there's only one way to eat placenta--as a fajita, with lots of salsa and guacamole. Olé!

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:54 | link | comments (3)

Woe is them: Just three weeks into its glorious Talibanization project, and Hamas is finding it a tough go. Sure, as Islamic supremacists they're thrilled whenever a bro' tries to redress the indignity of Israel's existence by blowing up lots of Jews--and congrats all round to the groom and his brides, now enjoying their honeymoon at an eternal all-inclusive. But the occasional successful martyr doesn't compensate for an empty larder, especially when you've hardly made a dent in filling in all those potholes. And it's not like all those Arab/Muslim "friends" who like to cry crocodile tears about the Palestinians' plight have been coughing it up so quickly. With the exception of the promise of a few measly shekels from Iran and, maybe, Qatar, Hamas's "friends" have been less than forthcoming with the cash. Much less forthcoming, in fact, that its friends in the EU used to be; the Palestinians used to be able count on the jizya rolling in every month without fail.

As Reuters reports, Hamas is bewildered by the EU’s apparent volte face, and can’t figure out why its Muslim amigos has so far failed to come through:
Hamas has been taken aback by world reaction toward their assumption of power after trouncing Abbas's Fatah faction in January elections. Some Muslim countries have promised to make up the aid shortfall, but amounts pledged have been small.

"We were surprised by the European position in particular, we thought they would give us a chance and then deal with us," one senior Hamas official told Reuters.
Still, if you’re Reuters, you must credit Hamas, an outfit “sworn to Israel’s destruction” because it “has largely abided by a year-old ceasefire.”

“Largely”—meaning only a few Islmamic terrorists have managed to breech Israeli security; the hundreds of misses don’t count (at least to Reuters).

And you have to feel sorry for financial predicament, facing imminent financial collapse so early in its term:
Hamas is fighting challenges on all fronts.

It has inherited $1.3 billion (730 million pounds) in debt. Israel has cut off $55 million in monthly tax transfers while the United States, Europe and other countries have cut aid to the government unless it recognises the Jewish state and disarms.

Protests over unpaid government salaries are festering.

Banks are refusing to deal with the Palestinian Authority, fearing lawsuits by the United States which has prohibited any commercial dealings with the Hamas government.

Some analysts said Hamas had two options to halt a humanitarian crisis: recognise Israel or step aside and allow President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate who favours a two-state solution to the conflict, to form a new government.

"Hamas is not officially admitting its failure ... but it has discovered it can't run things alone and to preempt a popular backlash, it is appealing to others to share this responsibility," said Palestinian analyst Mehdi Abdel-Hadi.

On Sunday, Hamas held talks with a dozen rival Palestinian factions to try to persuade them to join the government.

All factions of the umbrella Palestine Liberation Organisation had previously refused to join, partly due to disputes over political programmes.

Abdel-Hadi said to form a coalition with PLO groups, Hamas would have to recognise the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians and accept a two-state solution.
Hamas insists it will not bow to pressure to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

Ah, yes—the mythical, proverbial two-state solution. The one where the Palestinians agree to tolerate, if not exactly accept Israeli sovereignty; the one which represents a paradigm shift in Islamic consciousness—from seeing Jews exclusively as lowly dhimmis, the descendants of the apes and pigs the Prophet turned them into (as recounted in Islamic scripture), to people worthy of governing themselves (and Muslims) in their own domain—a land claimed in perpetuity for the one true faith.

You’ll need a hell of a road map to arrive at that final destination.

Then there’s the pickle of the Hamas-Fatah rivalry, which is causing all sorts of fuss, and could potentially result in an all-out civil war. It hasn’t helped that the two are simply on different pages when it comes to responding to terror attacks, with Abbas sticking to his usual policy and condemning them for the sake of expediency, and Hamas responding with a hearty “Bravo!”:

Abbas's condemnation of the suicide bombing and Hamas's defence was also likely to speed a confrontation between the president and the Hamas cabinet, analysts said.
In a speech on Friday, Haniyeh accused Abbas of stripping him of his powers.

"If this situation continues, I believe things are moving towards a confrontation unless Hamas retracts," said Imad Fallouji, a former minister and former Hamas official.

All of which leads to what Reuters describes as some “gloomy scenarios”—regime collapse within a few months; the complete breakdown of institutions and services; open and violent rebellion in the streets.

And even if Hamas did agree to renounce violence and recognize Israel—the international pre-requisite for resuming funding—it would still face the wrath of its Muslim Brotherhood brothers, who wouldn’t take to kindly to jihadis betraying the jihad.

Talk about being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

If nothing else, however, Hamas’s plight has proven instructive for other jihadis seeking the kind of political legitimacy that can only be granted through the ballot box. In Egypt, for instance, they’re not looking to rush the process:

 Mohammad Habib, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said Hamas's experience in government would not influence the ascendance to power of Islamist parties.

Islamist movements were aware the international arena would not tolerate an Islamic group in office, adding Hamas may have come to power 10 or 15 years too soon.

"We're not in a hurry," Habib told Reuters.

One thing you have to say about those jihadis: They can be very, very patient.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:35 | link | comments

The Planet Shmutz: A couple of years ago, whenever my then five-year-old son would do something egregiously gross (but not atypical of boys his age)--something like, say, wiping his nose on his sleeve or forgetting to wash his obviously filthy hands before eating--I’d say, “Where do you think you are—the Planet Shmutz?”

It sort of became sort of a running joke with us, as he and I would try to outdo each other will all the disgusting things we imagined might possibly occur on the planet, a place where up was down, wrong was right and gross was, well, great.

I can’t remember many of them, mostly because they really were gross, but they went something like this (bearing in mind that this is a cleaned-up version): On the Planet Shmutz, people eat the wrappers and throw out the candy bars. On the Planet Shmutz people don’t speak nicely to each other; they only grunt and fart. On the Planet Shmutz, the kids are the teachers and the teachers have to sit quietly in their classrooms while the kids boss them around.

You get the idea.

When I read this story from Xinhua about how some folks in Hamastine want Mahmoud Abbas to apologize for condemning yesterday’s suicide attack, calling his condemnation “vile”, I thought, “Now, why does that sound familiar? I know--it’s just like something that would happen on the Planet Shmutz."

Not to defame Hamas’s hygienic propensities or anything—I’m sure they’re very clean, ritually clean, in fact—but in terms of inhabiting a land where norms of human morality are all askew, a topsy-turvey place where freedom is submission, a woman does not own her own private parts and a love of God is epitomized by a willingness to blow yourself up in his name, Hamastine (or -stan, take your pick) is a lot like the Planet Shmutz.

And no one should have to live there.

Update: There's still some question as to Samir's actual age. This article from the Times Online pegs it at 22. The piece offers more musings from the Planet Shmutz as Samir's bereaved but proud mother lauds her late son's deeds:

...It was little surprise that the bomber came from a village near Jenin, one of the West Bank’s strongholds of Islamic militancy. From the Hammad home his family can see the olive groves and fertile valleys of Israel but feel nothing for its denizens save enmity.

Within hours of his death Hammad was a fully-accessorised “martyr”, complete with farewell video, posters and heroic slogans. Sitting on the few cushions remaining in the small hilltop house his mother Samya, 42, complied with photographers who clamoured for her to pose with a poster but the house was unadorned with militant propaganda.

“He was a hero and I am proud of Samir but I have suffered from his loss,” she said of her eldest son. “I have seen their soldiers killing our children and destroying our home, making everything bad, so how can I see them sympathetically or kindly?” The family described Hammad as intelligent and frustrated by lack of opportunities, notably being forced to drop his studies with Al Quds (Jerusalem) Open University because his family had no money. His uncle Imad blamed his decision to become a bomber on “psychological pressure” caused by the conflict...

I'd like to point out that lots of young people between the ages of 17 and 22 (the age range given for Samir) feel psychological pressure. Indeed, I'd be surprised to read about anyone in that range who didn't feel some type of pressure. But only in an Arab/Muslim milieu are such feelings channeled into martyrdom. Only in a twisted, Shmutzian culture is the slaughter of innocents hailed as a Godly act. Whenever I read about the frustration of being a young Palestinian, and looking with jealousy and a hate-filled heart at "the olive groves and fertile valleys of Israel," I can't help but think of all those Jewish youngsters in times past forced to endure a life of dhimmitude in Arab and Muslim lands who would never have thought to assuage their bitterness by turning themselves into human bombs. And I think of their mothers--their Jewish mothers--who would never have permitted their children to behave in such an indecent--such an inhuman--way.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:38 | link | comments

Round up the usual excuses: Along with the obligatory condemnations from various nations and Kofi Annan (a nation unto himself, some might say), what would a suicide bombing be without the obligatory expressions of surprise from the jihadi's close circle of friends and relatives? Aljazeera.net has a typical post-attack story, in which sundry near and dear are shocked (yes, as we know, that's the word they invariably use) that their loved one--a bonnie young lad with so much potential--would go to such lengths to demonstrate, what's the phrase I'm groping for here?, oh, yeah--his impotence.

Of course, even though they're startled to their very pith, they know who's really at fault here. Yup, that's also obligatory--it's the Jews. For, like, having the temerity to be Jews:

Friends and family are shocked to hear that Samir Hammad blew himself up and killed nine Israelis, yet most say the attack was provoked by Israel's deadly raids in the Palestinian territories.

Muhammed Hammad, a cousin of the bomber, said: "I never thought he would do such a thing. He didn't have the profile of suicide-bomber.

"I am shocked. It is difficult to believe it."

Samir Hammad, 21, a student at the al-Quds Open University, managed to evade Israel's ubiquitous army checkpoints on the West Bank and reached Tel Aviv where he carried out the bombing at a falafel sandwich stand on Monday.

The attack was claimed by the Islamic Jihad group, which did not sign to the Cairo-brokered truce in July last year. Hamas, which formed the new Palestinian cabinet last month, did.

Hammad came from Burqa, a village near the northern West Bank town of Jenin where electricity is available only at night.

His father Samih, a 50-year-old municipal worker in Jenin, could hardly make ends meet to feed his nine children.

Nine died in Monday's attack

Fatima Hammad, a distant relative, put the blame on Israel for Samir's actions.

"It is the Israeli oppression," said the mother of five.

"We don't like to see innocent people, including Jews, killed. But when they kill our children on a daily basis, our hearts are hardened and we try to make them drink from the same cup they have been forcing us to drink from all these years," she said, reflecting a sentiment shared by most in Burqa.

"They are killing our people on a daily basis, starving us, preventing us from work, and turning our daily life into an unbearable hell. So how are we supposed to behave under such circumstances? What are we supposed to do, kill ourselves?

"I think Israel is making each and every Palestinian a potential human bomber."

You know, as much as as I despise Moo Jihad for being such a Jew-hating jackass, at least he's willing to be honest about why he wants the Jewish state to disappear. He says its existence is an intolerable humilation. Why, the very notion of Jewish dhimmis, the lowest of the low, being sovereign in their own land--and over Muslims. How did we ever come up such a cockamamie idea?

The Palestinians, on the other hand, prefer whenever possible to haul out that tried-and-true victim card, claiming it was their victimization, and not their refusal to countenance the idea of a sovereign Jewish state in Israel, and certainly not any notions of jihadi supremacism, that are at the heart of these explosive acts.

I guess you can't fault them for going with what works.

The aljazeera.net story places the Islamist terrorist's age at 21. That's four years older than the age given in other reports. It this a mistake? An outright lie? Either way, looking at Samir's "wedding day" portrait (the one in full jihadi battle gear that a pre-shahid has taken before his date with destiny--and his 72 panting "brides" up in Paradise) he looks barely old enough to shave, much less canoodle for an eternity with incorporeal houris.

Update: Hamas blames Israel for the jihad:

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya laid the blame for the cycle of violence in the region firmly at the door of Israel on Tuesday.

At a cabinet meeting the day after a suicide attack in Tel Aviv, Haniya told ministers from his Hamas-led government: "The continuing (Israeli) occupation and aggressions are at the root of the cycle of violence.

"Peace and security in the region will flow from the end of the occupation and the recovery of all our rights." ...

In other news, Nazis blame the Jews for WW2 and and Japan blames the U.S. for the attack on Pearl Harbor. (Just kidding.)

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:32 | link | comments

Mega-Ick: Tom Cruise says that, after his spawn has been born, he's planning to eat the placenta and umbilical cord.

With some fava beans and a nice Chianti, perhaps?

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:50 | link | comments

"If" only the mullahs were rational: In a piece in the National Post (available online for a fee) David Frum speculates that Iran's leaders aren't really planning to nuke anyone. From a strategic standpoint, reasons Frum, isn't it kind of silly to rattle your sabres like that?

Suppose, reader, that you were a man Iranian mulllah determined to obtain nuclear weapons at the earliest opportunity. Would you brag and boast and taunt the West--before you actually finished your work? Or would you keep very still and quiet, denying everything until you had the bomb safely in your clutches.

Well, Dave, if I were a mad Iranian mullah, I think the operative word would be "mad", and rational tactics wouldn't necessarily be front and centre with me. In fact, I'd almost certainly be in the grip of irrational forces--like Hitler was when he made the fatal tactical decision late in the war not to send troops to the Russian front because that would have disrupted his Jew-killing project; the man had his priorites, after all.

And so do the mad mullahs and their frontman, Moo Jihad. Their priority is to excise the Jewish presence so their Deus ex Machina, the 12th imam (who seems to have been much more charismatic than, say, the 11th or 13th imams) can come back and usher them all into Paradise. And what an Afterlife it's shaping up to be--for Shias only, of course. Virgins, virgins and more virgins, and all the good stuff--booze, canine companions, hot and dirty sex--they were denied in their corporeal state.

Considering that all this hinges on the purely irrational, I'd be careful about imputing rational motives to any of Iran's current leadership. It's likely a recipe for disaster.

In honour of the looniest tune in Iran's jukebox, Moo Jihad, I've revised Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "If":

If you can keep your nukes when all about you
Are screaming bloody murder re your schemes.
If you can stay on message when some doubt you,
And don’t put credence in your crazy dreams.
If you can bait, and not get tired of baiting,
Or speak taqiyah, and aver that it’s a fact.
Or keep on hating, just like Adolf Hitler,
And manage to be proud about your act.

If you can boast—but not boast cavalierly.
If you can rage—but not rage day and night.
If you can keep a-going when some dearly 
Hope to knock your sorry butt out of the fight.
If you exult in all the lies you’ve spoken
Because they’re meant to further Allah’s cause,
And struggle in his path, because you’re certain
The faithful musn’t ever, ever pause.

If you can make one heap of non-believers,
Dismissing the whole lot as wimps and fools,
And enlist your population as deceivers
Who, like robots, follow all the mullahs’ rules.
If you can be as hateful as a Nazi,
And like them contend the Jews are all to blame
And make “the Jew” the scapegoat and the patsy,
The better to extend your fascist aims.

If you can talk with crowds and see green auras,
And hold conf’rences to wipe Jews off the map,
And ignore the slings and arrows of the UN
Because you know they'll put up with your crap.
If you can speak your mind ‘bout your intentions,
Though others say it’s cranky, cracked and crude,
You'll think yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
And what is more, you’re blooming mad, Mahmoud.

Update: In something of a role reversal, an editorial in the Globe and Mail makes more sense than David Frum:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proudly trumpets each minor technological breakthrough on his country's long path toward becoming a nuclear power. Last week, Tehran crowed that it had managed to enrich uranium for the first time. This week, the news is that research is under way on advanced centrifuges, which would not be needed if the enriched uranium were only going to be used for peaceful energy purposes. This was not idle boasting. Iran's extremist leaders are eager to wrap a fabric of inevitability around their nuclear program in the growing belief that the world will do nothing to stop them. It's a matter of urgency that the international community prove them wrong.

The failure to put the brakes on Iran's ambitions now would only embolden a rogue regime that already thumbs its nose at world opinion and is increasingly engaged in dangerous and provocative activities. It is bad enough that Tehran has long supported and financed terrorist groups in the Middle East. In his increasingly irrational ravings, Mr. Ahmadinejad has denied the existence of the Holocaust and described Israel as a "front" for the infidels that must be annihilated. Now his regime is threatening to deploy thousands of suicide bombers to blow up Western targets if Iran's nuclear installations come under attack.

The Sunday Times of Britain reports that Iran has recruited and trained 40,000 such suicide bombers. The Special Unit of Martyr Seekers first appeared in public last month during a military parade, holding aloft their detonators. "We are ready to attack American and British sensitive points if they attack Iran's nuclear facilities," declared Hassan Abbasi, head of the Revolutionary Guards' Centre for Doctrinal Strategic Studies.

Mr. Abbasi is an adviser to Mr. Ahmadinejad on strategic issues. He has dismissed Russia as a "fading power" and is eager to assert Iran's growing clout in the region. He has made his views on the West exceedingly clear. "We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization. We must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles. There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them." Does anyone seriously want a regime with such people at the helm to get anywhere near a nuclear weapon?

Mr. Ahmadinejad has drawn a line in the sand and dared the international community to cross it. So far that has not happened, and Iran has taken note of the apparent lack of will. The Europeans have tried and failed to win Tehran's co-operation through traditional diplomacy, despite offering considerable trade benefits and strong security guarantees. The Russians, who maintain lucrative business ties with the regime, were rebuffed when they offered to reprocess the uranium and ensure that Iran would have a sufficient supply of fuel to operate nuclear reactors. If Tehran is only interested in building a nuclear capacity for the production of electricity, why not accept the Russian deal? And why continue to violate the terms of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by continuing to conduct clandestine activities and attempting to hide them from international inspectors?

The risk of Iran using its capacity to wreak havoc in the Middle East is far too great to allow this situation to continue unchecked. Effective economic sanctions would severely damage Iran's oil-reliant economy and might make Iran's bullies come to their senses. It's time for the international community, acting through the United Nations Security Council, to cross that line in the sand.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:23 | link | comments

Sickening spin: I felt sick to my stomach after reading this article in The Independent about the Islamic terrorist who killed and injured so many people today. Not only because the loathsome paper called the murderer an "activist" (activist!--as though he were someone who writes letters to the editor and goes on marches to protest, oh, I don't know, urban poverty or global warming); not only because the odious paper refers to his coming from a village "near the pre-1967 border" and allows his cousin to natter on about how the Jews stole all their olive groves, but because of the murderer's age. He was 17:

A youthful Islamic Jihad activist blew himself up outside a crowded falafel bar in Tel Aviv yesterday, killing at least nine civilians and wounding about 50.

Samer Samih Hamad, from the West Bank village of Arakeh, near the pre-1967 border, is believed to be one of the youngest suicide bombers ever dispatched by a Palestinian group.

In a video "living will", he dedicated the operation to the thousands of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Dressed in black with a yellow headband inscribed with Koranic verses, he warned in a clear, firm voice: "There are many other bombers on the way." Relatives said he had completed high school. But he looked more like a boy.

Nidal Hamad, 35, his cousin, told The Independent that Samer was 17 and had left home yesterday to go to his job in Jenin. Another cousin, Nazeer Hamad, carried out an earlier suicide bombing in Afula. "Jews have confiscated more than 50 per cent of our agricultural land, where we cultivated olive, almond and fruit trees," Nidal Hamad said. "I do not know what to tell you. Some youths believe that they should do something about it. Some people believe they should not. But you will never be able to make a distinction between those who believe in it, and those who do not."...

Some days, the world is too abominable for words.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:58 | link | comments

Currying sympathy: I'm not 100 per cent certain of how deeply Zacharias Moussaoui was involved in 9/11; were you to believe Moussaoui's own testimony, he and Richard Reid of unexploded sneaker fame were set to plow an airliner into the White House on 9/11. But since Moussaoui is an addlepated jihadi with delusions of grandeur--his own and the one true faith's--perhaps he's not the most reliable of sources.

Still, even if I'm not sure if he should be put to death, I am sure that trying to make the jury feel sorry for him by describing his unhappy childhood--a ploy to save his lamentable hide--is an affront to the memory of all the innocents who were murdered on that horrific day.

Ladies and gents, get out your teeny-tiny violins. It's the only fitting accompaniment for the following:

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- Zacarias Moussaoui grew up in a disruptive, often violent home, a social worker told the jury that will decide whether he is executed or sentenced to life in prison for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

``The home environment was chaotic, with a lack of adult supervision,'' clinical social worker Jan Vogelsang testified for the defense in Alexandria, Virginia. His home ``from the beginning was extremely violent,'' she said. His father beat his mother, tried to run her over with a car, and broke her jaw and teeth, the social worker said.

Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent who was born in 1968 and is now 37, was frequently in and out of orphanages while his parents struggled with their marriage, Vogelsang said. His parents divorced in 1972 and reconciled later for only about six months, she said. Later, a girlfriend's father rejected Moussaoui as a ``dirty Arab,'' Vogelsang said.

Moussaoui, the only person charged in the U.S. in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, pleaded guilty in April 2005 to conspiracy charges. Prosecutors say the attacks might have been stopped if Moussaoui hadn't lied to authorities about his knowledge of the plot when he was arrested a month before Sept. 11. His sentencing trial is in its seventh week.

Moussaoui testified in his own defense last week that he opposed his lawyers' effort ``to portray me crazy.'' He testified earlier that he knew about the Sept. 11 plot when he was arrested in August 2001 and lied to FBI agents to let the mission proceed...

Poor guy. Guess we should cut him a break. How do concurrent life sentences for each person murdered on 9/11 sound? With good behaviour, he should be out sometime around...actually, math isn't my forte, but I think he'd be in at least until his bones have turned to dust.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:09 | link | comments

Nuclear Jihad: That's the title of a documentary to be broadcast on the CBC on April 20. The documentary details the work of A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist who "shared" his expertise with a number of roguish regimes, and how it has imperiled the world.

Here's how the doc is described on the Ceeb website:

A terrorist organization obtains a nuclear weapon on the black market and detonates it in a major Western city, killing hundreds of thousands and crippling a once vibrant urban centre. Could this terrifying scenario come to pass? CBC Television joins forces with the New York Times to present NUCLEAR JIHAD: CAN TERRORISTS GET THE BOMB?, a compelling documentary that tracks a rogue nuclear scientist and weapons dealer, and explores how the nuclear seeds he helped plant could explode anytime, anywhere.

NUCLEAR JIHAD follows A.Q. Khan, the father of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, tracing his activities on the international black market. He spawned a private proliferation network that has exported nuclear technology to client states such as North Korea, Libya and Iran. And in his native Pakistan, fears are growing that nuclear missiles could fall into the hands of extremists, amidst questions about the government's stability and its security policy.

Combining the journalistic strength of both CBC Television and The New York Times, NUCLEAR JIHAD features exclusive insights from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, International Atomic Energy Agency chief and Nobel laureate Mohamed El-Baradei, along with other world leaders and global security experts. This gripping documentary concludes that in this, the second nuclear age, the atomic bomb has been privatized and made available to the highest bidder – a development that undermines state sovereignty and threatens global security.

Thanks, Dr. Khan. You can pick up your Nobel Peace Prize next fall.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:48 | link | comments

Islamic terrorism in Tel Aviv: A holy warrior, an adherent of an inherently tolerant, peaceful religion, has blown himself up in Tel Aviv, killing 6 and wounding 35.

May he rot in Hell with all the other Islamic terrorists who've tried--and failed--to jump the queue into Paradise.

(I'm taking every opportuntiy to use the phrase Islamic terroism--Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism--because the EU thought police have outlawed its use. It seems certain folks with tender sensibilities, many of the same ones wounded to the core by the sight of blasphemous Mo 'toons, aren't fond of the phrase, as it implies there's some connection between Islam and those who kill in its name. And we can't have anyone thinking such Islamophic thoughts because Islam (Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism), an inherently, peaceful tolerant religion, could never give rise to such uncivilized behaviour. Well, maybe it could, but it's an aberration, a misinterpretation, the result of infidels occupying their sacred lands, and the impotence they feel at such an intolerable situation. Nothing whatever to do with religious doctrine written right there in text--in black and white.

And blood red.)

(Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism...)

Update: While not 'fessing up to any involvement in today's Islamic terrorism attack, a Hamas spokesmen compliments the bomber for, all in all, being on the right track. From News 24:

Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said: "Resisting the Israeli aggression is right as long as it continues.

"The occupation seized the money of Palestinian people, and urged the world not to assist them, so this attack took place and blew up in the face of those who agree to this aggressive attitude."

I have to say that, despicable as it is, I find something refreshing about the Hamas response to the attack. In previous regimes, the Palestinian leader made all the right sympathetic noises, when you knew all along he was really thrilled to see more Jews getting their just desserts. With Hamas, there's no more pretence. They say what they mean and mean what they say--"We're glad the Jews were killed; More, please."

You have to give them credit for being honest, at least.

Oh, and forgive me if I've mentioned this before but I think, in the circumstances, it bears repeating: Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic terrorism...

Update: And just as predictable as the Arafat/Abbas condemnations are the American ones:

WASHINGTON, April 17 (Reuters) - The White House on Monday warned the new Hamas government that any sponsorship of terrorism by Palestinian officials would have the "gravest effects" on its relations with countries seeking peace in the Middle East.

In condemning a Palestinian suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed at least nine people and wounded 60 others, the White House said the burden of responsibility for preventing such attacks rested with the Palestinian Authority.

The Israeli government said it held the new Hamas-led Palestinian Authority responsible for the attack, which a spokesman for Hamas said was "a natural result of the continued Israeli crimes against our people."

"Defense or sponsorship of terrorist acts by officials of the Palestinian cabinet will have the gravest effects on relations between the Palestinian Authority and all states seeking peace in the Middle East," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

A Palestinian government that encouraged or tolerated terrorism would harm the interests of the Palestinians and "ensure its own further isolation," he said.

"We reiterate that the United States will have no contact with such a government and we call upon all states to demand that it abandon its support for terror," McClellan said...

Thanks, Scott. As always, that's very helpful.

Update: A round-up of other condemnations. From news.com.au:

Russia - along with the United States, the European Union and the United Nations part of the so-called quartet which proposed a "road map" for Middle East peace - called on both sides to resume negotiations for peace.

"We firmly and without reserve condemn this bloody attack by extremists who have again raised a hand against people who are guilty of nothing," the Russian foreign ministry said in a statement.

It called on the Palestinian leadership to do the "maximum possible" to stop all violence against Israel and also called on the Israeli leadership to exercise restraint to prevent "wide confrontation" in the region.

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana also called for an end to violence.

"I call on all parties to prevent any new descent into a senseless spiral of violence," he said in a statement.

Meanwhile, French President Jacques Chirac said he condemned the attack in "most categorical fashion" in a message to Israeli President Moshe Katsav.

"More than ever, our determination to beat terrorism remains intact. France is at the side of Israel in this new ordeal," he said.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also issued a warning to the new Palestinian government to rein in terrorists.

"I vigorously call on the new Palestinian government to fulfil its promises on an international level, by disarming terrorist groups and destroying terrorist infrastructures," he said.

Switzerland denounced what it called a "cowardly attack" and called for everything to be done to track down and prosecute those behind the bombing.

The foreign governments offered their condolences to victims of the attacks, five of whom were killed outright by the blast, while four others died of their wounds in hospital in the following hours. More than 40 people were also wounded...

Nice condelences from the Russians, but I'm not sure it's practical to "resume negotiations for peace" when the Palestinians are ruled by out-and-out jihadis who condone such attacks. I'm sure the Russians wouldn't take it too kindly if Israel told it to get to work negotiating with Chechen terrorists.

Update: And last but most definitely least, here's what Kofi Annan had to say about the blast:

(Japan Economic Newswire Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge)NEW YORK, April 17_(Kyodo) _ U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan strongly condemned the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv in a statement Monday while calling on the new Hamas-led Palestinian Authority to present a "clear public stand against such unjustifiable acts of terrorism."

Annan noted in the statement that President Mahmoud Abbas had strongly condemned the act and "regretted" that the new government had not.

The secretary general was deeply concerned by the continuing violence against civilians in Israel and the occupied Palestinian authority and called for all parties to fulfill obligations designated by international law, and to "refrain from actions that further escalate the situation and put civilians at grave risk."

Newsflash for the clueless Secretary General: Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction. They welcome today's events, and asking them to stand publicly against such acts is like asking Hitler to condemn the death camps.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:31 | link | comments

Partners in crime: The international organization that gave us UNRWA, the Human Rights Commission, er, Council, the IAEA and sundry other disfunctional bodies has another trick up its sleeve. It has granted the Islamic dystopia--the one whose populace is prancing around with tubes full of yellowcake; the one whose Hitlerian leader, frontman for a bunch of religious lunatics, is crowing about plans to wipe Jews off the map, a prerequisite for the return of his 9th Century deliverer--the chance to sit on the UN's Disarmament Commission.

You heard right. The most dangerous, most belligerent nation in the world is going to weigh in on the nuclear compliance of others.

It's another of the UN's "fox in the henhouse" kind of arrangements, along the lines of Oil-For-Food, only in this instance the fox is Iran and not Saddam.

In FrontPage Magazine, Joseph Klein looks at this ga-ga situation, and Kofi Annan's contention that Iran is, like Saddam was, his "partner":

Last week, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan referred to the thugs running Iran as his “partners”, whom he hopes can be convinced “to come back to the table” for more negotiations.

Here is how his “partner”, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defines partnership. He rebuffed Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency, who made a personal visit to Tehran on April 12th to ask its leaders to assure the world of Iran’s good intentions by suspending the regime’s nuclear enrichment program and proving that it is not seeking to develop a nuclear bomb. Not bothering to meet with Dr. ElBaradei himself, Kofi’s most trustworthy partner Ahmadinejad made clear what the outcome of the visit would be, as reported by the official IRNA news agency:

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran achieving the full nuclear fuel cycle is just one phrase. We say: Be angry at us and die of this anger. Today Iran is a nuclear country and enjoys the position of a powerful country."

This followed Ahmadinejad’s announcement on April 11th that Iran’s scientists had successfully enriched uranium to make nuclear fuel, which in turn came only a week after Iran’s war exercises demonstrating its supposed prowess in missile and stealth torpedo weaponry. And back in February, 2006, Ahmadinejad showed just what he really thought of his “partners” at the United Nations when he told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran that the UN “can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face", according to a report in the Wall Street Journal.

To paraphrase the old saying, with partners like these, who needs any enemies? However, judging by Iran’s treatment in the halls of the United Nations, you would think that Iran is the model member state, rather than the clear and present danger to international peace and security that it actually is.

For example, at about the same time that Iran made its announcement about their progress in nuclear enrichment, the United Nations Commission on Disarmament shamelessly elected Iran as “deputy for Asian nations”. The next day, in his message to the Conference of the Parliamentary Union of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (“OIC”), Kofi Annan avoided any mention of the challenge posed by Iran’s actions to peace and stability in the Middle East. Iran, after all, is a member of the OIC. Kofi would not want to offend their sensibilities. In fact, it was the Islamists’ sensibilities that he had in mind when he told the OIC Conference that “(Y)our anguish over the publication of insulting cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed is clear and understandable” and went on to say that the right of free speech “should not be used to degrade, humiliate or insult any group or individual.” Kofi Annan is more concerned that he not publicly humiliate Iran’s mullahs, who claim that pursuing their nuclear ambitions is Allah’s will and their ”inalienable right”, than exposing Iran’s unacceptably provocative behavior.

As usual, Annan catered to his Islamic audience, highlighting the Israeli-Palestinian issue that Islamists use to divert attention from their own problems and misconduct. He told the OIC that Israel should “halt all settlement activities” and stop its targeted killings of militant leaders of terrorist organizations (which he calls “extra-judicial killings”). But he said not one word about Iran’s threats to annihilate Israel altogether, which Ahmadinejad repeated on the second day of Passover (which was also Good Friday) in a speech at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians: "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation. The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Annan is living in a fantasy world if he thinks Ahmadinejad and the fanatical mullahs who run Iran can be dealt with reasonably as rational human beings. It is reminiscent of Annan’s quote about Saddam Hussein during the 1990’s that “Saddam Hussein is a man I can do business with.” It is only in such a fantasy world that a country which had threatened to wipe a neighboring member state off the map still merits the UN’s respect as a fair-minded negotiating partner -- even after its president also told the rest of the world that Iran’s destiny as a nuclear power was irreversible and that those who were angry about Iran’s future as a “nuclear country” will “die of this anger.”

The fanatics running Iran are the heirs to centuries of hatred and mass murder inspired by an Islamic tradition of jihad against infidels. It is manifested today in the daily acts of terrorism financed by Iran and in the Iranian regime’s threats to destroy their enemies in the West...

Considering the types of  shady characters Kofi likes to do business with, I think it's high time we change the UN's name to one which more accurately reflect the kind of work it does. How about "Murder, Incorporated"?

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:06 | link | comments

What's up with Apple?: An amusing piece in the New York Times examines one of the least important but most intriguing issues of our time: Why do celebrities give their kids those weird names?

...If celebrities are the new American aristocracy, the exotic baby name can sometimes function as the equivalent of a royal title, a way for a privileged caste to bestow the power of its legacy on future generations.

"There's a sense of 'I'm special, I'm different, and therefore my child is special and different,' " said Jenn Berman, a clinical psychologist in Beverly Hills, who has worked with actors. "It's unconscious, but they think, 'We're a creative family, you have the potential to be creative, so here, I bestow you with the name 'Joaquin,' " Dr. Berman said.

As artists, actors often consider it their duty to shake up assumptions, defy conventions and push the frontiers of the possible. To settle for a tedious name for the child would almost be a form of spiritual surrender, said Stuart Fischoff, a psychologist, who has also worked with Hollywood clients.

"They're expressing their creativity, and they're also expressing their fear," Dr. Fischoff said. "It would be very embarrassing for people to think of them as normal."...

Even without the funny names, there's no risk of that. 

Posted by: scaramouche at 19:38 | link | comments

The Pope's hopes: I'm hoping that the current Pope, Benedict XVI, will prove to be more helpful in the war against totalitarianism than was Pius XII, who was Pope during WW2. So far, Benedict seems less inclined than Pius to put up with fascist infamy. And his words today on the occasion of Christ's resurrection were sort of kind of encouraging. Maybe. From ABC News:

VATICAN CITY Apr 16, 2006 (AP)— Pope Benedict XVI celebrated his first Easter Sunday as pontiff, praying for peace Iraq, negotiated solutions to the world's nuclear disputes and dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians.

Looking tired, Benedict led nearly 100,000 pilgrims, tourists and Romans in Mass in St. Peter's Square. His 79th birthday coincided with Easter, when Christians commemorate the resurrection of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion.

"Today, even in this modern age marked by anxiety and uncertainty, we live the event of the resurrection, which changed the face of our life and changed the history of humanity," Benedict said in the traditional "Urbi et Orbi" message Latin for "to the city and to the world."

From the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, the pontiff reviewed conflicts around the globe to rousing cheers and applause.

"In Iraq, may peace finally prevail over the tragic violence that continues mercilessly to claim victims," Benedict said, pausing as the crowd applauded.

"I also pray sincerely that those caught up in the conflict in the Holy Land may find peace, and I invite all to patient and persevering dialogue, so as to remove both ancient and new obstacles," the pope said.

"May the international community, which reaffirms Israel's just right to exist in peace, assist the Palestinian people to overcome the precarious conditions in which they live and to build their future, moving toward the constitution of a state which is truly their own," he added.

He also prayed for resolutions to global nuclear crises, though he did not name specific countries. Disputes over the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea have embroiled many countries and are at an impasse.

"Concerning the international crises linked to nuclear power, may an honorable solution be found for all parties, through serious and honest negotiations," Benedict said.

Benedict also called on world leaders to promote racial, cultural and religious harmony "to remove the threat of terrorism."...

Like most rational people, I long for the same things Benedict does--peace in Iraq, peace between Israelis and Palestinians, Iran willing to negotiate away its nukes and a harmonious, tolerant world in which Islamic terrorism (a phrase that's verboten in the the Pope's neck of the woods--i.e. in the EU--these days) ceases to be a problem. At the same time, I know that such occurances are unlikely, nay, impossible, as long as a significant portion of the world believes it has been Divinely instructed to wage the jihad.

I'm pretty sure the Pope knows that, too, even if he's not willing to say it in so many words. Considering how long and hard the struggle is likely to be, it would have been better for us all if he weren't so old and so tired.

Posted by: scaramouche at 18:51 | link | comments

By George, he's still got it: Someone with the nic "Jewnami" posted this excerpt of a George Orwell essay in yesterday's LGF thread about James Loney's tomb-and-gloom "insights". I post it here because it is just as relevant in 2006 as it was in 1944, the year it was written. One major difference, as Jewnami points out in the LGF post: Orwell's "minority" is now a "majority":

There is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism.

Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.

Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China.

It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough.

After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts.

Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered.

And so it has been--to an admiration for the power and successful cruelty of the latest--and, at the same time, one of the oldest--forms of totalitarianism waging war on Western civilization.

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:44 | link | comments

Hair-raising claims: Mark Steyn on the nuclear folk dancing antics of Moo Jihad--and the U.S.'s tepid reaction, which seems to consist of saying, "Move along, folks. Nothing to worry about here." From his regular Sunday perch in the Chicago Sun-TImes:

Happy Easter. Happy Passover. But, if you're like the president of Iran and believe in the coming of the "Twelfth Imam," your happy holiday may be just around the corner, too. President Ahmadinejad, who is said to consider himself the designated deputy of the "hidden Imam," held a press conference this week -- against a backdrop of doves fluttering round an atom and accompanied by dancers in orange decontamination suits doing choreographed uranium-brandishing. It looked like that Bollywood finale of ''The 40-Year-Old Virgin,'' where they all pranced around to "This Is The Dawning Of The Age Of Aquarius." As it happens, although he dresses like Steve Carell's 40-year-old virgin, the Iranian president is, in fact, a 40-year-old nuclear virgin, and he was holding a press conference to announce he was ready to blow. "Iran," he said, "has joined the group of countries which have nuclear technology" -- i.e., this is the dawning of the age of a scary us. "Our enemies cannot do a damned thing," he crowed, as an appreciative audience chanted "Death to America!"

The reaction of the international community was swift and ferocious. The White House said that Iran "was moving in the wrong direction." This may have been a reference to the dancers. A simple Radio City kickline would have been better. The British Foreign Office said it was "not helpful." This may have been a reference to the doves round the atom.

You know what's great fun to do if you're on, say, a flight from Chicago to New York and you're getting a little bored? Why not play being President Ahmadinejad? Stand up and yell in a loud voice, "I've got a bomb!" Next thing you know the air marshal will be telling people, "It's OK, folks. Nothing to worry about. He hasn't got a bomb." And then the second marshal would say, "And even if he did have a bomb it's highly unlikely he'd ever use it." And then you threaten to kill the two Jews in row 12 and the stewardess says, "Relax, everyone. That's just a harmless rhetorical flourish." And then a group of passengers in rows 4 to 7 point out, "Yes, but it's entirely reasonable of him to have a bomb given the threatening behavior of the marshals and the cabin crew."

That's how it goes with the Iranians. The more they claim they've gone nuclear, the more U.S. intelligence experts -- oops, where are my quote marks? -- the more U.S. intelligence "experts" insist no, no, it won't be for another 10 years yet. The more they conclusively demonstrate their non-compliance with the IAEA, the more the international community warns sternly that, if it were proved that Iran were in non-compliance, that could have very grave consequences. But, fortunately, no matter how thoroughly the Iranians non-comply it's never quite non-compliant enough to rise to the level of grave consequences. You can't blame Ahmadinejad for thinking "our enemies cannot do a damned thing."...

Update: Mark forgot to include the lyrics to "The Age of A-Scary-Us." Here they are:

When the Moo is in the seventh house,
And Iran’s aligned with Hamas,
Then war will guide the planet
And the jihad will fall on us.
This is the dawning of the Age of A-Scary-Us,
Age of A-Scary-Us,
Age of A-Scary-Us.

Disharmony and lots of seething.
Bullying and rage aplenty.
Lots of falsehood and taqiyah,
Trying to bait and to deceive ya
So you won’t know what to believe.
A-Scary-Us,
A-Scary-Us.

When the Moo waits for the 12th imam,
You know where he is coming from.
And where he hopes we're headin’:
A play-ace called Armageddon.
This is the dawning of the Age of A-Scary-Us,
Age of A-Scray-Us.
A-Scary-Us,
A-Scary-Us.

And then the nuclear folk dancers segue into a frenzied, hedonistic rendition of:

Let the nukes rain down,
Let the nukes rain down,
Let the nukes rain down,
The nukes rain down…

Update: Here's another selection from Hairan: the Shia Tribal Musical. In the original, the song ("I Met a Boy Named Frank Mills") was sung in wistful style by a sweet young Hippie chick. In the revised version, it's sung, far less wistfully, by an older and wiser infidel chick--like me, for instance.

I saw a guy named Mahmoud
Right there on my TV screen
And fortunately, he couldn’t see me
So I feel safe for now.
He was last seem at a fair
Where people were all dancing and hooting like loons
Because they we so thrilled that soon they could build
A lot of nukes.
He hates us
And he’s embarrassed for us
That we're acting like craven wimps.
He lives in Tehran somewhere
And he wears a bright green aura.
He has yellowcake in some tiny vials,
And on his nukes he’s writing the words:
“Mahdi” and “jihad” and “Allah Akbar.”
I would gratefully appreciate it you see him tell him
We’re not in the dark about his plans,
And please,
Tell him Zionists and other Jews
Don’t want to see Hitler coming back
As him.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:13 | link | comments

Shifting ground: Haroon Siddiqui, the Toronto Star's resident Islam(ism)-ophile, is uncomfortable with what he calls a "profound ideological shift" in Canadian foreign policy. Haroon was accustomed to and happy with the Liberal's EUnuch-like approach to affairs, one which largely consisted of bashing the U.S. and voting reflexively and unthinkingly in favour of each and every UN anti-Israel resolution.

Ah, yes, those were the days.

Now those belligerent Tories are in charge, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is acting like he actually possesses some gumption (a.k.a. cojones). To Mr. Siddiqui, this is a dangerous shift--right into the pocket of George W, Bush and his ugly Americans. And Siddiqui, who, give him his due, knows his audience, also knows precisely which buttons to push to sound the alarm: He uses the world "stealth" to describe the shift, implying there may be some shadowy men (Elders?) behind the scenes pulling some strings, as well as raising the ever-useful spectre of "McCarthyism", which he says is what those who dissent from the new policy are likely to face. 

Here, for your delictation, is most of Haroon's latest screed (with the "buttons" in bold):

The arguments over our military mission in Afghanistan — peacekeeping and peacemaking vs. war, operating under U.S. command vs. partnering with NATO allies, etc., etc. — are really about something much larger.

By cozying up to the U.S., more specifically, to an administration that's arguably the worst in modern history, and certainly the most unpopular in the world, Ottawa is sacrificing our independence and, more crucially, Canada's good name abroad.

Either to protect our bilateral trade or as a reflection of a profound ideological shift carried out by stealth, Ottawa has changed policy in ways unimaginable under Jean Chrétien.

"The trend started under (Paul) Martin but it has been exacerbated under (Stephen) Harper," Lloyd Axworthy, former foreign minister, told me.

It can be seen in the change in Canada's votes at the United Nations in favour of Israel, he said. "We used to play the role of an honest broker but we are now an advocate for one side."

And it can be seen in our more militarized role in Afghanistan.

"What distresses me is that we have gone through a very fundamental shift without a debate."

Paul Heinbecker, Canada's former envoy to the U.N., echoes the concern:

"The change has to do with a certain worldview."

That view manifests itself, first, in the way we've embraced George W. Bush's failed war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

The U.S. troops in the Kandahar region not only have not found Osama bin Laden et al but have failed in four years to even establish basic security.

That's because the Taliban cannot be easily vanquished in guerrilla warfare. Masters of the mountains, they can also replenish their ranks from neighbouring Pakistan faster than the Americans can kill them.

If that is so, we need an all-out war and to invade northern Pakistan. The latter is out of the question. Pakistan is a close ally and its vast tribal area is impossible to conquer and control.

So, what are we doing in Kandahar? Killing and kissing at the same time, waging war and making peace. Is this doable? Or, are we just working for brownie points in Washington?

Ottawa has even adopted the Bush lingo. Harper: We won't "cut and run." Canadian ads in the U.S.: "Canadian boots on the ground." Gen. Rick Hillier: Our enemies are "scumbags," comparable to the Nazis...

The latest sign of Ottawa mimicking Washington is that the Conservatives are questioning the patriotism of those daring to ask questions.

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor taunted the NDP's past pacifism. Robert Thibault called Monday's Commons debate on the Afghan mission "dangerous" — it might work to "the detriment of our soldiers."

Jim Abbott said the debate may be braodcast on Al-Jazeera and seen by the enemy: "I wonder if the sense of defeatism, the sense of backing off that is being expressed ... is not getting in the way of the valued soldiers."

This is not only insulting to the soldiers, it is also McCarthy-esque, as Peggy Nash, MP for Parkdale-High Park, said.

To sum up, not only has Canada become "an auxiliary force to the U.S." in Afghanistan, as Byers says, but it is also moving into Bush's ideological orbit.

This is a slippery slope that Ottawa has put us on, without too many Canadians paying much attention to it.

I can understand why Haroon is so upset. With a Liberal government in charge, Canadians could at least try ignore the new reality and pretend that the world hadn't changed an iota from the days of all our friendly peacekeeping and honest-brokering . With Harper in the driver's seat, it looks like we'll actually have to choose up sides in the jihad. And that makes folks like Siddiqui and his readership--folks who would prefer to sit out the Holy War (as if they had that choice) or who are not averse to a life of abject dhimmitude or who, secretly or not, long to see the "scumbags" win--really, really nervous.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:10 | link | comments

Egad, jihad in Chad: While we were sleeping, the jihad seems to have oozed out of Sudan and spread next door to Chad. This Reuters article refers to "rebels" who are stirring up all sorts of fuss in an effort to destabilize the ruling regime, but neglects to mention the religion of said "rebels." The only clue to their religious provenance comes from the reference to the Sudanese government--the one which let loose the Arab militias to wreak havoc at home--supporting the "rebels."

Reuters and other news outlets may prefer to ignore the most salient aspect of the rebellion--that its being pursued by those who want to claim more land and lives for Allah--and call these fighters "rebels." But perhaps, given their motivation and ambition we should give them a more accurate name: mujahedeen.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:42 | link | comments

Top Guns, grounded: The conflict between 9th Century values and the 21st Century techology has reared its head once again in Pakistan, a country which, since its inception, has had a hard time coming to grips with the problem. (Witness the Pakistani nuclear scientists passing along his expertise to regimes mired in a 9th Century mindset, and to another, North Korea, whose mindset cannot be properly located at all--a move which may yet have tragic and horrific consequences for the world.) The issue here: Pakistani fighter pilots want to keep their long beards, even though such facial paraphernalia could interfere with their ability to, um, breathe in the cockpit. From Islam Online:

ISLAMABAD, April 15, 2006 (IslamOnline.net) – Four young Pakistani air force officers have lost their careers over growing long bears, a decision defended by the government on technical grounds amid "secularization" accusations.

"The facial hair if they are too long can cause problem for the pilots and airmen on high altitude and the oxygen mask can also malfunction if the aircraft is flying at a high altitude," commodore Sarafraz Ahmed, the director of the Information Directorate of Pakistan Air force, told IslamOnline.net.

He said that anybody violating the officially sanctioned dress code, which prohibits pilots and airmen to grow beard longer than certain length, would have to face the consequence.

The Air Force is also considering to send other officers with long beards on retirement if they don't comply with the dress code, official sources told IOL.

Parliamentary Secretary for Defense, Tanveer Hussein Shah, has told parliament last week that there is no restriction in the Air Force on officers of any rank to grow beards.

He noted that because of technical reasons there is a limit on the length of accepted beards.

According to IOL's correspondent, long beards are considered symbol of religious devoutness in Pakistan society.

"Face the consequence"--I know the director is referring to the consequence of not being able to fly due to dress code violations. But they could "face" another, even more pressing consequence, one that's specifically facial: the consequence of a rapid descent from thousands of feet in the air because of all the facial fuzz on their face.

Could someone please explain to me why, in some cases, "religious devoutness" is inimical to common sense?

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:30 | link | comments

Thanks, Vlad: Hamas is on the brink of financial collapse. But don't worry. The Russians are racing to bail them out. For "humanitarian" reasons, of course. From the BBC:

Russia has said it will grant the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority urgent financial aid, in opposition to the policy of the EU and the US.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the pledge to authority President Mahmoud Abbas in a telephone call, Moscow said.

The US and EU cut off aid after Hamas took power on 30 March because the militant group refused to renounce violence or recognise Israel.

Iran on Friday urged the Muslim world to help fund the authority.

A Russian foreign ministry statement said: "Mahmoud Abbas stated his high appreciation of Russia's intent, confirmed by Sergei Lavrov, to grant the Palestinian Authority an urgent financial aid in the nearest future."

Mr Lavrov said on Tuesday withholding aid to the Palestinians was a mistake.

The chain of plots by the American government aimed at governing the Middle East through the control of the Zionist regime will not succeed

"Hamas should... recognise Israel and sit down at the negotiating table. But for that it's necessary to work with them," Mr Lavrov said.

In the same way that Russia "worked" with the Third Reich, I guess.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:56 | link | comments

Isn't it ironic?: Norman Kember, the British member of the Christian Peacemaker Teams who was help hostage in Iraq, is grateful that he and his team mates were rescued. However, speaking publicly for the first time since the end of his ordeal, he commented on the evident "irony" of his release--evident to him, anyway. From The Scotsman:

PEACE campaigner Norman Kember has spoken of the irony of being rescued from Iraq by the "most violent" of British forces.

Mr Kember, 74, of Pinner in north west London, was held in Baghdad for four months before his rescue on March 23.

In his first in-depth interview since then, he told the BBC that the kidnapping was "unreal".

He also said when he and his two Canadian colleagues were rescued in Baghdad by British special forces they asked for "Mr Kember".

Mr Kember said he "continues to thank" his rescuers for taking him to safety.

But he added: "It is ironic isn't it - you go as a peace activist and you are rescued by the SAS, which is perhaps the most violent of all the British forces.

"Anyway I am grateful to them. I met one of them by chance on the way out of Baghdad and he was quite happy to chat to me and I was happy to chat to him."

American peace worker Tom Fox, 54, was killed weeks before the rescue.

Speaking of the moment his rescuers arrived, Mr Kember said: "It's unbelievable because it was so sudden and first of all, because they were British, they wanted to know if Mr Kember was there, and I said, 'yes', and then they said, because I was the person at that stage chained to the door, 'this is a bolt-cutter job', so they went down and cut the padlock and released me."

Mr. Kember calls it "ironic". I'm inclined to call it something else: poetic justice. In any case, there's a far greater irony here--the irony of self-righteous but deluded Christian pacifists who, in the name of "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" enable some of the most hateful, repressive regimes on the planet.

As they say in French, quel ironie!

Update: Norman Kember's co-hostage, Canadian James Loney, has an essay in the Toronto Star detailing his ordeal and rescue. In a breathtaking--and sick-making--display of moral equivalence, he describes going from the "tomb" of captivity to the "tomb" of being shoved into a cramped Humvee. Because, as we all know, being kidnapped and held for four months by bloodthirsty religious fanatics who murdered one of your friends is exactly the same as to having to ride for a few minutes in one of those American army rescue vehicles.

Here's Mr. Loney's breathless description of how we went from one tomb right into another:

They led us past the smashed-glass threshold of our tomb and out. Out into blue! Beautiful all sky blue! Fresh flowing air and a palm tree and good morning sunlight! They led us through a smiling gauntlet of soldiers and, with a big step up and a big hatch down, we were entombed again.

This tomb was a bland desert-camouflage colour. It was squat, constructed of impregnable steel, moved on a rolling tread of metal plates. The passenger section was dark and cramped and crammed with carefully tooled metal shapes (each with an exact purpose) and little signs that told you things like what to do in the event of a rollover. A young soldier named Rob kept watch through a tiny slit of super-thick plate glass. Through it, you could see a small, distorted rectangle of the world outside.

The armoured personnel carrier in motion was excruciatingly loud. The roar and staccato-grind of it pounded in my bones. It brought us to a helicopter armed with a fixed, heavy-calibre machine gun, and the helicopter brought us to the Green Zone — the sprawling, blast-wall lock-down that houses the offices of the fledgling Iraqi government and the occupying forces of Britain and the United States.

Yes, we went from one tomb to another.

I am learning many things from my captivity, and have a universe of things to be grateful for. Among them is a new and deep appreciation for the women and men who wear the uniform of military service. I likely would not be writing this today if it were not for them. Thus, I am confronted with a great paradox. I, the Christian pacifist peacemaker, am alive, am free because of the very institutions I believe are contrary to Christian teaching.

Christ teaches us to love our enemies, do good to those who harm us, pray for those who persecute us. He calls us to accept suffering before we inflict injury. He calls us to pick up the cross and to lay down the sword.

We will most certainly fail in this call. I did. And I'll fail again. This does not change Christ's teaching that violence itself is the tomb, violence is the dead-end. Peace won through the barrel of a gun might be a victory but it is not peace. Our captors had guns and they ruled over us. Our rescuers had bigger guns and ruled over the captors. We were freed, but the rule of the gun stayed. The stone across the tomb of violence has not been rolled away.

I'm learning that there are many kinds of prisons and many kinds of tombs. Prisons of the mind, the heart, the body. Tombs of despair, fear, confusion. Tombs within tombs and prisons within prisons.

And there are tombs of idiocy, wherein foolish pacificts are forced to crouch for a long, long time--for their entire lives, in fact--because they are incapable of telling the good guys from the bad guys. Call them the Hotel California of tombs because, once you check into them, you can never leave.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:17 | link | comments

Moo's speeches: I don't know who's writing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speeches these days, but having written a speech or two myself, I want to commend him or her (him, I presume, since the hers in the Islamic dystopia aren't allowed to perambulate in the corridors of power). The trickiest thing about speechwriting is making the speech sound friendly but authoritative, and coming up with one or two memorable turns of phrase that will stick in the minds of listeners.

Well, the Ahmadinejad scribe (or maybe the man himself) keeps hitting the rhetorical jackpot. Last year he penned the colourful "we will wipe the Jews off the map" phrase. Yesterday, we heard another "gem"--how "the Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

Poetry. Sheer poetry.

Sheer hateful, genocidal, demented poetry.

It reminds me of the stuff Ezra Pound was spewing over Italian radio during the Second World War, only far more alarming because it's coming from the head of a large Muslim nation who's itching to get his finger on the nuclear launch button, and not from some loony-tunes but essentially powerless Jew-hating poet.

The other thing about good speechwriting is that if you want to get your message across with maximum impact, sometimes you have to eschew the poetry and cut to the chase. Again, the Moo Jihad speech did just that with a single luminous line. Israel's "existence,"  he said, "has harmed the dignity of Islamic nations."

If you wanted to capture the Arab/Muslim objection to the fact of the Jewish state, you'd be hard-pressed to articulate it any more clearly or succinctly than that.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:47 | link | comments (1)

Protest in Gaza: Hamas is standing resolute in its determination to uphold its Jew-killing agenda--a resolve that has led to the rapid depletion of the resources it needs to pay off all the Palestinians who feed at the P.A.'s trough. And as much as the populace is in line with Hamas's pothole-filling/ map-wiping plans, people are beginning to wonder whether they're willing to starve for the jihad. Today, for example, a few unpaid policemen in Gaza took to the streets to protest their lack of a paycheck. As usual at such gatherings, there was much hysteria, gunfire, and participants made sure to wear their festive black masks. From aljazeera.net:

Masked Palestinian police sealed off a main road in the central Gaza Strip town of Khan Younis on Saturday and stormed a government building in anger over not receiving salaries from the Hamas-led government.

The gunmen surrounded the building, where town councilors have their offices, taking positions on the roof and balconies and firing in the air, The Associated Press reported.

Salaries for the government's 140,000 employees are two weeks overdue.

Western nations have cut off aid to the cash-strapped Palestinian Authority, demanding Hamas renounce violence and recognise Israel's right to exist. Israel also cut off the monthly transfer of about $50 million in taxes it collects on behalf of the Palestinians.

The Palestinian finance minister on Saturday asked government workers to be patient.

"They know that the treasury is empty," Omar Abdul Razak told Aljazeera. "We urge all Palestinians to stand hand in hand with the government until the crisis is resolved."

Sporadically firing rifles in the air, the gunmen paralyzed Khan Younis, forcing workers traveling from northern Gaza to get out of their cars and walk more than a kilometer (half a mile) to get into town.

The main road links the central Gaza town with the rest of the strip

Those heading to the southern town of Rafah had to take back roads.

Stores in the town were closed, and residents gathered to watch the demonstration. Dozens of schoolchildren left their school after the gunmen fired outside their building.

Demand for salaries

"We want salaries. We want the government to live up to its responsibilities," said a leader of the protest who gave his name only as Abu Hassan. "If they don't have the ability to secure our salaries and to guarantee good living conditions for the people, they either have to step aside or to ask the people what the next step must be. They cannot act alone."

The protest came a day after Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister, told thousands of supporters that his government would not cave into financial pressure.

"Attempts to destroy this government and put obstacles before it and disrupt it will only be met with more steadfastness, resolve and solidarity," Haniyeh told a rally on Friday.

The gunmen, loyal mainly to the former ruling party Fatah, in the past have staged protests demanding jobs or pay raises.

The Palestinian Authority is the largest employer in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, sustaining about one-third of the population.

So one-third of the population has cushy civil service jobs.

Sounds like France.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:15 | link | comments

I know you are but what am I?: I couldn't help but resort to that school yard taunt upon reading this New York Times headline: Iran's leader calls Israel a contant threat.

It's 1938 all over again, with a genocidal Jew-hater moving closer and closer toward his ultimate solution.

Time to Yass(ass)in-ate this hate monger.

Posted by: scaramouche at 21:09 | link | comments

Holiday resolutions: I believe the time is nigh to change the name of the United Nations to a name that more accurately reflects its collective outlook. The name that immediately springs to mind is "the United Nations Against Israel."

Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

Here's another example of why such a name change is long overdue. From the New York Sun:

UNITED NATIONS - When the American ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, asked the members of the Security Council yesterday whether they thought it appropriate on Passover, a major Jewish holy day, to debate a motion denouncing Israel, most of the 15 ambassadors failed to grasp what was wrong, according to diplomats present at the meeting, held behind closed doors.

The council scheduled yesterday's meeting after a few days of consultations, hoping to reach an agreement on a statement regarding Israel and the Palestinian Arab territories. No agreement was reached because, according to Mr. Bolton, the text proposed by Qatar, the Arab member of the council, was "not fair and balanced."

The council instead will meet Monday for an open meeting, in which dozens of U.N. members will deliver speeches in what one diplomat described as a "group therapy session."

Non-members of the council do not take part in closed-door consultations like the one that took place yesterday. But diplomats from countries whose affairs are being discussed wait in a room near the council, where they are briefed on the goings-on by friendly council members and where they try to lobby council members.

Israeli diplomats are always present during such consultations, but yesterday they were conspicuous in their absence. A diplomat, who asked for anonymity because Israeli officials are supposed to decline interviews during the first 24 hours of Passover, told The New York Sun that the council had been notified in advance that no Israelis would come to Turtle Bay during the holiday.

The request for a council meeting by Qatar's ambassador, Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser, "was made several days ago," Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya, who is the council's president for the month of April, told the Sun. Qatar declined to delay the consultations any further, as today the United Nations is closed as it is Good Friday...

Which holidays are observed by the United Nations "is something which is decided every year," said French ambassador Jean Marc de la Sabliere, adding that the United Nations cannot afford to stop work" whenever there is a religious feast" anywhere around the world.

The Israeli diplomat said that the issue is not working days, but a council meeting that specifically had to do with Israel. Two years ago, after a flare up on the Syrian-Israeli border, a more acute open meeting of the council took place on the eve of Yom Kippur, the diplomat noted. Ambassador Dan Gillerman had to deliver a speech, and after making special arrangement to schedule the speech early, he literally ran out of Turtle Bay just before sundown, when Jewish observance begins.

"The essence of Jewish holidays would require a moral basis," said the Palestinian Arab observer, Mr. Mansour. "These are holy days for Muslims, Jews, and Christians. And the tradition we are familiar with, during religious holidays there should not be killing of civilian and innocent individuals."...

Um, excuse me for mentioning it,  Mr. Palestinian Arab observer, but on the occasion of the Prophet's birthday a few days ago, a couple of guys who seemed to lack a moral basis blew themselves up in the Islamic city of Karachi. And today, Good Friday, a few others bereft of a moral basis blew themselves up in Iraq, killing scores of people, some of whom were worshipping in a mosque at the time. Also, I'm a bit dubious about being preaced to about morality by a guy whose people recently elected the Arab version of Adolf Hitler's Nazi Party. Hard to detect any morality in an avowed agenda of genocide.

It's good to know, however, that the UN is going in for some of that "group therapy." I can think of few groups more in need of intervention to try to remedy its serious--and seriously irrational--emotional disorders.

Posted by: scaramouche at 16:59 | link | comments

Step lively: Look out, Moo Jihad. The nuclear watchkitten's in town, and he's on the prowl for a righteous "diffusing." From Zaman Online:

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohammed El Baradei visited Tehran yesterday in order to diffuse tensions following the Iranian administration’s announcement that they completed the uranium enrichment process and had become a “nuclear power”.

In the capital on a series of top level contacts before his departure, El Baradei said he will make efforts to persuade the Iranian leaders to halt their uranium enrichment program.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad stressed "they are speaking as a nuclear power from now on" and said they will not retreat even “one iota” of their nuclear activities.

Nuclear authorities believe Tehran does not have the necessary material and information for this.

US officials said the allegations were exaggerated, adding it will take at least until the year 2020 for Iran to reach the capacity to manufacture nuclear weapons.

I dunno. Sending in Mo ElBee to wrangle with Moo Jihad sounds about as useful as establishing a permanent bureaucracy devoted exclusively to Palestinian refugees. (Mo's so impotent he only wants to "diffuse", not "defuse", the tensions.)

I know. Maybe the UN's cultrual agency, UNESCO, can take time out for its thought-policing work (see post below) and send in a delegation to record the moves of those exuberant uranium dancers. (I hear they're something to be seen--part Morris dancing, part Tetley Tea Folk folk dancing.) That way we can all be "in step" when Iran drops the big one in 14 years.

Update: Hugh Hewitt and Mark Steyn think the idea that Iran is 14 years away from building a nuke is utter piffle:

HH: Mark Steyn, also with regards to the five to ten, or fifteen years that comes up, I had an e-mailer pose what I thought was an excellent question. When the United States in 1941, with all of its industrial base, turned its attention to developing an atomic device, it was able to successfully do so in four years. Now the technology is much easier to produce. The industrial base of Iran equivalent to that of the United States in 1941. Why does anyone think it's going to take them five more years?

MS: Yes, I think that's completely ridiculous. As you say, when these things didn't exist, the United States was able to go from start to finish in a very short period of time. Now, they're everywhere. You know, this...Pakistan's nuclear program was basically smuggled out of the Netherlands by one guy, A.Q. Khan, who happened to be working at a couple of facilities in the Netherlands, and on the Dutch/German border, and smuggled out enough to know for Pakistan to get their own bomb. He since disseminated it around the Muslim world. It's ludicrous to think that it's ten years for a sophisticated, advanced, developed country that wants these things very badly. It's ludicrous to think it's going to be like that. And the point is, if preemption means anything, it means that you take a guy at his word. This is how corrupted the whole debate's become in the United States. Because we didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, supposedly that makes the administration a bunch of liars. The point is, Saddam behaved as if he had those weapons. Iran is behaving as if it wants to use those weapons, and we should take them at their word.

Update: An ebullient Moo Jihad shows folks in what he calls "the decaying West" how to do one of the tricky uranium dance steps:

Update: He came, he saw, he floundered, he left.

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:40 | link | comments

Thinking nice thoughts: The thought police (International Division) continue their efforts to make us think only good thoughts. And by that they really mean, don't you be blaspheming the one true faith no mo'. From Zaman Online:

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is making new attempts to develop dialogue among different cultures while guaranteeing respect for religious values.

The UNESCO Executive Council completed its two-week long meetings in the French capital Paris yesterday, and passed the draft law "Respect for freedom of expression, sacred beliefs, values and religious and cultural symbols" prepared for this purpose. The document brought to the agenda by the Organization for Islamic Conference (OIC) has been feverishly discussed in UNESCO sessions by the European Union (EU), OIC and US for 10 days.

Though a consensus was reached at the end of negotiations, the EU put a "drawback" in the title of the document.

Certain EU countries are reported to have objected to the use of the expressions "sacred beliefs" and "religious symbols" in the title. The Executive Council, inviting UNESCO to fulfill the organization's commitment of respect towards freedom of expression as well as towards religious and cultural values in the 11-article document passed yesterday, wants efforts in this field to be strengthened.

The council asked for the development of mutual understanding to eradicate "the ignorance about other peoples' ways of life,” and wants the organization to prepare an action plan in light of current international documents.

The council also asks the UNESCO General Directorate to accelerate the implementation of the plan among civilizations and cultures in order to "produce a culture of cohabitation and peace." The Executive Council decided to prepare a report on the issue next term.

The document emphasizes that freedom of expression must take place in "mutual respect and understanding," and calls for respect of cultural differences, religious beliefs and symbols. The document says a big task awaits the media in this regard. The fact that no reference is made to the controversial cartoons in the decision attracted notice. The OIC found “weak” UNESCO Director General Koichiro Matsuura's statement on the cartoon crisis, which caused major reactions in the Muslim world, and brought the decision to UNESCO’s agenda.

Turkey's Ambassador to UNESCO Numan Hazar made active contributions in the negotiation stage of the document. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in a message he issued on Wednesday, said no individual or group may insult any religious symbol.

To UNESCO, we are all Winston Smiths, in dire need of brain-sanitizing so we're compliant when the "culture of cohabitation and peace" (Dar es Salaam?) finally descends upon us.

I had a thought, though: If they're so committed to respecting religious and cultural symbols, I'm expecting them to insist that the International Red Cross get rid of that meaningless red crystal and reinstate the ancient emblem of the Jewish people, the Star of David.

Just kidding, of course. I know that such committment to respecting the "freedom of expression, sacred beliefs,values and religious and cultural symbols" is really a one-way street. We're supposed to do all the respecting, while others are merely to be respected.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:56 | link | comments

If it's Friday, this must be Gaza: Iran's Rafsanjani makes a quick visit to some of his jihadi confreres, to make sure they're all still alongside with the dystopia's Jew-divesting/nuclear schemes. From, where else?, IranMania:

LONDON, April 14 (IranMania) - Iran's influential former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani met with leaders of the radical Palestinian groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad as well as the head of the Shiite Lebanese Hezbollah movement, Iranian sources said, according to AFP.

Rafsanjani is on a four-day visit to the Syrian capital amid worldwide alarm over Iran's announcement Tuesday that it had successfully enriched uranium, a process that can lead to the production of fuel for nuclear power plants or the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

"The Palestinian resistance has today reached a new phase which requires the support of all Muslim countries... to reach victory," Rafsanjani said, according to an Iranian source who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Rafsanjani met Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah late Wednesday at the Iranian embassy in Damascus, the source said.

Nasrallah said that Iran's ability to enrich uranium would "be a large moral boost to the resistance."

An Iranian diplomatic source also said that on Wednesday night Rafsanjani met Hamas's political supremo Khaled Meshaal and Islamic Jihad's secretary-general Ramadan Shaleh, AFP noted.

"The Muslim world is proud that Tehran has acquired nuclear technology," Meshaal reportedly said during their meeting.

"Uranium enrichment provides a great deal of moral support to the Palestinian people and heroes of the resistance," he said.

Rafsanjani assured that Iran would continue its support for the Palestinian resistance and criticized "Western states that have suspended aid the Palestinian Authority."

Rafsanjani also met with Syrian Prime Minister Naji Otri and Foreign Minister Walid Muallem over "external pressures confronting Syria and Iran," the official SANA news agency said.

On Wednesday, Rafsanjani vowed Tehran would not give in to UN pressures to halt its enrichment of uranium, which he hailed as a great achievement.

Tehran's announcement put Iran on a collision course with the UN Security Council, which has given the country until April 28 to accede to demands that it halt enrichment or face possible sanctions.

Iran insists that its nuclear program is aimed purely at producing nuclear power, but the country is widely suspected of using it to conceal efforts to develop atomic weapons.

It's kind of hard to disguise your real ambitions when you're crowing about how uranium will be a "boost to the resistance" (i.e., to the jihad) and people are dancing arouind with (faux) vials of the stuff.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:44 | link | comments

Zacharias Moussaoui sings: Now, there's a man who did it "My Way":

And now the end is near
And so I’ll face the jury's ruling.
I’ve tried to mock it all
With all my tricks and all my fooling.
I know that if it’s death
I wouldn’t beg, bemoan or barter
I’d ride to Paradise
Just like a martyr.

Regrets,
I’ve had not one.
I live and die just for the jihad.
That infidels draw breath
Was fact enough
To make me real mad.
To kill them one by one’s
A strategy that’s getting harder.
It’s tough to kill them all
When you’re one martyr.

Yes, there was a time, I’m sure you knew
When Richard Reid rigged up his shoe.
But tho’ he tried to make it ‘splode
Like me, he took another road.
We failed to kill, but what a thrill,
For would-be martyrs.

I’ve loathed, I’ve seethed, I've prayed
That we would be a superpower.
And in the kafir’s court
I’ve railed and raged,
Sat with a glower.
And now, as judgement looms
And getting off is a non-starter.
I’ll face and I’ll embrace
Being a martyr.

For what is a life?
It’s but a speck,
So meaningless,
So full of dreck.
But, oh, to die,
For Allah’s cause
And give your life for Allah’s laws.
I must impart
That it’s so smart
To be a martyr.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:49 | link | comments

1984 is now: Ezra Levant has a letter in today's Globe and Mail in response to Margaret Wente's column. Fittingly, the letter is headlined "Orwellian actions":

Re The Right Not To Be Offended by Margaret Wente (April 13): Marie Ridelle of the Alberta government tells Margaret Wente that Alberta's human-rights commission intends to ask me some "hard questions" about why the Western Standard magazine published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed.

What could those hard questions be? Do we think we have the right to publish the cartoons? That's not hard. Section 2(b) of the Charter guarantees us that right. Can we justify our decision to publish them? That's not a hard one, either: We have exhaustively justified our decision to our magazine's readers and to the public at large, including to Globe and Mail reporters. But we will not justify ourselves to a government inspector.

The real issue is how this matter has been transformed from one of editorial taste -- where reasonable people can disagree about our views -- to one of government censorship, where our very right to publish is now under attack.

The government commission pursuing us has at its disposal vast coercive powers including, for example, the right to enter our magazine's offices and seize documents. I must now attend an Orwellian "reconciliation meeting" where a government official will try to convince me to see the error of my views and "compromise" my thinking.

If I fail to attend this re-education meeting, I may face sterner consequences. The commission may investigate us, fine us, and order us to issue a public apology and renounce our beliefs. Not even convicted murderers can be ordered to apologize for their crimes. But a forced, public self-denunciation is in fact the only remedy the complaint against us seeks.

And if we fail to comply with such an apology order, we can be held in civil contempt -- which could mean more fines and potentially even jail time and my disbarment as a lawyer.

I'm sure Canada's liberal defenders of press freedom, diversity of opinion, secularism and the separation of mosque and state will be along any moment now.

Just call him Ezra 'Winston Smith" Levant.

Posted by: scaramouche at 09:53 | link | comments

In great (and not so great) demand: The Toronto Public Library has 10 copies of the video Osama bin Laden: A non-threatening profile. but only 7 copies of Bruce Bawer's While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West From Within. And if you want to reserve a copy, you'll be number 93 on the list--so it looks like you should get to read it sometime around mid-2007.

The Osama video, on the other hand, is available immediately.

Just wanted to point that out.

Posted by: scaramouche at 14:20 | link | comments

The right to offend: Whenever I hear the word "human" attached to the word "rights" I cringe, because I know that it generally refers to an Orwellian type of arrangement wherein someone's rights take precedence over someone else's rights; and that someone is usually a bully--an Israel-basher, a Jew-hater, a smug internationalist--who has no business trying to tell me what to think. In our age, human rights boards, commissions, councils, what have yous, have taken on the tenor and tone of thought police, and the thoughts they want me to think--that it's a small world after all, that everything is for the best in this, the best of all multicultural worlds--are dangerous for the long term health of free and democratic societies.

Case in point, over in Alberta, Ezra Levant is going to have to account to the Alberta human rights commission for publishing those "blasphemous" 'toons. The complaint against Levant and the magazine he edits, The Western Standard, was brought by one Syed Soharwardy who sits at the helm of an unassuming little outfit called the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada.

Apparently, not supreme enough for Mr. Sowarhardy ("supreme" being an aspiration rather than a reality at this stage), who was grievously offended at the sight of a 'toon showing Mo with a bomb in his headgear. As Mr. Sowarhardy explains (quoted in Margaret Wente's column), he thinks press freedom is swell, but he draws the line at inferences that an allegiance to You Know Who leads to you know what (treading carefully here, lest I offend). The reason: "...when it comes to my religion, Islam, which is very dear to me--when someone shows Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, it hurts. I am directly descended from the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him. So when a person published these cartoons they depicted me--I am taking this personally--as a terrorist."

Wow. A direct descendent. No wonder he's so pissed. Personally, I'm a direct descendent of a guy from the tribe of Judah who was allergic to sand and had a hell of a time wandering in the desert for 40 years, especially without fozen yogurt and sunscreen, but since he wasn't God's Messanger, you can draw all the satirical 'toons of him you want.

But I guess that's the big difference between me and Mr. Sowarhardy. When your ancestors aren't quite as exalted, it's easier to laugh at yourself.

As Ms. Wente points out, the Alberta commision has to entertain these complaints with utter seriousness, because the legislation as written compels it to. Otherwise, someone in an official capacity could have informed Mr. Sowarhardy that the real offence isn't a drawing of Mo with a bomb in his hat, but a would-be martyr like, say, Richard Reeves, with a bomb in his sneaker. Or a successful martyr like the spoiled Leeds rich kid, with a sports car and a trust fund, who tucked some dynamite into his rucksack and blew himself and others up on a London subway. Or the martyrs whose voices can be heard just before Flight 93 plummeted to the ground, killing all on board, but missing its target of an American landmark. Muslims who murder infidels because they believe they are commanded to do so by their religious doctrine--now that's offensive. Also revolting, uncivilized and deplorable. A few pathetic sketches, including one showing Mr. Sowarhardy's Great-Great-Great-Great-ad-infinitum-Grand-Papa the Prophet--well, as Margaret Wente writes, "try as I might, I find the monstrous offence he feels almost impossible to grasp."

Her conclusion re: the 'toons:

Was it cruelly insensitive to reprint them? Obviously, to Muslims. Was it reckless? Maybe. But if those things are crimes, then we're all in trouble.

To be more specific, Ms. Wente, if those "offences" are crimes, we're all in, or rather, under sharia. And at that point, Mr. Sowarhardy's organization will indeed be "supreme."

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:26 | link | comments

Mo, Mo, he's our man...: The brainwashing, er, indoctrination, er, stereotype-removal, er, education of non-Muslim Eurabians continues apace. From Islam Online:

THE HAGUE, April 10, 2006 (IslamOnline.net) – "Now I know a lot about Prophet Muhammad," Anna, a Dutch student, said after attending a gala organized by Dutch Muslims in Rotterdam to celebrate the Prophet's Birthday.

"I have to say that he is completely different from that person portrayed in the media," she added.

This year Dutch Muslims are seizing celebrations of Prophet Muhammad's Birthday, which falls on Rabi` Awwal 12, to introduce the prophet of Islam (peace and blessings be upon him) to non-Muslim Dutch.

Muslim volunteers have handed out flyers and leaflets to non-Muslims in a Rotterdam neighborhood, inviting them to show up in the ceremony.

"This is a nice gesture from Muslims," Anna said, carrying a flower offered to her by one of the organizers.

"I came to know untwisted information about Islam," she added.

"Your Prophet really deserves respect like the all other prophets," Anna said, in an enthusiastic mood.

"We have been looking forward to hearing about Islam from Dutch Muslims," added another non-Muslim Dutch woman.

There are one million Muslims in the Netherlands, mostly hailing from Turkish and Moroccan origin.

Building Bridges

Zarifa Brish, one of the organizers, said they wanted the prophet's birthday this year to be unique.

"We wanted to acquaint non-Muslims with the characteristics of the Prophet and tell them examples of his life to counter the blemishing [Danish] cartoons," she told IslamOnline.net.

Twelve cartoons lampooning the Prophet were first published by Denmark's best-selling Jyllands Posten in September and then reprinted by several European dailies, sparking Muslim outrage worldwide.

One of the odious drawings portrays the Prophet as wearing a time-bomb shaped turban and another showed him as a knife-wielding nomad flanked by shrouded women.

"We wanted to join forces with our mosques in their effort to remove stereotypes about the Prophet in the Netherlands," noted Brish.

Muslim youths have expressed their love for the Prophet through chanting nasheeds (Islamic songs) and poems.

The Halal Food organization also organized competitions to pick the best poem and essay on the Prophet.

"Our campaign to defend the Prophet will not be limited to one day or one week," Ahmed Al-Baghdadi, the imam of Al-Mohsenin mosque, told IOL.

"To really defend the Prophet, one has to be a good, practicing Muslim with an exemplary behavior in his/her work," he noted...

Repeat after me: four legs good, two legs bad; four legs good, two legs bad...

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:36 | link | comments

Enabling the jihad: So far Canada, the U.S. and even the EU have decided to have nothing to do with the Islamo-Nazis, the duly elected government of the Palestinian people.

UNRWA, however, has no such compunctions. Why should it? It's been nurturing--and playing nursemaid to--Hamas and other jihadis for a long, long time. From the Jerusalem Post:

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) will continue to provide assistance to Palestinian refugees without regard to the new Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government.

In a press conference in Gaza City Tuesday, UNRWA director Karin Abu-Zaid said that she had not received any instructions to cease cooperation with Hamas officials in the PA, Israel Radio reported.

Abu Zaid said that the agency would work as usual with the Hamas government to find a solution to the Palestinians' humanitarian needs.

On Tuesday, a UN spokesman in New York said that official contact with the Hamas government would be approved as necessary.

That UNRWA. Such a humanitarian outfit.

Let's give 'em a Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: scaramouche at 17:11 | link | comments

Couldn't he just have sung "Happy Birthday?": Oh, those "youths." There they go again--a-ragin' and a-rampagin', this time in Karachi. From AP:

KARACHI, Pakistan — Mobs of youths rioted in this southern city for a second straight day Wednesday to protest a suicide bombing that killed at least 57 people, which a top Pakistani official said was aimed at "eliminating" the leadership of a moderate Sunni Muslim group.

Police on Wednesday confirmed that a lone unidentified suicide bomber detonated an 11-pound bomb near Sunni dignitaries seated in a downtown Karachi park Tuesday at a religious service with 10,000 other worshippers.

The service, to mark the birthday of Islam's Prophet Muhammad, was organized by moderate Sunni groups including the Tehrik group, whose top two leaders and a third senior official were among the 57 people killed, including the bomber.

Amid soaring sectarian tensions, hundreds of security forces blocked main roads and shut schools throughout Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, to prevent a repeat of Tuesday's riots that broke out after the suicide bombing.

But a group of youths, apparently supporters of the Tehrik group, rampaged through a neighborhood, setting fire to a bus and two cars and smashing shop windows before police forces, aided by local Islamic clerics, brought the situation under control, said area police chief Shah Nawaz Khan.

Funerals for many of the victims were held throughout Karachi attended by up to 5,000 people. Some chanted "God is great, and our leaders have attained martyrdom."

I can think of no better way to celebrate the birth of the most perfect human being who ever existed in all of human history than to strap on a bomb and blow yourself up.

Just don't any of you Islamophobic Westerners draw any 'toons suggesting a connection between Mo's jihad dogma and suicide martyrdom. That would be blasphemous!

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:59 | link | comments

Nuclear fiesta: The Iranians are mighty thrilled about joining "the nuclear club." For them it's akin to belonging to a religious version of the mile-high club, only they have to wait for martyrdom to enjoy any sex. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

...President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who made the announcement on nationwide television, said Iranian scientists have enriched uranium sufficiently for civilian nuclear purposes in a demonstration program.

"The nuclear fuel cycle has been completed at the laboratory level, and uranium has been produced with suitable degree of enrichment for use in nuclear power plants," the hard-line leader told a gathering of civilian and military leaders in the northeastern city of Mashhad. "This is the result of the Iranian nation's resistance," he said.

But the announcement -- which was preceded by ceremonies in which dancers waved purported vials of uranium and clerics shouted "God is great" -- flies in the face of a U.N. Security Council demand that Iran stop all enrichment activities by April 28 because of suspicion that the program is designed to make nuclear weapons.

The Bush administration immediately denounced the move, saying that "Iran is moving in the wrong direction."

Hamid Reza Taraghi, a senior aide to Ahmadinejad, said Iran no longer needed to negotiate and was handing Western powers and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's nuclear facilities, a "fait accompli."...

"I believe there is no longer any need for negotiations. All we need to discuss with (IAEA chief Mohamed) ElBaradei is to ensure continued cooperation of the IAEA in its observer capacity to confirm that our activities are peaceful in the purposes," he told the Los Angeles Times...

Seems like an awful lot of jubilation if all you want to do is boost your energy supply and light office towers in Tehran. But I'm sure Mo ElBee will assure as there's no trace of nuke production in the dystopia, and the uranium Chicken Dance ("We all want to build some warheads, we all want to build some nukes, flap, flap, flap, flap, clap, clap, clap, clap...") and shouts of "Allah Akbar" are evidence of their excitement about reducing their energy costs.

Update: Not only did they do the uranium Chicken Dance, I have it on good authority that they adapted that show-stopper from Gypsy!--"Everything's Coming Up Roses"--which the throng sung with great enthusiasm. I hear it went something like this:

Curtain up,
Light the fuse,
We got nothing to hit but the Jews.
Starting here, starting now,
Looks like everything's comin' up roses (of the Prophet Mohammed).

Grab a vial,
Dance a jig
Soon we'll get to the ape and the pig.
God is great,
God is swell,
It looks good,
We can tell,
Darlin', everything's comin' up roses (of the Prophet Mohammed)…

Update: The Russians are dubious. From RIA Novosti:

Iran's announcement that it has joined the world's nuclear club is a bluff and a political PR move, an expert at a Russian think tank said Wednesday.

"The announcement that Iran can produce nuclear fuel is largely a bluff," said Vladimir Yevseyev, a senior researcher at the Moscow-based Center for Global Security. "What they [Iranian leaders] said about successfully completing the full nuclear cycle in laboratory conditions should not be viewed as a confirmation that the country could launch full-scale production of nuclear fuel."

In a televised speech on Tuesday, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said: "I officially announce that Iran has joined the group countries with nuclear technology."

The Russian expert said that during the latest experiment Iran had managed to produce only a small amount of low-enriched uranium.

"Iran is talking about completing a full nuclear cycle, but actually it has not gone that far because the full cycle includes plutonium separation in addition to uranium enrichment, and the country has made only a few initial steps in this sphere," Yevseyev said, adding that it could take Iran at least three years to accumulate enough high-enriched uranium to create a nuclear weapon.

The expert also said Iran could not be considered a member of the world's nuclear club because the country had not yet conducted a single nuclear test.

"Therefore, I regard all such statements merely as a bluff - political PR moves designed to apply pressure on the West, and ensure a better negotiating position," he said...

Posted by: scaramouche at 13:45 | link | comments

Pharaohs, old and new: Along with continually being compelled to consume the bread of affliction (which refers to a metaphorical carb, not the havoc a week’s worth of matzah usually wreaks on my delicate digestive tract), Jews are told that in every generation, an ambitious Jew-hater will arise and try to wipe us all out. Given that, there’s something eerily fitting about the timing of Moo Jihad’s announcement that the Shias have joined the nuclear club—on the cusp of Passover.

As far as I can tell Pharaoh’s got nothing on Moo. Sure, they have the same kind of primitive mindset. And neither of them think too much of those pesky “chosen folk”—although P., foreshadowing construction conditions in modern-day Dubai, certainly knew how to make good use of the ample slave labour market. The primary difference between Moo and P.—aside from the potential for global nuclear annihilation, of course—is that P. didn’t want to let the Jews go, and tried to erect all kinds of barriers to keep them from leaving, while Moo can’t wait to wipe them off the map.

The biggest problem, existential-threatwise, is not that every generation throws up a new version of Pharaoh, but that technology advances alongside them. Think of how P. tried to stop the Jews—chariots, horses, killing all the male Jewish bambinos. And even though the tools were fairly rough-hewn, think of what it took to defeat them—locusts, frogs, lice, wild beasts and the rest, plus The Big Guy had to take the drastic step of tampering with a major waterway—twice. The first time, so that the Jews could escape to the other side; the second so that P.’s army, as the old spiritual goes, “got drownded.”

Compare that to the methods employed by P.’s modern day successor, Hitler (assembly-line genocide), and Hitler’s likely successor, Moo Jihad (nuclear genocide), and all I can say is, I think I would have preferred to take my chances with Pharaoh.

Then again, Sy Hersh tells us Moo is likely to have a visitation soon from the scariest plague ever, worse even than itchy bugs and perpetual darkness—a plague of Great Satan’s airplanes carrying bunker busting bombs.

Sy thinks that would be a bad thing, but this being Passover and all, I prefer to see it as a kind of “eleventh plague”—God’s message to the Pharaoh du jour to stop being such an a-hole and knock it off already with trying to kill all the Jews.

Chag Sameach to all and, as a bonus, here’s my Passover survival tip: dried apricots.

That's it--just dried apricots. With more than a week of gut-clogging flatbread ahead of us, they’re a godsend, if you know what I mean.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:23 | link | comments

Steyn on the mully-bullies: And a glorious read it is. From City Journal:

Most Westerners read the map of the world like a Broadway marquee: north is top of the bill—America, Britain, Europe, Russia—and the rest dribbles away into a mass of supporting players punctuated by occasional Star Guests: India, China, Australia. Everyone else gets rounded up into groups: “Africa,” “Asia,” “Latin America.”

But if you’re one of the down-page crowd, the center of the world is wherever you happen to be. Take Iran: it doesn’t fit into any of the groups. Indeed, it’s a buffer zone between most of the important ones: to the west, it borders the Arab world; to the northwest, it borders NATO (and, if Turkey ever passes its endless audition, the European Union); to the north, the former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation’s turbulent Caucasus; to the northeast, the Stans—the newly independent states of central Asia; to the east, the old British India, now bifurcated into a Muslim-Hindu nuclear standoff. And its southern shore sits on the central artery that feeds the global economy.

If you divide the world into geographical regions, then, Iran’s neither here nor there. But if you divide it ideologically, the mullahs are ideally positioned at the center of the various provinces of Islam—the Arabs, the Turks, the Stans, and the south Asians. Who better to unite the Muslim world under one inspiring, courageous leadership? If there’s going to be an Islamic superpower, Tehran would seem to be the obvious candidate.

That moment of ascendancy is now upon us. Or as the Daily Telegraph in London reported: “Iran’s hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies.” Hmm. I’m not a professional mullah, so I can’t speak to the theological soundness of the argument, but it seems a religious school in the Holy City of Qom has ruled that “the use of nuclear weapons may not constitute a problem, according to sharia.” Well, there’s a surprise. How do you solve a problem? Like, sharia! It’s the one-stop shop for justifying all your geopolitical objectives.

The bad cop/worse cop routine the mullahs and their hothead President Ahmadinejad are playing in this period of alleged negotiation over Iran’s nuclear program is the best indication of how all negotiations with Iran will go once they’re ready to fly. This is the nuclear version of the NRA bumper sticker: “Guns Don’t Kill People. People Kill People.” Nukes don’t nuke nations. Nations nuke nations. When the Argentine junta seized British sovereign territory in the Falklands, the generals knew that the United Kingdom was a nuclear power, but they also knew that under no conceivable scenario would Her Majesty’s Government drop the big one on Buenos Aires. The Argie generals were able to assume decency on the part of the enemy, which is a useful thing to be able to do.

But in any contretemps with Iran the other party would be foolish to make a similar assumption. That will mean the contretemps will generally be resolved in Iran’s favor. In fact, if one were a Machiavellian mullah, the first thing one would do after acquiring nukes would be to hire some obvious loon like President Ahmaddamatree to front the program. He’s the equivalent of the yobbo in the English pub who says, “Oy, mate, you lookin’ at my bird?” You haven’t given her a glance, or him; you’re at the other end of the bar head down in the Daily Mirror, trying not to catch his eye. You don’t know whether he’s longing to nut you in the face or whether he just gets a kick out of terrifying you into thinking he wants to. But, either way, you just want to get out of the room in one piece. Kooks with nukes is one-way deterrence squared...

Posted by: scaramouche at 12:58 | link | comments (1)

Barking up the wrong tree: Canadian soldiers are currently fighting and dying in Afghanistan, a Muslim nation previously ruled by religious fundamentalists and currently trying to get somewhere with its neither-fish-nor-fowl democracy/sharia project. Canada's top military official thinks our army might be able to do a better job in such places if it was able to attract more Muslims into its ranks.

Yeah, that'll work. From the CBC:

Canada's top soldier is calling on Muslims to join the military, saying the makeup of the Canadian Forces doesn't reflect the country's ethnic diversity.

Gen. Rick Hillier says Canada's military does not 'reflect the demographics of our country to nearly the degree that we want.'

Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Rick Hillier delivered the invitation Sunday night at a dinner hosted by Ottawa's Muslim Association.

Hillier had the highest praise for the military, but he said the force of 62,500 regular members and 20,000 reservists has a serious shortcoming.

"Those men and women do not, however, reflect the demographics of our country to nearly the degree that we want," said Hillier.

"And in short, let me just tell you quite frankly, they don't reflect your community in the numbers that we need, or that we want, or that are healthy for our country."

Hillier said Canadian soldiers are in Afghanistan to root out terrorists, to help stabilize the region and, mainly, to help ordinary Afghans.

"We simply help those who need help, and when they don't need that help any longer, we want to be coming out of those countries and coming home as quickly as possible," he said.

Some of the young Muslims whom Hillier wants to reach were skeptical.

Khaled Kaddoura says he needs a clearer idea of why Canada is in Afghanistan before he would consider a career in the military.

"First of all, I'm a Muslim, so I don't like to fight," said Kaddoura. "So unless there's a clear purpose for me to go there, to change it, then I wouldn't do it, you know what I mean?"

Got that? It's not like we're fighting the jihad or anything. We're simply there to "help". And once we're no longer of "help", why, we're outta there.

We Canadians--we're just soooo helpful. The boy scouts of the Western world, always there to escort a little old lady across the street or get blown up by a true believer.

Could someone please give the General a crash course in Islam and concepts like the "ummah", "jihad", "kaffirs" and "mujahedeen" before he goes and embarrasses himself again?

Besides, as the skeptical (and less than truthful)  Mr. Kaddoura explained, Muslims are averse to fighting. Unless there's "a clear purpose," of course.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:32 | link | comments (1)

Hardly softening: Mark MacKinnon, the Globe and Mail's man in the Middle East, sees a shadow of a glimmer of a softening in Hamas's hardline. In a letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan last week, Hamas's Foreign Minister--the Maytag lonely repair man of Palestinianian officialdom--mentioned the phrase that everyone was waiting for: "the two-state solution."

"The two-state solution"--now you're talking. Now we can get back to Quartet-sponsored road maps and the peace-in-our-time process. Now we can make genuine progress acclimatizing genocidal jihadis to the disagreeable notion of Jewish sovereignty. "The two-state solution"--that's the catalyst, the money, the magic bullet.

And for a Hamas official to even whisper the hallowed phrase, why, that must be a sign of bonafide softening because what else could it possibly be?

I have a couple of suggestions:

• Desperation; Hamas is skint and can't pay off the rabble. It wants the gravy train to stop in Ramallah once again.
• Deception; In the name of advancing their cause, they're allowed to resort to taqiyah and tell gullible Westerners what they want to hear.

Shocking ideas, I know. I guess that's why Mark MacKinnon neglects to mention them. Maybe because he's too busy trying to convince us that the ground has suddenly shifted:

...To some, the fact that Hamas members are apparently debating among themselves the merits of recognizing Israel proves predictions that the burdens of power would force the Islamists to become more moderate once in office. Others, however, see only chaos and inexperience emanating from the new Palestinian Authority.

"There is a group in Hamas that does not accept this idea [of a two-state solution] at all at this time, when others are calling for it," said Hani al-Masri, a well-known Palestinian political commentator.

"The Hamas government is made up of people who are not ready to govern. They are now living in a state of shock."

Sameeh Shabeeb, a professor of political science at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah, said the pressure on Hamas, which formally took office less than two weeks ago, is already so great that he believes the Islamists will have to dramatically change their tune in the near future. The other option, he said, would be for Hamas members to stick to their hard line, but resign their posts in government so that a cabinet of technocrats unaffiliated with the movement could take over.

"The street will start to pressure Hamas to move toward providing a solution to their economic problems," he said, which would mean meeting the demands of foreign donors.

MacKinnon also fails to mention that Hamas is already taking steps to solve its economic problems. It's looking Eastward--to China and other Asian nations--as a new source of funding. Those nations are unlikely to make the same demands as West, allowing for both pothole-filling and state-sanctioned violence. A much more congenial arrangement.

Update: An editorial in the Chicago Tribune doesn't see any evidence of softening, and urges the U.S. to hold fast:

...In case there's any confusion, Zahar has stated his goal clearly: to "liberate Palestine, all of Palestine." He also has said: "I dream of hanging a huge map of the world on my wall at my Gaza home which does not show Israel on it."

Stopping the cash to Hamas is a strategy with perils. If thousands of security force troops aren't paid, there could be more chaos in the Palestinian territories. A cash-starved Hamas could be pushed even harder into the arms of Iran's mullahs. And TV images of deprived Palestinians could generate sympathy for Hamas.

None of that is good. Chaos in the Palestinian territories doesn't serve the best interests of Israel or the U.S., neither does a humanitarian crisis.

But this is now Hamas' choice.

Foreign aid can and should promote the goals of the nations providing it. The U.S. has stressed giving aid to governments that show progress on human rights, democracy and other ideals.

Hamas still stands for terror, not negotiation. Until it changes, it deserves not a dime of U.S. or other international funds.

It seems to me that the only real "softening" going on here is the softening up of the Western media. So desperate are some to stick to their narrative of Palestinian victimhood, that they cannot assimiliate the self-evident: that Palestinians, of their own volition, freely chose to be ruled by genocidal jihadis--Arab Nazis who want to kill all the Jews. This morning, for example, the CBC's Margaret Evans had one of her trademark sob sister stories about the poor, suffering Palestinians, suffering because of Israeli checkpoints and misery that long predated Hamas's reign. This particular story was a doozy, featuring a widow who tried to get some flour to feed her impoverished family, but couldn't because the food bank cupboards were bare. (Reminding me of Thelma Ritter's line in the movie All About Eve: "Everything but the bloodhounds snappin' at her rear end.") Ms. Evans, her voice all soft and empathetic, suggested that not only was cutting off funds unnecessarily punitive to ordinary widows, it could have the unfortunate effect of "radicalizing" the population.

Gee, Ms. Evans. They've already elected Hamas. How much more "radical" can they get?

Update: Looks like the situation is so desperate that they don't have time to wait for Asia to cough it up and have turned to another source. From VOA:

Six Palestinian legislators are headed for Iran on a mission to win financial support for the Hamas-led Palestinian government, which says it is broke.

Officials say the delegation left the Gaza Strip Tuesday, just days after the United States and the European Union cut off aid to the Hamas government.

Both Washington and the Europeans consider Hamas a terrorist organization, and leaders say they will not restore funding until Hamas renounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

In the West Bank Tuesday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said conditions in the Palestinian territories are deteriorating rapidly as the Western sanctions take hold.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert says the Palestinian Authority has become a terrorist authority. He told reporters today that Israel will have no contact with any part of the Palestinian government, including Mr. Abbas...

I suggest they get some more Margaret Evans-type reporters in there pronto to publicize the plight of those poor, strarving widows.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:51 | link | comments

A tale of two fences: Question: When is a security barrier intended to offer protection against terrorism a security barrier and not a "land grap" or an "apartheid wall"?

Answer: When the barrier is in Saudi Arabia and not Israel. From the Times Online:

SAUDI ARABIA has invited bids for the construction of a security fence along the entire length of its 900km (560mile) desert border with Iraq in a multimillion-pound project that will attract interest from British defence companies.

The barrier is part of a package to secure the Kingdom’s 6,500km of borders in an attempt to improve internal security and bolster its defences against external threats.

Saudi Arabia is concerned that the chaos in Iraq could cause an overspill of sectarian violence and terrorism. The kingdom claims to be winning the battle against al-Qaeda’s Saudi wing but wants to protect itself against Saudi insurgents returning from Iraq.

“There’s no suggestion that the border isn’t secure at the moment, so it could be a bit of an expensive white elephant,” a European diplomat in Riyadh said. Saudi militants join ing the insurgency use other routes, such as Syria.

Riyadh is worried by the rise to power in Iraq of the Shia majority, with its close links with Iran, which Saudi Arabia mistrusts. It is concerned that its Shia minority, which is concentrated in the oil-producing eastern province, may become radicalised.

Posted by: scaramouche at 11:21 | link | comments

Fighting the canards: FrontPage Magazine has Alan Deshowitz's point-by-point rebuttal of The Harvard Protocols. A must-read.

Update: The quacking canards seem to be having an impact. Anti-Semitic leaflets have made an appearance on the Harvard campus.

Co-incidence? I think not. From Harvard newspaper, The Crimson (link via Martin Kramer):

Anti-Semitic leaflets appeared in publicly-accessible locations outside at least one upperclass House and several Yard dorms yesterday, prompting startled undergraduates to tear down the fliers.

One of the fliers carries the name of National Vanguard, a Charlottesville, Va.-based organization that, in its own words, “stands up for the interests of White people.” The flier claims that “Jewish interest groups have been at the forefront of nearly all the negative changes which have taken place in the White world during the last 100 years.”

It also warns that “interracial sex is unsafe.”

A second flier charges that the invasion of Iraq was “a war for Israel,” and it claims that U.S. policy toward Israel “is an expression of the Jewish-Zionist grip on America’s political and cultural life.” That pamphlet lists Mark Weber of the Institute for Historical Review in Newport Beach, Calif., as its author.

Weber’s website alleges that the number of Jews who died in the Holocaust is just a fraction of the widely accepted 6 million death toll. It also features the work of Holocaust deniers David Horowitz and Ernst Zundel. Interviews with Weber are posted on the National Vanguard website, and the Toronto Star reported in 1988 that he was a former news editor of the Vanguard’s periodical.

Benjamin B. Collins ’06 said last night that he found fliers taped to the doorframes of the M, N, and O entryways of Eliot House. Since non-Harvard affiliates can walk up to those doors, Collins said, “whoever put these up probably couldn’t swipe in.”

“It sounded like pretty standard white supremacist stuff,” Collins said. “I took them down and passed them on to tutors.”

Ariadne C. Medler ’09 said she first saw the fliers outside her Straus A entryway yesterday at 3 p.m., but she passed by them quickly. Around 5 p.m., she looked at the fliers more closely and decided to tear them down. “Because it was outside the door instead of inside the entryway, I figured it wasn’t a Harvard-sanctioned poster,” Medler said.

Lindsay A. Maizel ’09 said she found fliers taped to the front doors on the north and south sides of Matthews Hall.

“I think everyone has the right to free speech. But it just seemed absolutely out of line,” Maizel, who is also a Crimson arts editor, said. “If someone were going to read the pamphlet, they’d have to take it off of the door anyway, so I figured I might as well read the pamphlet and remove them.”

“It didn’t take much to realize that it was kind of a lot of trash,” Maizel said.

Fliers also appeared in the Eliot House breezeway, but by early this morning, the fliers had been torn down and replaced with a sign that read: “Stop the hate."

While it is unclear why anti-Semitic activists chose to target the Yard and Eliot, the National Vanguard and Weber’s institute have both turned their attention to Harvard in recent days. Both groups' sites feature links to an article co-authored by Harvard professor Stephen M. Walt claiming that "the Israel Lobby"—a loose coalition of journalists, politicians, think tanks, and Jewish leaders—steers U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:49 | link | comments

Same old, same old: I'm so glad they went to the trouble of revamping the UN's Human Rights Commission, transforming it into the brand spanking new Human Rights Council. In its previous incarnation, any old despotry could have a seat at the table and gang up to tell the free nations of the world the proper ways to implement human rights. That meant that Sudan, Libya, Syria and other backwaters of oppression held sway over the rest of the globe. Quel ironie!

But trading that "commission" for a "council" has made all the difference. Today, for example, a lot more nations have a chance to be in the driver's seat

Places like, say, Iran.

From FrontPage Magazine:

Iran has put itself forward as a candidate for a seat on the new United Nations Human Rights Council in its inaugural election of forty-seven members scheduled for May 9th. Insiders believe that Iran will be voted in by the General Assembly, because it is grouped with the Asian bloc of nations that are allotted thirteen seats on the forty-seven seat Council. Although members will be voted on individually, each region has a fixed number of guaranteed seats in order to ensure "equitable geographic distribution." So far, only nine countries in the Asian bloc, including Iran, China, and Pakistan, have decided to declare their interest for any of the reserved thirteen “Asian” seats.

The fact that Iran is even eligible to run, much less have a serious chance to win, shows how dysfunctional the Council is from the get-go. For that reason alone, the United States’ decision not to run for a seat this year is the right one. We certainly do not want join a human rights organization that would count Iran as one of its members. If Iran does get on the Council, we should go further and withdraw all support, including any contribution to new funding for the Human Rights Council’s operation, currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of $4.5 million dollars. The Council should not get a dime of our money until it proves that it is not simply a clone of the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights that it is replacing. The first step is for the General Assembly to send Iran a clear message on May 9th, and reject its candidacy by an overwhelming majority.

Iran has one of the worst human rights record in the entire world. In order to protect itself from serious condemnation, Iran hopes to emulate the example of its fellow repressive regimes like Sudan, Zimbabwe and Cuba who have avoided challenges to their human rights records in the past by taking over the machinery of the Human Rights Council’s predecessor, the UN Commission for Human Rights.

The Iranian fanatics who run their country have rejected the principle of universality of human rights as spelled out in the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights. Ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution that turned Iran into a theocratic state, Iran has led the battle at the UN to modify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Iran wants to join the new UN Human Rights Council in order to use it as a vehicle to insinuate their own notion of human rights, which subordinates individual freedoms of religion and expression to the severe strictures of the Sharia (Islamic law). Freedom of speech and the press, for example, would give way when it becomes detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam, as in the case of those controversial Danish cartoons that were considered defamatory of the Prophet Mohammed.

The father of the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini, declared that "Islam is everything, it means everything…” Commenting on modern day standards of human rights, he is reported to have said that “what they call human rights is nothing but a collection of corrupt rules worked out by the Zionists to destroy all true religions.”

Islam – at least the twisted version of Islam preached by Khomeini and his followers - considers only its male followers as true human beings who would be entitled to any ‘rights’ at all. The regime has persecuted non-Islamic (and even unacceptably moderate Islamic) religious groups. Women and children are treated like nothing more than chattel. Infidels - i.e., non-believers – are not human beings at all and thus entitled to no more rights than a camel or other beast of burden...

Sounds like they really have a handle on this human rights stuff. I say we give them a permanent seat.

Anne  Bayefsky has more on the likely composition of the Council. The U.S. is out--the Bush Administration refuses to participate in such a sham--but some familiar names will be back. From The Weekly Standard:

...Which brings us to the candidates that have put themselves forward. First out of the gate for the African group is Algeria. And throwing their hats into the ring for the Asian group are China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, among others. The Latins? Cuba to start

Congressman Lantos has expressed "outrage" that the United States isn't anxious to join the party. By running, he says, the United States could "ensure" that states with abysmal human rights records would not be elected. This ignores the facts of life at the U.N., where the United States is only one of 191 members. Feverish vote-swapping among regional groups is now in full swing for the secret-ballot election to the council, and one can be sure the horse trading has nothing to do with protecting human rights.

In another twist, countries standing for election can choose to make a public pledge that they will eventually protect human rights. In the words of the secretary general, "states wishing to be elected to the new Council will put forward their pledges and commitments to protect and promote human rights. It will be up to their fellow member states to evaluate these promises." The U.N., however, for reasons that became clear as soon as the Algerians and Cubans made their pledges, has decided not to translate these pledges, but to make them available only in their original language, thus impeding evaluation of their worth. So far, only 15 of the 42 declared candidates have made such pledges. While the U.N. budget for 2006-2007 anticipates that the organization will translate 582,781 pages (one-fifth of the cost being borne by American taxpayers), the 15 pages of pledges won't be among them.

In short, nothing has changed. The newly "reformed" human rights body of the U.N. will once again include countries that have no interest in protecting human rights; the regions of the world with the fewest democracies will hold 55 percent of the seats. Standing in the background lamenting U.S. nonparticipation are some, like Amnesty International's Irene Khan, who believe that the "gulag of our times" is Guantánamo--not the Egyptian, Syrian, Iranian, and Sudanese torture chambers--and that the business of promoting human rights is best conducted with the delinquents on the inside, enjoying the privileges of the human rights club, instead of standing outside until they reform...

 I can't decide which UN body is my favourite. The HRC, the IAEA, UNRWA--so many wretched bureacracies to choose from.

Posted by: scaramouche at 10:40 | link | comments

Sob story: Rachel Corrie, the clueless idealist who died trying to thwart a bulldozer from destroying tunnels through which Palestinians were smuggling weapons with which to murder Jews, was a member of ISM. Like the Christian Peacemaker Teams, the ISM (which should, but doesn't, stand for International Martyr Supporters) aims to assist totalitarian regimes in their battle against democracies. It does so because of a faulty narrative in which Palestinians, and only the Palestinians, are the victims and the Israelis, and only the Israelis, are the victimizers. From israelinsider:

All can agree that the death of a young woman is tragic. Like the hundreds of young lives lost as the target of Palestinian suicide bombers, and like those unintentionally killed during Israeli counterterror operations, the loss of Rachel Corrie undoubtedly has affected many in a painful way.

It is understandable, then, that her friends and family want to keep her memory alive, and they have done so successfully. But whether Corrie's message deserves to be propagated and celebrated by audiences in theater productions such as "My Name is Rachel Corrie" and "Daughter Courage" is a different story. Corrie was an idealist; but as fate had it, her idealism ended up channeled through the radical International Solidarity Movement, an organization that not only puts at risk the lives of Israeli civilians but also the lives of its members.

ISM tells its young followers that Palestinians have the right to armed attacks against Israelis, while at the same time making clear through its activities that Israel has no right to protect its citizens. While the two positions seem mutually contradictory, the organization apparently reconciles them by summing up the complex Israeli-Arab conflict as singularly caused by a sadistic Israel seeking arbitrarily to oppress Palestinians.

In ISM's world, legitimate Israeli security concerns don't exist. The group's narrative obscures the fact that Palestinian terrorism began even before Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that Israel acquired those territories in a war precipitated by neighboring countries openly threatening to destroy the Jewish state and that Israel repeatedly offered to turn over land to the Palestinians. Hamas, whose charter makes clear that the group's violence against Israeli civilians is rooted in racist ideology and is aimed at destroying Israel, and other groups seeking Israel's annihilation are invisible in the Middle East portrayed by ISM.

Why are those and other important realities about the conflict excised from ISM's depictions? Is it because creating a false dichotomy of blameless Palestinians and faceless Israeli oppressors makes it easier for the group to persuade naןve idealists to risk their lives? Perhaps ISM's activists would be less likely to throw themselves before Israeli bulldozers if they were told that the bulldozers are used to search for very real smuggling tunnels that bring weapons and explosives used against Israeli children. Whatever the reasons, ISM's activists are misled.

But theatergoers should not be misled. They should know that any play based on the ISM's dogmas might possibly provide audiences with a better understanding of the organization's propaganda, but certainly will not offer viewers an accurate, complete or nuanced understanding of the difficult situation in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. ISM's partial and simplistic views are more geared toward building hatred against Israel than toward forwarding peace, human rights or justice.

Posted by: scaramouche at 22:28 | link | comments

Pal Mahmoud: Here's a selection from that beloved Rodgers and Hart musical in which the title character describes what it's like to be in the grip of the jihad:

I’m nuts again, got guts again,
An aura-fied, glorified putz again
Bewitched, bothered and be-Mahdi’d am I.
I’ve schemed again,
I’ve dreamed again,
My ideals will all be redeemed again.
Bewitched, bothered and be-Mahdi’d am I.

Fooled the West, I’m sure of it.
Taqiyah works ev’ry time.
Soon enough those Jewish dhimmis
Will have to pay for their crime.

I’m crazed again,
I’m dazed again,
You’re threats have all left me unfazed again.
Bewitched, bothered and be-Mahdi’d am I...

Posted by: scaramouche at 15:00 | link | comments

Disgraceland: Brigitte Gabriel, an expert in Middle East affairs, details her harrowing experience with Muslim students at the University of Memphis. Ms. Gabriel had been invited to speak by a Jewish professor, but some of the believers were fairly certain they weren't going to like what she had to say and tried to silence her. From The American Thinker:

...I was invited to give a lecture sponsored by Professor David Patterson of the Judaic Studies Program. When news about my appearance spread, the Muslim community both on and off campus launched a full-scale campaign to stop my lecture. They demanded that Dr. Patterson cancel my speech. E-mails flooded the University of Memphis administration and Dr. Patterson from Muslim students on campus and Muslims in the community and mosques. Here are some of their comments:

• People like Brigitte are plenty in the world, they are the true enemies of Islam. And despite their rubbish talks, the truth about Islam is spreading like a wildfire across Americas and across the globe (All Praise to Allah).
  
• Dr. Patterson, hosting of this lady is orders of magnitude worse than hosting of the Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.
  
• Do you honestly think the scheduled lecture will serve any useful purpose other than inflaming the Muslims, insulting them and spilling poison in the community?

It is interesting to see the reaction of the Muslim community to someone with Muslim-fired shrapnel in her body who speaks against butchering innocent people in the name of Allah. If they would put the same energy into condemning the radical element within Islam and join us in saying that slaughtering people in the name of Allah is murder not Jihad, maybe we wouldn’t be tempred to question their loyalty as American citizens. Dr. Patterson refused to bow to their intimidation and insisted on going on with the scheduled speech.

By the time I showed up at the amphitheater style lecture hall on campus, police officers were already standing at each entrance. Nearly half of the hall was filled with Muslims with their leaders dressed Osama Bin Laden style sitting in the front two rows at eye level making “their point,” that I wasn’t going to get away with speaking freely.

Just as the program was about to begin, a Muslim student walked to the front and asked the crowd to raise their hands if they believed that this lecture was “undemocratic.” They complained that I would be taking questions on cards instead of allowing them to ask them publicly. Experienced in these settings, I knew they would make speeches, spew anti American and Israeli sentiments and create chaos in the room during the Q&A. I decided that they were not going to do that. The provocative Muslim student behavior before I even began my lecture proved my foresight. Dr. Patterson explained that taking questions from cards distributed to the audience was normal protocol at university speaking events like mine.

Patterson tried to calm the unruly crowd but nothing was working. Fed up, I went straight to the podium and ordered everyone to sit. I told them, this is my lecture and I r