'cookieChoices = {};'

The Right of the People to be Secure in their Persons, Houses, Papers, and Effects,
Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures,
Shall Not Be Violated


Saturday, September 09, 2006

Clintons Threaten ABC with Lawyers

The way things work for Americans who are not Democratic Party Bigshots is that they have to prove libel after the fact. In other words, if a none Clintonista thinks a network or newspaper is going to go with a story or documentary that is defamatory, their only option is to wait for publication and then sue for damages. This means the complaining party must show in a court of law proof that defamation has occurred to receive damages. It is a difficult thing for "public figures" to manage, but it has been done.

The Clintonistas, and their sychophants, want to reverse this process, a process devised to protect freedom of the press and expression. They argue that ABC's The Path to 9/11 presents untruths about the Clinton Administrations actions, or lack of action, regarding terrorism. Instead of having to prove their contentions in a court of law after the show airs just as if America were a free country, they have unleashed their dogs upon ABC. Some of these braying curs are academics, some are the usual bloggers, some are United States Senators.

Not all are dogs, the Clintonistas have also released the sharks, in other words their lawyers. Slick Willie's lawyers have written a letter to ABC stating they "expect" them to pull the program:

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith [sic] anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

The Democrats, and their lawyers, would like to solely determine what documentaries are shown on the "publics" airwaves. One has to wonder at the Left's definition of "free speech" and "freedom of the press." It must now be "all the news we certify as 'true.'"

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 6 Comments

9/11: Taking it Personally

Guest Editorial by Edward Cline:

When I learned of the attack on America five years ago, and watched with anger and horror the destruction of the World Trade Center towers in New York and the chaos and devastation in a section of Manhattan I knew intimately (having worked on Wall Street off an on for ten years), I took it personally.

When I saw the attack on the Pentagon, and learned of the heroism of those who fought to reclaim the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, I took it personally.

When I saw the jubilation with which American and foreign Muslims drooled over the attacks, I took that personally, as well.

These were, in a sense, attacks on me, as well as on America and other Americans.

By “personally,” I mean that I regarded the attacks and the jubilation as affronts to everything I value about America – as it once was, and it could be.

The “personal” aspect does not encompass George Bush, either of the Clintons, the welfare state that hobbles me, or anything else that could be deemed inimical to the idea and future of America. What is it that was attacked? Freedom. Individualism. Capitalism. Living and thriving on earth in the freest country on the planet. Everything that I have enjoyed and that other Americans can enjoy. In the context of what is possible to an individual when he is left alone to pursue his own values and life – all that is personal.

And that is what the Islamic totalitarians and their self-sacrificing drones attacked, and will continue to attack, until we reply in kind, with their annihilation.

For a while after 9/11, most healthy, uncorrupted Americans took it personally, too. (The exceptions were the leftist intellectuals and other anti-American creeps.) The blossoming of thousands of American flags, the expressions of defiance and patriotism, the pledges to never surrender to our attackers, gave one hope that perhaps Americans were not entirely beaten by the spiritually crippling influences of collectivism and philosophical nihilism.

But the flags were eventually retired, the patriotism morphed into self-pity, and the pledges were broken (chiefly by President Bush). Most Americans forgot their moments of glory, the personal aspect of the attacks. It was time, our political leaders and the press kept saying, as they turned their attention to “business as usual,” to get on with life.

For a while, I had something in common with other Americans: a sense of personal value, a sense of shared peril. Gradually, but not inexplicably, I observed that sense fade into resignation.

I will say here that I have never lost that sense of personal value, not before 9/11, not since. The sense of taking personally any assault on my freedom, my mind, my future, was before 9/11 reserved for every politician and collectivist and irrationalist in this country who presumed to govern my life and actions. Now there was an external enemy dedicated to my submission or my destruction.

I do not see that many Americans still take it personally. Most have gone on with their lives, encouraged by our government and an administration that does not seem to able to deal rationally and finally with a mortal threat.

Nevertheless, I will always take those attacks on this country personally as a war declared on me personally for what I am. I can be destroyed, but I will never submit. America-haters, foreign and domestic: Go to hell.

I will simply end here with the slogan and battle cry of the heroes of my Sparrowhawk novels: “Long Live Lady Liberty!”

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 0 Comments

Iran-Malaysia marriage about to be consummated

Today in Kuala Lumpur, that ever-steamy capital city of Malaysia, I noted a number of newly-posted public banners and signs, advertising an upcoming event called the "Iran-Malaysia Expo", AKA "IMEX 06". It's scheduled to take place on 21-24 Sept 2006 in the brand-new KL Convention Centre in downtown KL. It doesn't get much more high-profile than that.

This expo will highlight the growing alliance between the two Islamic states and will demonstrate their increasing collaboration in a number of fields, including industry and advanced technologies. Here's the official spin on IMEX 06 and Malaysia's ever-growing friendship with the Iranian Islamic Reich...

Read the rest at Pedestrian Infidel.
Bookmark and Share
posted by The Anti-Jihadist at permanent link# 0 Comments

The Funny (?) Side of Islam

It has been noted that one of the problems with Islam is a well-defined lack of humor. Over at a blog entitled Planck’s Constant, an effort is underway to make up for that deficiency. Some samples:

What do you say to a Muslim woman with two black eyes? What’s to say? You already told her twice!

What do you call a first-time offender in Saudi Arabia?


What does the sign say above the nursery in a Palestinian maternity ward?

"Live ammunition."

A man goes into an adult entertainment shop and asks the assistant for an inflatable doll.

"Would you like male or female?"

"Female, please."

"Would you like Black or White?"

"White, please."

"Would you like Christian or Muslim?" This question confused the man, so he asked, "What has the religion got to do with it? It's an inflatable doll!"

"Well," explained the assistant, "The Muslim one blows itself up!"

And, of course, the obligatory light bulb joke
Q. How many Palestinians does it take to change a light bulb?

A. None! They sit in the dark forever and blame the Jews for it!
Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Storm Track Appeasement: Stop Appeasing “Muslim Opinion”

From The Gathering Storm

There’s a great piece at the Intellectual Conservative on those who believe we should appease the Islamists to have them love us more.

Some excerpts:

We face, these commentators say, a crisis of "Muslim opinion." We must, they say, win the "hearts and minds" of angry Muslims by heaping public affection on Islam, by shutting down Guantanamo, by being more "evenhanded" between free Israel and the terrorist Palestinian Authority — and certainly by avoiding any new military action in the Muslim world. If we fail to win over "Muslim opinion," we are told, we will drive even more to become terrorists.

The same tired old line from those who never learn from history. Of course you create more troops for the enemy in war. Every time we killed a Nazi storm trooper or an Imperial Japanese solider, it made more of them until they had no more to make. That’s how you win wars.

So-called Muslim opinion is not the unanimous and just consensus that its seekers pretend. It is the irrational and unjust opinion of the world's worst Muslims: Islamists and their legions of "moderate" supporters and sympathizers. These people oppose us not because of any legitimate grievances against America, but because they are steeped in a fundamentalist interpretation of their religion — one that views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity.


The proper response to Islamists and their supporters is to identify them as our ideological and political enemies — and dispense justice accordingly. In the case of our militant enemies, we must kill or demoralize them — especially those regimes that support terrorism and fuel the Islamist movement; as for the rest, we must politically ignore them and intellectually discredit them, while proudly arguing for the superiority of Americanism.

The piece ends with a very intelligent response to the appeasers.

Every attempt to appease "Muslim opinion" preserves, promotes, and emboldens our enemies. Every concession to angry Muslim mobs gives hope to the Islamist cause. Every day we allow terrorist regimes to exist gives their minions time to execute the next September 11. America needs honest leadership with the courage to identify and defeat our enemies — "Muslim opinion" be damned.

Damn right!

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Co-Blogger Fighting For His Life

One of the co-bloggers of both the IBA and of my own blog Liberty and Justice, Isaac Schrodinger is currently involved in the fight of his life. Better said: a fight for his life.

As all of you who have read (some of) his articles will know, Isaac is very critical about radical Islam. He witnessed the results of a culture of radical Islam, he saw the effects of this ideology of hatred and ignorance, how people are forced to live, first-hand. As a result, he understands that Muslim extremists do not just pose a threat to the West, but also to every single person living in 'Muslim countries'.

As a result, it should be obvious to anyone with any basic knowledge about this subject, it is not exactly safe for him, an apostate, to live in a country in which Muslim extremists have quite some power. He came from Pakistan, was educated in Saudi Arabia, later in the United States and now lives in Canada.

He is currently involved in the battle of his life: in January 2007 one judge will decide whether he should be granted refugee status in Canada or be deported to Pakistan.

He met with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada yesterday. You can read his account of how it all went here.

started getting ready for the big day at 4 a.m. I put on my suit and then went to Toronto. My meeting was at 9:30 a.m. I had breakfast and then entered the building at 8:45 a.m.
was presented with a few documents such as the photocopy of my personal file and the supporting papers that I had provided them a few months earlier. A curious two-page document called the Screening Form was also given to me. Basically, in there, my claim was boiled down in a few words. I wasn't satisfied with the summary. In turn, the person(s) who made the Screening Form weren't satisfied with my claim.

For example, a part of the "Claim Description" in the Screening Form:

"PAKISTAN, Punjab, Lahore
Fear is unspecified/unclear
appears to fear persecution because of his anti-Islamic views."

[note by MichaelvdG: seldom read anything as ignorant as that part of the Screening Form]

Apparently, I have done an atrocious job of presenting my case. Fortunately, I still have three months to rectify the situation (since I can mail in documents at least 20 days before the hearing).

I asked a few questions about the summary. I was told that it comes down to credibility or rather the lack of it. The Refugee Protection Officer tried to console me by saying that that is the problem with everyone in my situation.

Isaac concludes:
The officer made a phone call to schedule the time for my hearing. She inquired if X day in January is alright. I thought to myself for a second and then asked if it was possible to make it the day after that. The officer went back to the call and in a few seconds answered in the affirmative.
On the trip back, only one thought echoed in my mind: On my next birthday, I will fight for my life.

You can help. If you have links to relevant article about the treatment of apostates / not-good-Muslims / etc. in Pakistan or just want to show Isaac your support, please use the e-mail button at his blog, drop it off in one of the comment sections at his blog and or just leave a link or even simply a word of support in the comment section here.

You can also send links and / or words of support to me, I will forward them to Isaac.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Michael van der Galien at permanent link# 10 Comments

Newton Minnow Returns

Don't you just miss Newton Minnow? Many "liberals" and Democrats do. Newton Minnow was chairman of the Federal Communications Commission during the administration of John F. Kennedy. He is most famous for his "Vast Wasteland" speech on television content at the National Association of Broadcasters on May 9, 1961. In this speech Minnow made the classic statement on "liberal" views on free speech in the electronic medium and what constitutes the "public interest:"

I have confidence in your health. But not in your product. I am here to uphold and protect the public interest. What do we mean by "the public interest?" Some say the public interest is merely what interests the public. I disagree.

No the "public interest" is what Newton Minnow, his elitist leftist pals and leftwing politicians say it is. As most everyone now knows, five Democratic senators are pressuring ABC to either edit or cancel the airing of "Path to 9/11" because its interpretation of history reflects poorly on the eight years of Clinton inattention to terrorism.

Liberty Film Festival has an article posted which includes the letter from Senators: Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer and Byron Dorgan. As Jason notes this move by the Democratic fascists, and their allies, is an attempt to make it illegal for conservatives to produce films for television.

I don't know if these senators have seen the movie yet, however those who haven't are still supportive of censorship of viewpoints that they disagree with. Some of these people have declared themselves the arbiters of "truth" for the rest of us. Instead of allowing the film to be showed and then have a debate, they would kill debate in the name of "truth." Do I exaggerate? Professor Grimsley is explicit on the government's right to suppress viewpoints damaging to the Democratic Party:

There's an argument to be made, I guess, that judgment ought to be postponed until the film is aired. But the swift boating of John Kerry is much on the minds of those who have followed this story, and the consensus is that this is a time to contact ABC and object.

There is an "open letter" being circulated online by academic historians calling for ABC to cancel the showing of "Path to 9/11." The historians who wish to control what you watch on your airwaves include: Arthur Schlesinger Sean Wilentz, Princeton University Michael Kazin, Georgetown University Lizbeth Cohen, Harvard University, Nicholas Salvatore, Cornell University; Ted Widmer, Washington College; Rick Perlstein, Independent Scholar;David Blight, Yale University; Eric Alterman, City University of New York; Beverly Gage, Yale University.

These arrogant academics seem to have confused the "public's airwaves" with their classrooms. What a disgrace to the history profession. If these professors were so sure of their position they would welcome the film's showing and the resulting public debate. However, they are opposed to genuine debate, they prefer the pseudo debates of their classrooms where they set the terms and determine the reading.

Update: The Democratic/Daily Kos/Leftwing Academic plan for the American media has already arrived in Canada:

One of Canada's top television reporters has been suspended from her job for praising the country's increasingly troubled military mission in Afghanistan, the company said on Friday.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 6 Comments

Friday, September 08, 2006

Storm Track Disinformation: The Frogs Croak

From The Gathering Storm

Hold the phone! France rejects the ‘war on terror’.

France issued an implicit criticism of U.S. foreign policy on Thursday, rejecting talk of a "war on terror".

"Against terrorism, what's needed is not a war. It is, as France has done for many years, a determined fight based on vigilance at all times and effective cooperation with our partners. "But we will only end this curse if we also fight against injustice, violence and these crises," he said.

In separate remarks, Chirac stressed that France was committed to maintaining a nuclear arsenal of its own.

"In an uncertain world, facing constantly evolving threats, nuclear dissuasion guarantees our vital interests," Chirac said on a visit to France's Atomic Energy Commission nuclear simulation facility at Bruyeres-le-Chatel near Paris. He stressed that France was committed to funding continuing research and development into nuclear weapons technology.

Hmmm. Since we are not at war with terrorism and those that support it, who is France afraid of that it needs nuclear weapons? Iran perhaps?

Villepin's speech in parliament made much of France's leading role in securing a peace agreement in Lebanon backed by the United Nations, which he said had shown the virtues of "listening and dialogue."

Right. And we know what will happen to that ‘peace agreement’ made through "listening and dialogue." The rearmament of Hezbollah and the continuation of the war on Israel.

"It is the duty of France and Europe to show that the clash of civilizations is not inevitable," he said. "No one retains this wisdom, inherited from our history, as we, French and Europeans, do," he said.

Ah yes, the “wisdom, inherited from our history”. Is that the history where they learned that after two World Wars and a Cold War that they can not negotiate with tyranny? Or did they miss that piece of wisdom?

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Youths, Asians, and Other Assorted People

John Rudolph at the Augusta Free Press analyzes the media's unwillingness to name those we are fighting against:

So here we go again with another round of news about terrorist plots.

The latest attempts to blow up airliners over the Atlantic between Britain and the U.S. were thwarted, thanks to the efforts of Scotland Yard and British investigators. But there is one thing that really bothers me about the media - they seem to avoid one word that would label these criminals.

The media, in general, needs to be taught a lesson: Labeling is by no means a method of stereotyping, especially when the blind truth is there for all to see.

Let's see - scanning the news today, I counted at least eight different news articles that were written on this latest terrorist act on the Web, and none of them used the word "Muslim" as a blaming factor for the terrorists that were plotting this.


The Associated Press writes, "A senior U.S. counterterrorism official said authorities believe dozens of people - possibly as many as 50 - were involved in the plot."

Dozens of people? Interesting. Why can't these writers use the word "Muslims" instead of People? After all, it was Muslims that plotted these terrorist attacks. Hey, I'd even settle for "dozens of Islamists," but the press is hell-bent in not wanting to get the Muslim community angry. Damn the bad luck!

The story continues with this: "Britain's Home Secretary, John Reid, said 21 people had been arrested in London, its suburbs and in Birmingham following a lengthy investigation, including the alleged 'main players' in the plot. Searches continued in a number of locations."

"Main players." "People." Other articles I read included terms like "disgruntled religious zealots," or how about "religious separatists" or even "militants?" Oh, please. Yeah, we're off to a good start. This paints an accurate picture of the terrorists, eh? We can't have the public thinking that it's Muslims behind this plot, for crying out loud. The public will begin to read an ominous pattern. Oh, no! We can't have that! The ACLU would be all over us like stink on fertilizer!

BBC reports, "According to BBC sources, the principal characters suspected of being involved in the plot were British-born. There are also understood to be links to Pakistan." Uh-oh. British-born? Links to Pakistan? Why, it can't be. How could Britons do such a thing? Pakistanis? Now we're all confused.

Notice that these silly terms tend to steer the mind away from the true perpetrators, who are nothing but plain ol' Muslims?

Again, why is the media so afraid to mention that Muslims are the harbingers of doom, terror and destruction? The pattern is obvious by now, and people should be made more aware of this.
CBS news reports, "Twenty-one suspects are in custody, after a series of arrests overnight," and that a British official "says the suspects are 'homegrown,' though it was not immediately clear if all of the people in custody are British citizens. The official says police investigating the foiled attack are working closely with the South Asian community."

OK -.we now add "homegrown" and "South Asian community" to the mix. I thought that the word "homegrown" only would be found in magazines like Mother Jones, Harper's or High Times, but now it's being used to describe Muslim terrorists? My first thought that came to mind was a dime bag. When the average Joe American hears, "South Asian community," they think about noodles, or something else other than Muslim. Again, the word "Muslim" isn't mentioned in any of these writings, and this is just a smattering of the articles that I have used as examples here.

While we can no longer depend on the media to report the whole truth and nothing but the truth that these lousy sandal-wearing intolerant terrorist scumbags are plain old Muslims, we can remind readers that:

- In 1972, Israeli athletes were kidnapped and slaughtered by Muslim extremists. It's bad enough that director Steven Spielberg would come out with a movie about it, where he'd make these Muslim terrorists called "Palestinians" appear as being more innocent than the Israeli athletes who were unjustly slaughtered at the hand of Islamism. In his movie, "Munich," he not only brought sympathy for the terrorists, he also portrayed the Israeli Mossad agents as ruthless criminals. But wait a second here. Isn't Spielberg a Jew?

- In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by Muslim extremists. Although an attempt (but an ill-thought one at that) was made to rescue these hostages, these Americans were held for over a year, and nothing was done about it by Jimmy Carter, the president at the time. Nowadays, Carter has the audacity to criticize the current administration where he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Nothing was accomplished during his administration except to say "let's run away" instead of fighting our enemies through the use of pre-emptive strikes. Pot. Kettle. Black. Jimmy, retire from public life. Go back to your peanut farm and just shut up.

- During the 1980s, a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by Muslim extremists. Why they remained in Lebanon during this time remains a mystery. Actually, no, it's more like being really stupid. That's like a bunch of dumb white people wanting to stick around in a haunted mansion after some of them were killed by ghosts.

- In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by Muslim extremists. No mention that the terrorists were of Muslim origin. Even back then, the word "Muslim" was nowhere to be found in media reports on terrorist attacks that were blatantly brought on by disgruntled young Muslim extremist males. Why? Is the media afraid to upset the Muslim community? Does this mean no more baklava or sesame bars for the newspaper staff from the local Arab bakery if a reporter speaks the truth?

- In 1985, the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists. The man was Leon Klinghoffer, who was handicapped and had no means of defending himself. They dumped him from the promenade deck, wheelchair and all. Muslim cowards strike against more innocent Jews. No wonder Israel is in Lebanon again. More power to them. I hope that Israel marches on to Damascus and beyond. The U.N. needs to keep their noses out of Israel's business - which is to destroy Hezbollah. It's now apparent that the U.N. is in support of terrorism against Israel.

- In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by Muslim extremists. It took nearly 20 years for the world to make even a single attempt at retaliation because we were all too busy playing the pandering and tolerance game with them. If it were up to me, I'd be hitting every single terror cell I could find through the use of our deterrent forces that come in the form of a ballistic missile submarine. It's high time that we start using submarines more often for strategic strikes against terror camps.

- In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by Muslim extremists. Although these Muslim dirtbags are in prison, they are still able, with permission, to write letters to newspapers in the outside world, still holding true to their course in terrorism, enticing other Arabs to become Jihadists like themselves. If it were up to me, I'd have their hands removed from the elbow down, as well as their wagging tongues.

- In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists, precluding the attacks to the upcoming events on 9/11 and where Osama bin Laden (another Muslim, believe it or not) would unfortunately become a household name.

- In October 2000, the USS Cole, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer, was struck on the side with a huge explosion that was brought on by - you guessed it - Muslim extremists. This blast nearly tore the ship in two. A friend of mine was badly injured from this attack and now has to walk with a cane the rest of his life.

- On Sept. 11, 2001, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed, and thousands of people were killed by Muslim extremists. This was the day that changed me forever. Enough said about that.
- In 2002, the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against Muslim extremists. We're still over there, picking away at the Taliban (who, by the way, are Muslims - but the media wants them known merely as the Taliban).

- In 2002, reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by Muslim extremists. These Muslims were resourceful enough to show the graphic details of Daniel's head getting severed off with a machete-style blade while the poor man was still fully conscious. They showed more people getting their heads severed, even with pen knives. Those images still haunt me to this very day.

Go read the whole thing.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

Are we all in a Marx-brothers movie?

The families of the 7 young men, who have been arrested on suspicion for terrorism in Odense, Denmark are very angry, that their family members are in custody, and the police won’t tell them where they are.

Furthermore the families now demand compensation for the arrest: “The police came in the middle of the night with arms and frightened us, and they saw our women with uncovered hair.”
Their demands are supported by an imam from their local mosque.

More at Hodja and more about showing arms in front of muslim kids
Bookmark and Share
posted by Hodja at permanent link# 0 Comments

Holocaust cartoonist writes an e-mail

I received an e-mail from one of the European cartoonists that took part in the Iran Holocaust Cartoon contest.
From: [name and adress deleted]
To: kleinverzet@yahoo.com
Subject: Hello, Irancartoon contest about the western limits of freedom of expression
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2006 13:43:24 +0200

Hello "Kleinverzet"

I'm a [Euro - KV] cartoonist,

I read your recent post criticizing the contest organized by Hamshari-Irancartoon.

I totally respect your opinion.

You criticized the cartoonists who participated to this contest. Please read the letter (below) we have written, as participating cartoonists, to reply to all the criticisms.

I also learned that names had been strangely invented and added in the participating list.

Good day.

[name deleted]

PS: I attach my last cartoon for you, it's a boy in front of this dreadful wall. He draws a dove and stands next to a surrealistic door where he can see a blue sky. This is a source of hope for him. Hope of better time, hope of sooncoming Peace and Freedom.
The letter he mentioned is published after the break, as is my answer to this e-mail and letter, so click here if you want to continue.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Kleinverzet at permanent link# 0 Comments

Winds of War: Did the US Overreact to 9-11? Time Magazine Looks Backs From 2031

From The Gathering Storm

“Since the U.S. presence in the Middle East had wound down after 2008, it was no longer obvious why Islamist terrorists would expend their energies attacking American cities. That was why, by the 30th anniversary of 9/11, many younger Americans looked back on that event as a strange aberration.”

Before I respond to that quote from the latest Time magazine article and before you throw your mouse at your monitor, a little background is in order.

All my life I’ve been a futurist of some sort. So when my September issue of Time magazine arrived and I saw that a noted historian was going to look back on the ‘war on terror’ from 30 years out and speculate how the war turned out, I was pretty interested even though I knew Time magazine was a left wing leaning publication. So I started to read the article with some trepidation.

I was right. The article was written by a Niall Ferguson and according to Time magazine is one of the world's leading historians. Ferguson speculated on how future generations will judge the war on terrorism - and on what it will take for America to win it.

How much this noted historian speculated about the future affected his ignorance of the past.

His first mistake is declaring that the ‘war’ started on 9-11. That’s not true. At the very least it started when Osama bin Laden published his fatwa in Al Quds Al Arabi, a London-based newspaper, in August, 1996. But we know now that it started before that with the marines killed in their barracks in Beirut, the bombing of the Cole, and the first Twin Towers attack in ‘93. To say otherwise is to fall into the leftist trap that the terrorist attacks were the results of some crazed misguided Islamists. This is not a war on terror but a war on democracy.

And I must admit that’s one of the few things Ferguson got right in his piece.

At first they called it the Global War on Terrorism. In time, historians re-branded it the Great War for Democracy…… Thirty years later, the Great War for Democracy has been won. And not many people in 2006 would have predicted the winner.”

I’ve said before that the 21st century will see the final struggle between democracy and tyranny and that by the end of the century their will be little of know totalitarian governments left in the world (outside of some small Marxist countries in Africa and South America). The simply will not be able to compete with the free democracies and economies.

“It was a new-style democratic war from the very outset because the enemy chose as its targets not masses of troops or military installations, as in traditional war, but U.S. civilians, ordinary people going about their business on planes, in tower blocks, in government offices. And it was democratic because the perpetrators took advantage of the very freedoms inherent in democracy to lay their murderous plans.”

The ‘new style war’ was an asynchronous war – a war the Jihadists proved successful against the more powerful democracies and “took advantage of the very freedoms inherent in democracy to lay their murderous plans”. Not to mention using our freedoms against us to wage the more insidious silent jihad with the tactics of intimidation, infiltration, and Disinformation to advance the goal of the Islamists which is shared by all Islamists - the institution of sharia law.

“It was democratic too in the sense that the U.S. was able to wage a war of retaliation with minimal coercion of its own citizens. There was no draft, no censorship of the press and--a first--no economic squeeze to pay for the war. On the contrary, Americans were told it was their patriotic duty to carry on consuming.”

Since war was declared by Congress, the US has never been put on a war footing. No sacrifices were asked for. No Executive Orders issued to remove our country from the foreign oil tit. No ‘Manhattan Project’ to jump-start an alternative energy program which could have happened if war was officially declared against the encouragement of sharia law here and Islamo-fascism abroad.

Ferguson goes on to speak of many things in his article, much of which is rehash of current and past events over the last several years. I will take issue with his speculation on the war and how it was to turn out.

“But the U.S. doggedly remained a republic, to the disappointment of a few hawkish commentators and the relief of everyone else. Elections happened as usual. When torture was used against suspected terrorists, for example, the press howled. When suspects were detained without charge, the courts intervened. As Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor put it, "A state of war isn't a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens." To many Americans, indeed, the whole point of the war was to preserve their country's democratic institutions.”

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. If we were truly on a war footing, these debates about security vs freedom would be mute. But by viewing the war as a criminal justice problem as opponents tried to do gave them the leverage to oppose any security program like the Patriot Act or NSA snooping program.

“Most significant, the war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, was democratic in a strategic sense, since the democratization of the greater Middle East became one of America's principal war aims. It was an aim inspired by the democratic-peace theory, which stated that democracies were less likely to go to war with one another than were other kinds of states and that therefore a world with more democracies would be a more peaceful world.”

Bush did not see both in the free democracies and the middle-East that democracy would be used as a tool to advance the Islamist agenda if all it did was vote the Islamists into power like Hamas and Hezbollah. Bush understood that it was a ideological war we were fighting but he did not understand that we were fighting this war on many fronts. The Islamists used democracy - their own and ours - to move forward with their ideological agenda. What Bush forgot was that Hitler was democratically elected by the German people and once he gained office, dismantled the protections of a true freedom protecting democracy.

“The right tactic to defeat it was not conventional warfare but tedious intelligence work--monitoring telephone calls, tracking financial transactions, shadowing suspects, infiltrating cells.”

It’s interesting that he should mention that since the liberal left opposed many of these tactics.

“For all those reasons, it was hardly surprising that, by the time of the fifth anniversary, many experts argued that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 had failed to eliminate the terrorist threat and instead had made the world a more dangerous place.”

No, it failed because we did not identify the real enemy. Terrorism is a method by which Islamists wish to come to power. It’s combined with the demographic and economic jihads to infiltrate and weaken the cultures they have targeted to absorb.

Now let’s get back to quote at the beginning of this post.

“As time passed, the once hated Great Satan was no longer everybody's favorite whipping boy. Since the U.S. presence in the Middle East had wound down after 2008, it was no longer obvious why Islamist terrorists would expend their energies attacking American cities. That was why, by the 30th anniversary of 9/11, many younger Americans looked back on that event as a strange aberration.”

What an unbelievable statement! Let’s see, we pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, abandon Israel to its fate, be held an oil hostage by Iran, and remove all presence from Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, and we will no longer be the ‘world’s whipping boy’. Here you have the liberal left’s pipe dream of Utopia – or otherwise known as the George Soros Foreign Policy.

This dream world of the liberals does not include or understand that Islam is on the march and it will not stop at the Middle-East, or Africa or Europe until it reaches the US and makes the Law of Islam the law of the land. Ferguson goes on to actually contradict himself in this rosy world view.

“It was true, things had not turned out well for the U.S. after 9/11. The project to democratize the Middle East ended poorly. The U.S. lost its influence over the world's most oil-rich region. Terrorist networks thrived in Europe.”

Wait a minute. If all is peachy keen with the world and the West if it followed the scenario above – what is the need for terrorist networks in Europe? And why wouldn’t’ that be a threat to the US? If fact earlier in the piece, Ferguson said:

It was one of the great ironies of the war on terrorism that just five years after 9/11, many counterterrorism experts were convinced that the most likely source of another big attack on the U.S. was not the axis of evil but conceivably America's closest ally, Britain.”

Ferguson closes with this.

“We tried to give the Muslim world a political upgrade," said U.S. President Jimmy McCain, son of the former Senator and a veteran of the Iraq war, on the 30th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. "I guess we failed. So instead we gave ourselves an economic upgrade. I guess we succeeded." The war that began on Sept. 11, 2001, is now over. Back in 2006 there were those who feared that the U.S. might lose that war. Today, 25 years later, we can see they were wrong. The American Century is alive--and kicking.”

And ignored the advancing threat like good little dhimmis.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 3 Comments

Danish and Norwegian MSM: Denmark has herself to blame for terrorism

A danish and a norwegian newspaper writes that Denmark only has herself to blame for terrorism as the country applies with 7 out of 9 criteria for terrorism:

1) Participates in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and supports US military operations
2) Supports or cooperates with the enemies of the global Jihad-movement
3) Is under AlQeda surveillance and has recieved concrete threats
4) Has a considerable number of AlQeda sympathizers
5) Hits down hard and unforeseen on suspicious-looking immigrant-groups
6) Tolerates discrimination and anti-islamic speech in the public debate
7) Has made tough immigrant-laws and is generally stigmatising immigrants
8) Lacks experience and institutional means to cope with the threats
9) Does not aknowledge the threat

The papers say that Denmark fullfills 1-7.

More at Hodja

Now you know how to avoid terrorism - the only problem if you do - you're a dhimmi.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Hodja at permanent link# 1 Comments

For some fun.....

Go here

You won't believe how I came out....this is the Pew Research Group...worthy of some discussion about their assumptions when creating questions...Schroedinger's cat
Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 8 Comments

Can anyone imagine what would be going on if Karl Rove was doing this?


Washington, DC — Urging him to cancel the grossly inaccurate upcoming miniseries The Path to 9/11, the Senate Democratic Leadership today sent the following letter to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger. Disney’s subsidiary ABC erroneously claims the misleading miniseries is based on 9/11 Commission report and is planning to air it on September 10 and 11. Shockingly, the network is also planning to use the program as a teaching tool through Scholastic, potentially misinforming thousands of children about the most important event in recent American history.

The text of the letter, signed by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin, and Senators Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, and Byron Dorgan, is below.
"yadda yadda lies and calumny yadda yadda Clinton, Albright...

Today's democratic leaders' feckless hypocrisy can only be matched by the stupidity of the republicans. They are demanding prior censorship, something they clamored against (and were right to do so) when the NIxon administration tried thru the courts to restrain the publishing of the Pentagon Papers.The show must go on, as is...complain later.

Continue reading "Can anyone imagine what would be going on if Karl Rove was doing this?" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 3 Comments

Aid Worker Duped By Palestinians Speaks Up

This is a tough one to watch. It's heartbreaking.

From Justify This:

Daryl Jones is an australian volunteer aid worker duped by Palestinian propaganda propaganda to come to their aid but later realized that they were engaged in a bloodlust game to destroy the lives of children.

She recounts how Palestinians displayed photos of bodies, "gouged and pitted, torn. We were told this is from torture from the Israelis." Later, when she saw a Palestinian child blow up in front of her face, she realized that the ripped apart bodies were the result of human booby traps that the Palestinians used against the Israelis.

She was featured in "The Road to Jenin" film by French director Pierre Rehov.

Arabic translations are only in French (subititles)

Infidel Bloggers Alliance Announcement. If we have any readers who speak French, I would like to get a translation of the subtitles.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 7 Comments

Ralph Peters Strikes Out

I have the greatest respect for Ralph Peters and praised him in the past. This time he strikes out.

Peters claims that a “really ugly 'domestic insurgency' is among right-wing extremists bent on discrediting honorable conservatism. … By insisting that Islam can never reform, that the violent conquest and subjugation of unbelievers is the faith's primary agenda - and, when you read between the lines, that all Muslims are evil and subhuman. … Web sites list no end of extracts from historical documents and Islamic jurisprudence 'proving' that holy war against Christians and Jews is the alpha and omega of the Muslim faith. The message between the lines: Muslims are Untermenschen.”

Peters conflates honest criticism of Islam with a complete vilification of a vast demographic group, Muslims, who range from devout jihadi to nominal non-practicing honest hardworking individuals. But as Ibn Warraq says, "there are moderate Muslims but there is no moderate Islam." Here lies a profound statement that I'd wish Peters could understand. Instead he engages in some of the most vicious bigotry-baiting around:

I'll never sign up for your "Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." You're just the Ku Klux Klan with higher-thread-count sheets.) . … We are in a knife-fight to the death with fanatics who've perverted a great religion. But those who warn of Muslims in general are heirs of the creeps who once told us Jews can never be real Americans and JFK will serve the Vatican.

Please, Mr. Peters, take a deep breath. I agree with you that “obviously, there's a moral reason for not condemning all Muslims. Real Americans judge men and women by their individual characters and actions ...” I’ve made the point before that those critical of Islam should be careful not to get trapped into a whole-sale vilification of a nominal demographic group. But please learn about the ideology and don’t blind yourself to the fact that fundamentalism is rife in Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Gaza, Egypt, Algeria, etc. It has either gained control, come close to taking over, or is poised to take over if given a chance in those areas. The Pew Center shows that bin Laden is a hero with majority support in some Muslim countries.

Perhaps, Mr. Peters it is you, sir, who has a prejudice. I have too high regard for your intelligence to conclude that so quickly but I request that you ask for help in learning about the threat that we face. It isn’t just a few fanatics.

Jason Pappas, Liberty and Culture
Bookmark and Share
posted by Jason Pappas at permanent link# 11 Comments

Pedestrian Infidel and the KKK

We, at the Pedestrian Infidel, have been accused of being a racist blog twice in the last two months, first by a Malaysian Muslim blog and later in the comment thread of my previous post, “The Arab Pride”. We were accused of being in league with the KKK and so on. In short, many who don’t like our blog or our message think we’re basically just another bunch of whites who are out to destroy all the other races in the world.

But I say that’s totally baseless. And I think that I speak for all of the PI team when I say that we don’t hold anything against the people of any race, be they Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, you name it...

But just to make myself clear one more time—I don’t hold anything against the Christian Arabs or the pagan Arabs or the ‘whatever’ Arabs. I was writing about Muslim Arabs and I stand by my post.

Read the entire post over at PI.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avenging Apostate at permanent link# 4 Comments

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Special Notice To All IBA Writers and Readers

Hat tip: Redneck's Revenge.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 9 Comments

Slate presents the whole 9-11 Comission Report: A Graphic Adaptation online

I discovered that Slate's presenting The 9/11 Report: A Graphic Adaptation online, and decided to take a look at the finished product, as can everyone else, and be the judge. It's a presentation that's at least 106 pages long, and may still be updated with more pages even as I write this (update: now there've been several more pages added, bringing it up to 132-133 pages in total. That's certainly a lot).

Now from what I can tell, the finished book, if this is it, is surprisingly better than some initial reports made it out to be. However, that's not saying that all is satisfying with it. So, I'll see if I can offer a rundown of the good and the bad.

The good:
On page four, they give us an illustrated mug shot of all the 19 suspects who committed the sadistic crime in 2001. And, they also call the thugs "Arab nationals" on page five. (On page eight, there's an interesting part where the traffic controller is said to have found the message "unintelligible...he did not hear the words 'we have some planes.'" From my memory though, it was said that one of the hijackers was recorded telling the passengers on one of the flights "be sitting". He did not have good English.)

Page 14: we get to see the passengers of Flight 93 fighting back against the hijackers.

Page 20: we get a rundown of what happened over a time period.

Page 37: we're told about how one of bin Laden and the al Qaeda's first American-based operations was the al Khifa, opened in the 1980s, and which had its largest HQ in the Farouq mosque in Brooklyn, NY.

On page 38, they discuss the al Qaeda's attacks in Kenya, Nairobi, and Dar el Salaam during 1998. I'd first heard about it when I was at a hotel at the time, and it was very shocking.

Page 58: they give a good description of how the terrorists took steps to try and avoid drawing attention to themselves, by going shaven, avoiding mosques, etc.

The bad:
On page nine, I find the following part very fishy:
"At 8:46, Flight II crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City...killing everyone aboard and an unknown number of people in the Trade Center"
Uh...what? Close to 3,000 people were murdered in the attack, and they're saying they don't know? I don't approve of how they put that.

On page ten: here is something I find questionable at best, and in poor taste at worst: sound effect words (the explosion is accompanied by the word "WHOOOM!"). Also, I notice that they repeat the part as written on the previous page when they say:
Minutes later at 9:03, United Airlines 175 struck the south tower...killing everyone aboard and an unknown number of people in the tower.
Again: close to 3,000 people died in the attack, and they're saying they don't know how many?

On page 13, we again get the questionable use of sound effect words when, in depicting Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon, the artists use the word "BLAAM!" And, on page 16, we get it yet again when the towers are shown to crumble and break: "R-RRUMBLE..."

Page 26: it would seem as though the writers couldn't keep themselves from turning to a little Bush-bashing:
Karl Rove: "A twin-engine airplane has crashed into the World Trade Center, Mr. President."

President Bush: "Oh no! Must've been pilot error."
Let's see, they're implying that Bush actually said that when informed of the bad news? Whatever way you look upon it, that's really in poor taste, and if there's no record of Bush actually guessing aloud what the cause of the crash was, then I can't see why they'd write him saying that.

A page that's both good and bad together is page 30: on the one hand, it does offer some good insight into what kind of a monster bin Laden is. However, at the same time, I find the description of bin Laden as a "Saudi exile" questionable, and all too reminicient of when the AP Wire ran a photo caption of bin Laden back in January describing him as a "Saudi dissident". Ahem. As far as I know, while he may not live in the House of Saud now, they're not exactly hostile to him by any stretch, and there's every chance that they too have funded his terrorist activities, even indirectly. It's almost like the writers are sending two messages simultaneously.

There's also the problem of that, while Richard Clarke, who's first mentioned on page 44, is cited as the politician who was assigned to developing the US counterterrorism research division, Bill Clinton's role here seems strangely downplayed.

Which brings me to point out something very troubling here. If my estimates so far are correct, it would seem as though the writers are trying to avoid putting any blame upon former president Clinton, or at least trying to keep the readers in the dark about any role he might've had in dealing with counterterrorism efforts. Earlier, on page 40, they talk about how FBI director Louis Freeh tried unsuccessfully to establish a national security program and make it a top priority. But it does not mention whether or not Bill Clinton had anything to do with the failure to put one together. It's only by page 44 that they actually give him some mention, yet so fleetingly, it has little to no impact.

And it's on page 47 where...uh oh. They give a most misleading statement that terrorism was "moving high up among Clinton's concerns." Hate to say, but, that's pretty far from the truth. For example, as Front Page Magazine wrote last year, Louis Freeh wrote a book about his years as the director of the FBI, and, as told in the following:
Perhaps the most spectacular revelations in Freeh’s book involves Bill Clinton’s supplication before the Saudi government in the wake of the Khobar Towers bombing, which killed 19 Americans. Beyond failing to confront the Saudis—Clinton asked only that the FBI be granted access to bombing suspects—Freeh contends that the Clinton administration balked at acknowledging the Iranian role in the bombing. Not until the Bush administration entered office was Iran’s tie to that act of terrorism exposed, according to Freeh.

Podesta strenuously denies the allegation. “The Clinton administration,” he writes, “publicly and unequivocally placed blame on senior Iranian officials. Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder made this point at a press conference on Oct. 4, 1999.” Not quite. What Holder actually said on that date[viii] was: "The U.S. investigation of the attack at Khobar is on-going. We are investigating information concerning the involvement of Saudi nationals, Iranian government officials and others. And we have not reached a conclusion regarding whether the attack was directed by the government of Iran." That’s hardly the public and unequivocal placement of blame Podesta would have readers believe.

...Freeh, ... is just one of many former Clinton-era officials who has confirmed that the administration had no serious policy for confronting terrorism and terror-sponsoring regimes. No less an insider than Clinton’s former pollster, Dick Morris, has said that Clinton’s National Security Advisor “seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror”[ix].

Not surprisingly, the Clinton years saw not only the training of terrorists like Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, Abdulaziz al-Omari, and more than a dozen other Islamic who extremists entered their flight schools or crept into the country, awaiting the signal to strike, but also successful attacks, like the bombing of the USS Cole. Those were also the years when the firewall erected by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick prevented the sharing of intelligence between foreign and domestic counterterrorism agencies.[x] The preponderance of evidence suggests that the Islamic terrorism that would murder thousands on American soil within months of Clinton’s departure was simply not on the radar screen for the administration.
Well now, that certainly proves, if anything, that contrary to what Jacobson and Colon's graphic adaptation implies, that the Clinton administration was far from showing genuine concern in the rising threat of terrorism. There's more on this, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

And with that, I'll say that I'm getting really worried about the data provided in the 9/11 Comission Report: A Graphic Adaptation, that it could inaccurate and/or misleading, more so than I first thought. I wish I could say that appreciate it more than I do, but when I see that they're whitewashing Clinton, who was very negligent on dealing with terrorism, if at all, and slipping in a potential attack or two against Dubya for reasons that don't make sense, I have to frown.

The New York Sun's got a commentary on this, a positive one at that, and I notice that they say:
In Washington, Dick Cheney, watching events unfold on television, has a similar cast of mind. "How the hell could a plane — " says his bubble, before breaking into a second, "Oh, no! A second one!"

The portrayal of Mr. Cheney is interesting because, on grounds of objectivity, the authors were for once deliberately inaccurate. On the Web site of the book's publisher, Hill and Wang, a division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux, Ernie Colon said: "[Cheney] has a mouth formation that looks like a sneer, so I drew him that way. But after I drew him I thought it might look like a political statement and we wanted to stay away from that, so I withdrew that and put in something which looked a little more neutral."
Well now, that's interesting. But it doesn't explain some of the biases that still exist in the book, or at least what I may percieve as such.

Everyone reading here can review the whole complilation that's Slate's got (so far), and judge for themselves to see just how good or bad the book is.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 5 Comments

Evidence that the UN was involved in kidnapping of IDF soldiers

This is truly disgusting, and it's another reason why the UN needs to be disbanded:
The film of the kidnapping of the 3 IDF soldiers on the Lebanese border in 2000, simulcast in Lebanon and Israel this week, lacks the parts implicating the UN in the affair, says the father of one.

Chaim Avraham is the father of Benny Avraham, who was one of the three soldiers kidnapped and murdered by Hizbullah in October 2000. He produced a photograph today further implicating the UN in at least indirect involvement in the violent abduction.

Videotapes of the kidnapping, filmed by UNIFIL sources, have long been known to exist, though the UN originally denied it for months. Finally, the UN acknowledged that it had two tapes, but allowed the families and Israeli officials to see only an edited version - claiming it had to maintain objectivity.

The film broadcast publicly this week shows how Hizbullah terrorists trained for the kidnapping, and then the abduction itself: the arrival of the unescorted IDF jeep, explosions, terrorists running to the site, gunfire, the actual taking of two soldiers into a dark-colored car, and the car's get-away into Lebanon.

However, Chaim Avraham says, it does not show a white car that he knows took part in the kidnapping - a car that "stars," he told Arutz-7 today, in the original movie he and the other families saw a few years ago. "The car became stuck, and the movie shows how a UN vehicle towed it away. Inside that car were found items with the blood of my son and of Adi Avitan."

More significantly, in terms of the UN's involvement in the kidnapping, the car had two dismantled license plates reading "UNIFIL 2707" in the back. Avraham has long had a photograph of this, and he released it for publication today.

Why today? "Because it wasn't in the film that everyone saw on TV," he told Israel Radio today, and "[UN Middle East envoy] Terje Larsen called me and demanded to know why I was making claims against the UN - so I said I would bring a proof. The car wasn't in the film that everyone saw on TV, I said I would show proof, and here it is."

Avraham says he found, on the internet, a description of UNIFIL vehicle 2707: "The description shows clearly that the vehicle was used by the UN, was always on alert, and was responsible for monitoring Israeli patrols," Avraham said.

Arutz-7 has found, interestingly, that the site on which Avraham found this information (cached here) is a personal one belonging to a former Norwegian member of the UNIFIL force. The former peacekeeper - who later married a Lebanese woman and considers Lebanon his "second homeland" - uploaded a picture of the original UNIFIL 2707, with this description: "This old vehicle served as the platoon HQ [headquarters] immediate response vehicle. The crew were on a 2 minute state of readiness, and were tasked with tailing GSS and IDF patrols within [the Lebanese area] Blat, as well as reinforcing the CP if necessary."

Speaking with Arutz-7 today, Avraham did not wish to offer a conjecture as to how the UNIFIL plates found their way into the kidnapping car. He would say only that UNIFIL-marked cars were very familiar and unsuspicious to the Israeli forces. However, Avraham has long accused the UN of acting with partiality against Israel throughout the entire affair.

In Dec. 2001, when UN Secretary-General Kofi Anan received the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo, the families of the soldiers were on hand to protest. They maintained that the UN soldiers turned a blind eye to the terrorists' preparations for the kidnapping. This appears to be verified in the film broadcast in Israel and Lebanon this week, which shows the terrorists training for the abduction and the kidnappers making their way through territory controlled by an Indian contingent of the UNIFIL force.

In short, Chaim Avraham feels, the full story of the extent of the UN involvement in the kidnapping of his son and two friends has not yet been told.

Hizbullah pretended for close to a year that the soldiers were alive, until the Chief Rabbinate of the IDF declared, based on evidence and testimony, that the three were dead. Their bodies were returned to Israeli in early 2004, together with kidnapped civilian Elchanan Tenenbaum, in exchange for over 400 Arab terrorist prisoners held in Israel.
I ask again: is this not proof why the UN is not only untrustworthy, but also why neither the US, nor Israel, nor a whole lot of other countries, should have to be members of their chamber of horrors? This news speaks volumes.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Avi Green at permanent link# 0 Comments

Sometimes You Just Gotta Love Your Enemies

Al Jazeera is running a videoclip of Osama Bin Laden meeting with the 9/11 highjiackers:

The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera broadcast a video which it said showed Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al-Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.

Al-Jazeera had said earlier it would broadcast "a video that included scenes showing for the first time Al-Qaeda leaders preparing the September 11 attacks and practicing for their execution."

The video showed Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and two of the 19 Islamist militants that took part in the attacks, Saudi nationals Hamza el-Ramdi and Wael el-Shemari.

They spoke of the situation faced by Muslims in Bosnia and Chechnya.

Fifteen of the 19 attackers on September 11 were Saudis, and Al-Jazeera said it had only aired a few minutes of a document which it said lasted about an hour and a half.

Man, you just gotta love your enemies when they tell you the truth.

Now see, here, the fact that this video shows Bin Laden working with the highjackers means that all the lunatics with the conspiracy theories are going to have to amend their theories to fit this new reality.

Of course, in the past we had seen a video in which Bin Laden bragged of the plan, but this is the first direct evidence tying him to it.

So now, Bin Laden had to have been working with Bush or this plan could have never gone through, right?

Smirk. Smirk.

I can't wait to watch the conspiracy theory crowd work on this one. Of course, I don't expect it to bring them around anywhere close to reality. In fact, the charming thing about conspiracy theorists is the more reality intrudes, the further out they have to go to explain their stupid ideas.

I expect they may have to start working the Pluto angle into their theories soon. You know, like, "Why did Bushitler recently de-list Pluto as a planet if not because that's where he's hiding the evidence of his meetings with Bin Laden?
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 1 Comments

Storm Track Disinformation: They Can Dish It Out, But They Can’t Take It

From The Gathering Storm

The liberals and Clinton groupies are all in huff over the ABC docudrama airing on ABC this Sunday and Monday nights called The Path to 9-11 because it puts Clinton and his administration I bad light understanding and dealing with Al-Quaeda.

It’s OK for Michael Moore to create his so called ‘documentary’ Fahrenheit 9-11 or for the looses screws gang who created Loose Change, or for Howard Dean to infer that Bush knew about the attacks on 9-11 ahead of time, of for conspiracy theorists to weave their web of deceit against Bush and his administration.

But if some one else wants to air their views on the whats and hows of the war on terror – especially if it comes from one their own – the Main Stream Media – they scream “foul” and want it pulled off the air. The left wing shock troops are all aghast that a trusted MSM ally like ABC would turn on them and release a docu-drama on 9-11 that points the Clinton administration in a bad light in recognizing the threat of terrorism and their feeble attempts at responding to it. The Internet war over this film is now picking up steam and the liberal left is going nuts claiming that the movie is a pack of lies.

The right wing side of the bloggospher has already prepared a campaign against the facts in the film. Michelle Malkin reports today that the left, DU'ers prepare a mass Google-bombing campaign against ABC's 9/11 docu-drama, "The Path to 9/11," because of its critical look at the Clinton years.

Now, I haven’t seen the docudrama yet so I don’t know who accuses who for 9-11 and so far botched ‘war on terror’. I do know that the libs, dems and Clinton worshipers are quick to label any and all disparages on the 8 years Clinton – that poster boy for hamster morals – right wing propaganda.

I say to you my liberal ladies and germs, put on your big girl panties andlive in the real world, For as Hubert Humphrey once said, “You have the right say anything you want but not the right to be taken seriously”.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Storm Track Infiltration: The Quiet War of the Islamists Continues

From The Gathering Storm

The threat of Islamic peaceful infiltration of the free democracies goes on and is either ignored or misunderstood.

Here’s the Islamic progress just over the last week. It helps to see in one short 7 day period what infiltration progress the Islamists are making.

· Britain: Fears over influence of terrorist recruiters

· Denmark: Denmark arrests 9 over suspected terrorist plot

· Britain: Police aim to disrupt terrorist recruitment and training

· Britain: 16 Arrested in Investigation of Terrorist Retreats

· Britain: Police swoop on Britain’s first ‘jihad training camp’

· United States: Islam Conquers Michigan Swimming Pools

· Germany: German state to teach Islam in public schools

· Britain: British Hospitals Introduce Muslim Gown

· Britain: Police probe ‘terror pipeline’

· Britain: Abu Hamza tried to buy school ‘for use as jihad school’

You worried yet? You should be.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 3 Comments

Bosnian man behind attacks on ex-wife

From : News from Norway

A twenty eight year old woman has been physically assaulted by unknown and masked assailants on three separate occasions.

The court case against a 29 year old man started to day in Oslo Courthouse. The man who’s accused of masterminding the attacks pleaded not guilty to the charges made against him.

- We had a very poor relationship at the time, this was mostly due to discrepancies over our daughter, but I would never have gone so far as to hurt the mother of my own child, said the twenty nine year old when questioned about the first assault.

Father spotted at the scene of the crime.

This attack occurred on a crowded Oslo street in April 2004. According to the charges, the twenty nine year olds ex-wife was attacked by a masked assailant who hit her over the head and on her body. The woman lost consciousness and suffered a concussion in the incident.

The father of the accused was spotted in the area at the time of the attack, but he’s not been charged so far. Last June the woman was attacked for the second time, also this time on a crowded city street. The woman had just dropped off her five year old daughter at kindergarten, when an unknown man, most likely of Pakistani descent attacked her.

- I was very surprised when I heard about it. Perhaps some of my relatives arranged the attack, I don’t know. They were not happy about our divorce. Or perhaps it was someone who’s out to hurt my family, said the twenty nine year old Bosnian.

Asked for sugar.

At the end of June this year, the ex-wife of the accused was attacked for a third time. This time the incident occurred in her own flat in Oslo. According to the prosecutor, an unknown woman knocked on her door and asked if she could borrow some sugar. The woman told the ex-wife that she’d just moved into the building. When the twenty eight year old returned with the sugar, she was attacked by two masked men, who hit her repeatedly with baseball bats. The woman suffered several broken ribs and was badly bruised in this incident.

- I was visiting my family in Sweden at the time, and I was very surprised when I learned of the attack. In fact I was shocked, because by then we had a reasonably good relationship, said the twenty nine year old from the stand.-

Prior conviction for violence.

The suspect has a prior conviction for violence and intimidation against his ex-wife, who’s also from Bosnia. The accused has also breached a restraining order on an earlier occasion. The couple was formally separated in 2000, and divorced in 2004. They got married in 1999.

The ex-wife of the accused will appear in front of the court at a later stage. A recorded interrogation of the couple’s daughter will also be played before the court.

Hmm... The accused has probably had a very difficult childhood, and chances are that he’s been severely traumatized in the civil war in Bosnia. If we’ll only give him yet another chance and increase his benefits, I’m sure he’ll stick to the straight and narrow in the future.

And by the way..

Thank you politicians for creating such a wonderful society. The Norway of the past was truly an unbearable, violent hellhole. Wouldn’t want to go back there again.
Bookmark and Share
posted by The Observer at permanent link# 0 Comments

Ode to the Ewoks

We all love the Ewoks,
They’re our kind of creatures,
They have everything we require
In the way of left-wing features.

Picture: A masked Ewok brandishing a stone spear

They’re unsophisticated primitives
Against the tyranny of Empire,
Using stone-age weapons to sink
The oppressor in a quagmire.

Picture: "Palestinian resistors of imperialistic oppression" with masks and suicide belts

In full on Our Children Are The Guarantors »
Bookmark and Share
posted by ziontruth at permanent link# 0 Comments

French Connection

New in the danish terror-case:
Four french imams were visiting the ghetto Vollsmose in Denmark in april. At that time they were arrested by the police. This elicited riots in Vollsmose, where 100 immigrants burnt tires and threw stones at the police. The imams were soon released.
Sources say that the investigation into the terror-cell was initiated at that time. A connection between the imams and the arrested members of the cell has been confirmed. It is said they had terror targets in Denmark and France.
“We have been travelling all over Europe speaking of peace” one of the imams -Lofti Hamrouni -said in april.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Hodja at permanent link# 1 Comments

Ahmadinejad To Speak At UN

Drudge is reporting that Ahmadinejad will be travelling to New York and speaking at the United Nations. He is to speak on the same day as President Bush:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to attend the summit of Non-Aligned Movement countries in the Cuban capital Havana in mid-September, an official said Wednesday. "The president will take part in the summit of Non-Aligned countries in Havana," said the official from the president's office, who asked not to be named.

The summit of the 116-nation grouping is to take place between September 11-16, and Ahmadinejad is also expected to attend the UN General Assembly in New York that starts on September 12, the official said.

Ahmadinejad said in Tehran Wednesday that his attendance of the UN General Assembly would be a "suitable opportunity" to challenge Bush in a television debate. "My forthcoming visit to New York for the UN General Assembly would be a suitable opportunity to hold the debate and all world people, especially the Americans, could hear and watch it without censorship," the news agency ISNA quoted the Iranian president as saying in a cabinet session.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 11 Comments

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Storm Track Disinformation: Who You Calling a Fascist? Not Us

From The Gathering Storm

So Radical Muslims have their burkas all in bunch about being called Islamo-fascists. They whine that it’s not so. Oh Really?

Hezbollah’s black-clad legions and Jihadist across the middle-east goose-step and stiff-arm salute in parade, apparently eager to convey both the zeal and militarism of their religious fascism.

So who you calling a fascist?

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 2 Comments

The terms for the peace between Pakistan and the Islamist Emirate of Waziristan and our blood enemies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda

Thanks to the incomparable Roggio

Pakistan's "truce with the Taliban is an abject surrender, and al-Qaeda has an untouchable base of operations in Western Pakistan which will only expand if not checked

NWFP-Waziristan.gifThe news of the Pakistani government signing a truce agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan is far worse than being reported. We raised the alarm early morning on September 4, and newly uncovered information on the terms of the agreement indicate Pakistan has been roundly defeated by the Taliban in North Waziristan. The “truce” is in fact a surrender. According to an anonymous intelligence source, the terms of the truce includes:

- The Pakistani Army is abandoning its garrisons in North and South Waziristan.
- The Pakistani Military will not operate in North Waziristan, nor will it monitor actions the region.
- Pakistan will turn over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army operations.
- The Taliban and al-Qaeda have set up a Mujahideen Shura (or council) to administer the agency.
- The truce refers to the region as “The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan.”
- An unknown quantity of money was transferred from Pakistani government coffers to the Taliban. The Pakistani government has essentially paid a tribute or ransom to end the fighting.
- “Foreigners” (a euphemism for al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis) are allowed to remain in the region.
- Over 130 mid-level al-Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani custody.
- The Taliban is required to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not stipulate refraining from violence in Afghanistan.

Everyone ready for US hot pursuit into the emirate, and air attacks, and the results?

Continue reading "The terms for the peace between Pakistan and the Islamist Emirate of Waziristan and our blood enemies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda" »

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments


I will be on Alan Levy's 9/11 Tribute Show tonight, Wednesday at 8:30 click here to listen live at 8:30 PM EST
Tune in for a dose of Atlas bababababbay............


My new show ATLAS ON THE AIR is debuting
THURSDAY SEPT.7th on BlogTalkRadio 9pm EST -10pmEST

I will be chattin' on Brigitte Gabriel, my sistuh! I love Brigitte. Strong, brave, truth teller. She is extraordinary. Her book is out September 5th. It will be a wildly interesting day as I have PM Benjamin Netanyahu speaking earlier that day so I will be your eyes and ears (and mouth of course.)
Brigitte's new book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, (great title right?) describes how she lost her childhood to militant Islam. In 1975 she was ten years old and living in Southern Lebanon when militant Muslims from throughout the Middle East poured into her country and declared jihad against the Lebanese Christians. . For seven years, Brigitte and her parents lived in an underground bomb shelter. They had no running water or electricity and very little food; at times they were reduced to boiling grass to survive.

Because They Hate is a political wake-up call told through a very personal memoir frame. Brigitte warns that the US is threatened by fundamentalist Islamic theologyBecause_they_hate_1 in the same way Lebanon was— radical Islam will stop at nothing short of domination of all non-Muslim countries. Gabriel saw this mission start in Lebanon, and she refuses to stand silently by while it happens here. Gabriel sees in the West a lack of understanding and a blatant ignorance of the ways and thinking of the Middle East. She also points out mistakes the West has made in consistently underestimating the single-mindedness with which fundamentalist Islam has pursued its goals over the past thirty years.

Look what Emerson and Spencer have to say about her latest work;

“Brigitte Gabriel eloquently reminds America what is truly at stake in this struggle against terrorism: our families, our way of life, and our hopes. Ms. Gabriel's personal account of her own experience is riveting, compelling and spellbinding. This is a must read for the entire American public . . . This book contains monumental revelations that will shock and disturb you. But it is also a story of an indomitable spirit--Brigitte's-- that will move you.”
--Steve Emerson, author of American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Amongst Us, Executive Director, the Investigative Project on Terrorism

“Brigitte Gabriel's story is at once intensely personal and possessing global significance . . . the story of her family and her childhood encapsulates the threat that faces the entire free world today. Brigitte Gabriel's words should be read, and studied carefully, by all the law enforcement and government officials of the West -- as well as by everyone who values freedom.” -- Robert Spencer, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)

So join me for a riveting hour with a giant.

Listen to archived shows or check out upcoming shows on my own host channel at blogtalkradio .

During my shows call me live, yes that’s right live, (347) 996-3444.

Future guests include Dr. Andrew Bostom, Nidra Poller .........

UPDATE: Extra extra read it all about it!

Bookmark and Share
posted by AtlasShrugs.com at permanent link# 4 Comments

Older Posts Newer Posts